Last week on Wednesday January 15th

Was the first time I saw anyone or anything officially mention the upcoming Martin Luther King holiday.  I heard a brief allusion to it about a week earlier, but wasn't sure the context.   I just remember it being referenced in some vague way.  On the 15th, there was one story on the local news about a gathering for MLK Day, and a mention of some basic details. That was it.  Since then I've heard and seen some other references to it, but nothing spectacular.  A couple on the morning news on Saturday, including mention that the MLK parade was cancelled due to cold. 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but in some ways this shows what we are up against with that thing we call the Left.  Something is true today, false tomorrow.  Something is nakedly evil today, no big deal tomorrow.  A person is a veritable god today, who was that? tomorrow.  We just have to admit that the 'here today, gone later' today approach to truth has been a tough nut to crack for those trying to oppose what the modern progressive movement has to offer. 

So in my younger days, it was Kennedy who was the messianic god figure of the 1960s.  It seemed that not a week went by that I didn't hear or see referenced the famous line 'Ask not what your country can do for you.'  By the end of the 1980s, however, that sacred line was quickly being replaced by 'I have a dream!'  

By the 1990s, MLK had become in many ways our substitute Jesus.  As Christians were being told to put it under a bushel and happily complying, and as the J-Word was increasingly barred from polite society, MLK became that important person we could all quote, reference or appeal to in the most mixed of company, including in the highest profile media outlets.  By the time I was in ministry in the mid-90s, it wasn't anything to hear entire sermons where MLK would be quoted or referenced more than Jesus.  That was especially true among African American ministers I knew. 

When my sons were in public school in the 2000s, I can still remember when they would begin prepping for that year's MLK celebration festivities.  Often those preparatory activities began even before they broke for Winter Break (again, by then the C and J Words no longer part of our national discourse).  In fact, it almost became one of those cultural signposts that told me Christmas was just around the corner when I first began hearing about the upcoming MLK celebrations in January.  

In ministry, I remember being part of various groups and, even before Christmas, being asked that most crucial of all questions - what are my plans for MLK day?  Is my church doing anything?  Am I doing anything?  I remember in an ecumenical group I served in, that question was poised once in our year end November meeting (we didn't have a December meeting, so that was always our final for the year).  I shocked them when I said I didn't get into the whole MLK thing.  I spent most of that meeting fending off questions about my real motives for not paying proper dues to the man. 

All of this is to say that, since 2021, it's nothing for me to forget about the holiday until about this time.  A week, possibly two, ahead of time.  Mostly references to this or that community gathering and that's about it.  Used to be I couldn't watch the news or read publications or turn on PBS without seeing someone quoting or referencing MLK in an interview, speech, lecture, or sermon at least twice or three times a week.  I can't remember last time I heard that sort of a reference now. 

Why?  Because of 2020, that's why.  Apart from Deacon Greydanus, who insists the 2020 protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, nobody was really harmed or killed, just some unfortunate coincidences with a little harmless vandalism and graffiti, most on the Left embrace the violence.  Oh, they shed a tear.  But it was destruction, and even death, to serve the righteous cause.  Sometimes, it turns out, violence is a darn good answer.   

Same with things like White Privilege or Whiteness as only a pejorative.   We now know the only racist is the one who won't judge, exonerate, condemn or discriminate based on proper skin colors.  Just like so many things that post-war liberalism called evil that are now called good, and vice versa.  

So with that, where does the myth of MLK fit in?  Oh, in 2021 there were some attempts here and there by activists to insist we had the MLK legacy all wrong.  Turns out he was never averse to a little bit of the ultra-violence.  Leading my boys to start referring to him as MLK: Ninja Warrior!  And some of his family said that MLK knew sometimes you just have to judge based on the color of someone's skin as opposed to that content of character gibberish.  But on the whole, it's just been tough to maintain the MLK myth in light of its growing inconvenience to the new BLM iteration of the postliberal Left. 

