Pope Francis calls for an end to the word Rigid to describe Christians

Yep, says so right here in this story.  Apparently Pope Francis, who is no stranger to letting zingers fly at those he considers to be the cause of problems in the world, has called on us to stop using so many zingers to describe people.  He calls them adjectives, and says they are not useful for naming people. 

I get the point.  Adjectives wrongly used can be a backhanded way of condemning or judging people.  Nonetheless, it would be nice if he would lead by example.  No world religious leader in my lifetime has ever existed so strongly in the 'do as I preach, not as I do' plane of ministry as I've seen in Pope Francis.

In fact, that is one of my biggest beef with the man. I'll let sharper minds than mine hash out how much he is  or isn't changing Catholic teaching, or if Catholic teaching can ever be changed or if it's always just developing doctrine.  But by my eyes, I've seen few outside of some fundamentalist and hardcore liberal camps as quick to judge as the pope who became famous for asking who he is to judge.

I get pope and all, but I'm not aware that being pope means never having to live by the standards he, or God, expects of others.

The Pipe Bomber and all those False Flag theories

My boy was right about the pipe bombs.  It was a person, per the NYT, with serious mental issues.  He was wrong in that a person with those mental issues could carry out such a wide range of threats.  But he was right that no serious person with a right mind would think that in doing so, this would help the GOP.  Anyone with more than two brains cells to rub together would know that the GOP, conservatives, Trump and all Trump supporters would immediately be blamed for such a thing.

That's what people like Erick Erikson and Russell Moore miss.

Those who rushed out with the 'False Flag' theories and conspiracies and speculation were basically thinking it through.  It made no sense.  Polls were going the GOP way, Trump was looking better than he has in recent months, the great Blue Wave had all but disintegrated - why would anyone rooting for Trump/the GOP do such a thing?  Any sane person in the world would know that the press/Left would immediately take any such attacks or threats as proof positive that it is Trump's Fault, indicative of American conservatism, and should, per George Stephanopoulos, impact how people vote in a couple weeks.

Therefore, the perpetrator had to be bat-nuts barking-mad stark-raving-insane, or a partisan operative working for the Left.  It turns out it was a man with a long history of mental illness, per the NYT.  Again, the mistake my son made was thinking a person who is that mentally unbalanced could not pull off a well coordinated action like that.  It seemed a stretch.  After all, he had to mail multiple packages all over America and have them arrive near the same time.  Try mailing one thing and hoping it gets to a certain spot at a certain time by normal mailing.  Much less mail a dozen things and have most of them arrive at the same basic time.

But madness does not always equate to incompetence or to lack of cleverness or resourcefulness. And that was the mistake.  Otherwise, it was entirely rational to ask just why a conservative operative would do such a thing when there was no sane reason in the world at that time to do such a thing.  And it turns out, those asking that question were correct.

How not to leave the Catholic Church

Or any Christian tradition.  Damon Linker demonstrates.  For my money, you don't lob hand grenades and nuclear missiles back at the Church, no matter what.  You might as well say 'step aside Satan, I've got this.'  As one who is still racked to my core over leaving the Church (prayerfully only for a season), I can't fathom why someone would do it this way, especially when the have the public ear. 

I do think the Church is going to be shaken to the ground, as will much of Christianity, during this present darkness.  But once the dust settles, I believe we'll have recaptured a truly Christian model of Creation, rather than the Christianized secular model we've been trying to compromise with for too many generations. I can't help but believe that will make all the difference in the world, and the world to come. 

Was Trump's African countries comment racist? Two opinions

Brought to us by the BBC.

Charlton Mcllwain, professor and dean at NYU, represents the Yes vote.  Yes, it was a racist comment.  Drew Liquerman, of Republicans Overseas with apparently no other qualifying credentials*, represents the No vote.  No, it was not racist.

My verdict (at last based only the two arguments): The Liquerman and the No Vote wins.

Why?  Because he appeals to the substance and context of what Trump was saying, and matching it with his statements and concerns about the immigration system.  Whether you agree with Trump's notion of only allowing quality immigrants in our nation, such a view is clearly not racist.  Saying I'll take qualified candidates from anywhere is no more racist than banning travelers from countries that happen to be Muslim, but allowing people from other Muslim countries the right to travel here. 

Mcllwain's Yes vote, on the other hand, invokes the liberal narrative that the only reason Europe decided to exist was to be racist.  That everything in Europe is racism.  That - and I've loved this for years - every reference to blackness or darkness as an evil or dangerous or negative is only a giant racist plot to be racist because racists.  Or that any nod toward whiteness as pure or good is equally subtle racist propaganda hoisted on the world by evil, racist, evil Europeans and Americans, who are racist.

That other cultures often associate darkness or blackness with night, and that people across the cultural spectrum through the ages, see white as pure (kinda a Bible thing ((Isaiah 1.18, etc.), before there was Europe) seems lost on people who insist Europeans invoked the ideas just to be racist, because racists.

