Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Another victory for liberty

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Armstrong and the Life Site issue

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

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

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

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

What should Catholics believe about immigration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, September 18, 2017

Happy Constitution Day!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might come as a shock

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

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

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


Life Site versus Rebecca Bratten Weiss

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 17, 2017

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

This would be enough:


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

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

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

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Frank Fitts and the Catholic Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 15, 2017

RIP Harry Dean Stanton

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

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

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

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

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


Remember the Alt Left hates America

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

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

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

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

The problem with Antifa for the Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feinstein and Bannon are not the same

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

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

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

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

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

Is it better to suffer or to sin?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Research on demand!

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile in the wacky world of the Orwellian Left

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Will Pope Francis endorse population control?

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

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

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

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

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

What passes for wit on the Left

Here:

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

Banned again by the Catholic Circle

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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