If you base your argument on something that is demonstrably false, and requires a tremendous amount of Orwellian doublethink in order to believe, there's a strong chance I won't give you the vote for best argument.

*An old trick during the heyday of the Daytime Talk Shows was to stuff the panel discussions.  For the liberal side you would have scholars and professors and experts with no end of degrees, awards, positions of prestige and influence.  For the conservative side, it never failed that they would find some variation on 'Billy Bubba of Bubba's college of Taxidermy'.  Not s

Goldberg on Trump and Jerusalem

Jonah Goldberg is a Never Trumper and, as such, spends a great deal of his time scrutinizing the right, Trump supporters, Trump, and anything that will affirm his never Trumpism.  So when he pens something positive about a Trump move, I take notice.

Of course in many cases, what Trump does is govern based on reality in a world, or a least a dying civilization, that has gotten used to calling it like it ain't.  Let's face it, Obama was a bad president.  He accomplished nothing except one legislation that was two hits and two misses at best.  Mostly he governed according to the way he wanted things to be, rather than the way they were, letting Congress take the hard hits while relying on the press's willingness to entertain the charge of racism against anyone who questioned the president or his policies.

It was like the Clinton years, but worse, because you didn't have the injection of race into every conversion and debate for eight years under Clinton.  Also, because many of the faux realities clung to by the Left were showing themselves to be glaringly flawed, the drive to cover reality in lies and falsehoods became more flagrant.  And the more flagrant it became, the more used to seeing reality as unreality we got.

So when Trump made a symbolic statement that said squares are, in fact, square, and did was was true and legislated on the reality of the situation in the Middle East (what peace process?), the world went bat nuts.  Trump dared to say the emperor is naked, and it's time we buy him some clothes.

Unfortunately, much of the Western world has become content declaring the naked emperor's clothes to be the latest fashion.  This has been helped by other countries, non-Western countries, that might actually have ulterior motives that encourages them to support a false reality based on lies and fantasy.  How doggedly the dying West clings to old lies remains to be seen.  So many progressive ideals have failed so miserably when put into practice, lies (and accusations) are about all the Left has with which to defend itself.  We'll see.

Context goes a long way

Another hat tip to Michael Flynn

Absolutely true.  How often are we willing to fall on the sword over things we've spent virtually no time studying or trying to understand, just because we saw someone in the news say so?  And of course if  they say what we hoped was true all along, that's a bonus.

Watch out for those Conservative Catholics

Is the underlying warning in this editorial at the NYT that gushes over Pope Francis's Amoris Laetitia.  Since it's conservatives who are missing the point.  Like a growing number in the secular media, the spin appears to be that even though Pope Francis didn't do the right thing by declaring all religions the same and glorifying gay sex, he did the next best thing.  He tore away at the Church's ability to resist those changes in future generations.

After the initial disappointment in a lack of doctrinal overhauls, this particular spin is gaining steam, and Mr. Egan's piece is only the latest example of the positive spin that I've seen and heard.  Essentially, Pope Francis didn't say gay marriage is grand.  Just the opposite.  But he has framed it so that we no longer really know what is and isn't an irregular relationship that is and isn't sinful. Or at least we don't with any type of dogmatic assurances.  As a result, the lines are necessarily blurred and we must err on the side of mercy.  Kindness.  Acceptance.  Conformity.

Well, he doesn't go there.  But my guess is, watching the last 30 years of the progressive movement, that this is where many desire it to go.   As I said before, the hope I've picked up on from progressives in and out of the Catholic Church isn't that Pope Francis will gut the last 2000 years of wickedness and stupidity and finally get the Church up with the times.  A pipe dream perhaps, but not a real hope.

No, the real hope is that he will make it so the Church doesn't have to.  He will water it down to such a level that the Church need never actually change the official teachings that still reside in some dusty old tome in the basement of the Vatican.  Like laws on our books that still forbid camels from spitting on the sidewalks, those teachings are fine to remain where they are.  But the Church will move on, and in its lived out day to day ministry, the doctrines of the Left and all lifestyles therein will be as normal as a Mary statue behind the altar, despite what those old camels aren't supposed to do in the jots and tittles of irrelevant manuscripts.

That, my guess, is where much of the hope is.  How correct they are remains to be seen, and will likely play out long after future popes have come and gone.

Another opinion about Socialism

 

But then, what does he know?  I have it on good authority that Sanders isn't really a Socialist at all.  In fact, what he proposes has nothing to do with Socialism.  In fact, there aren't that many Socialist countries in the world after all.  More to the point, I'm not sure there was ever such a thing as Socialism.  This doubt is not coming from Sanders, by the way.  Sander mistakenly thinks he's a Socialist, and many of his liberal Democratic supporters are thrilled because of it.  No, the doubt is coming from Conservatives and Catholics who are enthusiastically embracing Sanders, all the while reminding me and others that he is no Socialist because, in the end, can anyone really say what Socialism is for sure?  Apparently Kasparov can.  But then, what does he know? 

It's Friday Politics!

It's Friday and I can't help but notice I've mostly focused on Politics as opposed to, well, anything else.  Oh well.  Politics is a big thing, and I'm too much of a team player to run to the hills and let the world blow itself up.  Not that avoiding belonging to parties is itself a problem.  It isn't.  There can be very noble and virtuous reasons to avoid party affiliation.  There can also be nasty ones.  Just like belonging to a party.  Like anything, it's what's in our minds and hearts that ultimately determines the right or wrong of belonging or not belonging.

So it's politics Friday.  Someday I might make Fridays movie review day.  I don't know.  But today, especially after last night's debate, I have to say goodbye to Kasich.  Don't get me wrong.  I adore Kasich.  I think he is a fine man, and a good politician, and he has been a good governor.  I've followed him ever since he came and spoke at our high school graduation when I was a freshman (I was in the concert band, so I attended every graduation).  That impressed me.  We were a small farming school with about 400 kids in the entire school. 

So I was proud to watch him grow over the years.  I was proud of him in the 90s.  I supported his early bid in 2000.  That is why I joined the Republican Party, to support him.  I never was a fan of Bush, and felt Bush was merely an establishment puppet plowing forward on the weight of his fame and fortune.  I liked Kasich on Fox, because he was a breath of fresh air in the growing rancor and childish scream-fests that came to define cable news.

And as a governor, he's done well.  Not everything I would have liked, but I'm from old school parents who don't think a candidate has to be all about me.  Things are better in Ohio.  Though I must admit, the health care reform he keeps mentioning has either not been put into motion yet (which means he can't say if it will succeed), or it has been put into effect and hasn't done a damn thing to help my family.  Either way, I don't feel the love when I hear him talk about how he will solve the problem. 

But his answer to the question of religious liberty last night simply cemented my biggest concern I've had for Kasich since I first heard the question posed.  In short, it was nothing other than 'liberalism is now the law of the land, deal with it.'  Well John, that's not what I want.  The Left has made it clear it doesn't have a shred of desire to tolerate non-conformity.  Even without total power and control, it is already making it nigh on impossible to function in our society without keeping any non-liberal views in the closet.  And that's without total power.  By your answer Mr. Kasich, there is no reason to believe you will thwart the juggernaut.  If liberals manage to make it a crime to be non-liberal, you'll merely throw up your hands and say 'it's the law of the land.'

If that's how you approach something as fundamental as the First Amendment, then how in the hell am I supposed to think you'll approach anything else that way?  How will you deal with ISIS? With Putin?  With China?  I love that fact that you are a wonderful person.  I love that you have turned your campaign into the Hug Crusade.  I really do.  I think seeing a major national figure concerning yourself with the day to day lives of people is a wonderful thing.  I admire you, and hope you continue your term as governor.  But I simply can't support a person who is willing to say, "Dave, I understand you're not a liberal and it's now illegal to not be liberal, but you're just going to have to accept it and move on."  Nope.  Not yet.  The battle doesn't have to be lost just yet.

Why do Christians follow Trump

The Imaginative Conservative has a look at the phenomenon.  It's a balanced and well thought out take.  I'm not sure I completely agree, but it's far better than some of the sound and fury that goes with the topic.  Usually along the way, the sounds and furies include something along the line of 'because all Conservatives are racist idiots.'  So this article does a nice job countering that popular media generated narrative.

Attention Gun Control Activists

My request is very simple.  If you are going to rush to the cameras and papers every time there is a shooting to push for gun control, then I want two things. 

First, show me an actual proposal that would prevent the actual shooting you are referencing.  Not just saying we need this, or more of that.  I want you to say 'this is exactly how that shooting happened, and this is exactly how we would prevent that shooting.'  Not just standing on the shooting to propose legislation that wouldn't have changed a thing.  If you want that, then don't use shootings that wouldn't be impacted.  If you are going to use a shooting, then tell me exactly what you propose and exactly how it would have prevented it.

Second, show me how it will prevent the shooting while also assuring me that innocent, law abiding citizens will not be hindered or put in harm's way.  If you aren't using the latest media focused shooting, then you can speak in more general terms, that's fine.  You still have to show me that it will actually solve the problem (which can, admittedly, be tough to say if we haven't tried it yet), and also assure me that the law abiding citizens won't be harmed. 

Other considerations are there of course.  I would appreciate it if we looked at the numbers, the demographics, who is doing the shootings, mental health, and other things like exactly who the number one killers of black Americans actually are.  Things like that would build goodwill and suggest that you actually want to end gun violence, and aren't just exploiting it to advance agendas and political control of our culture.  

Do those things, and I am open to talk.  Continue to avoid doing those things, and I see no reason to trust you or believe you care about anything but advancing preconceived agendas.