After all, if you think about the idealized, almost deified picture that MLK enjoyed for the 80s through the 2010s, it goes down tough now that we're being told to embrace condemnation based on skin color and the occasional butt kicking for the cause.  Even if it includes the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.  I mean, do those famous quotes of MLK that were repeated so often for so many years really help in this context?  I don't think so.  Which is probably why, long before I heard any actual reference to MLK activities this year, I knew it was coming around the corner only because of this: 

Sad Truth

 

In case you missed it, a week or so ago, Carron Phillips, a broadcaster working for an outlet called Deadspin, saw a picture of this 9 year old in profile, showing only the blackened side of his face.  Immediately he went on a tirade, yelling blackface, racism, the Death Star blows up Alderaan, the usual for modern social activism.  He demanded the NFL speak out against this naked display of racism. 

The parents of the child, immediately beset with threats and insults and personal attacks against them and their son, responded that Mr. Phillips missed the full picture.  He's merely wearing the colors of the team.  Plus, they themselves are Native American. 

That did no good, and the brave Mr. Phillips hunkered down, screaming trauma and terror upon minority groups everywhere.  Soon Native American activists were asked their opinions.  Some supported the family, others distanced themselves, warning against cultural appropriation.  Still others outright disavowed the family altogether. 

Meanwhile fans became divided, with many expressing anger at the family for such a racist costume, while others defended him, noting the colors are the team colors, and often seen in people who dress up for the team.  While others said it was a subtle dig, since there has been pressure against the Chiefs because 21st Century America. 

And all over a nine year old in a costume.  That's the embarrassingly low status we've been reduced to as a society.  This is why the 9/11 Attacks were everything Japan had hoped Pearl Harbor would be but wasn't.  Because the generation that Japan attacked realized the ones who did this were the enemy:

While our generation, and our courageous and bold societal leaders, think the one who does this is the enemy: 

How stupid was this?

I don't know.  It depends on what year you're talking about.  

A joke about a pregnant slave seems pretty darn stupid today, in 2022.  But you know what?  That was the gist of humor when I was young.  Push the line, be cutting edge, offend as many people as possible.  That was comedy in the 70s and 80s.  

Nonetheless, there has never been a less tolerant or more judgmental time in my life than now.  Almost every day someone is punished for saying something that offends someone.  That's quite a cultural whiplash for me, who grew up in the 70s and 80s when pushing the line and being as offensive as possible was all the rage.

I remember an old humor magazine - Cracked I believe - that did a lampoon of the old Hogan's Heroes television show.  The point was that Hogan is upset and nobody can figure out why.  Finally he blurts out that everything is wrong and the whole show needs a revamp.  What was that revamp?  In the last full page frame it shows us - they're no longer POWs, they're in a death camp!  Complete with striped issue and shaved heads, Klink is now a death camp SS commandant and everyone can finally cut loose.  The last line of the strip?  Klink, leaning on Hogan's shoulders, asks if he's finally happy.  Sure, Hogan says, you bet I am - it's a gasser!

Imagine that today. Such were liberal values, c. 1980.  Not today.  In fact, if I have to pick one reason not to trust 'progressives', it's that every day I see the Left change the values that the Left I grew up with openly endorsed.  From the fascism of banning books or art, to personal  behaviors, to the sudden insistence that we must not be color blind when, as recently as my sons' schooling, they were taught the importance of being a color blind society.  

I have little patience for a movement with a 'here today, gone later today' approach to principles.  Especially when it's also quite prepared to retroactively punish those who were foolish enough to listen to the past message now suddenly condemned. 

UPDATE:

Ah, the things you find on the Internet.  So Catherine McClarey did the digging I didn't imagine could be done and found that last page punch line:

Wow.  It was more offensive than I remembered.  And yet, perfectly fine back then, since offend and disrespect was all the rage.  I you were offended, you were the problem.  Have I mentioned that I don't care for a society that changes it's values faster than you can change the diapers on a 3 month old baby on a beans and broccoli diet? 

Dr. Fauci explains the problem with people who don't like him

Yep.  The reason people don't like him is because he follows the science and is right.  We can't handle the truth he articulates, therefore we don't like him.  It isn't hard people.  Like all Science*, except for when he's wrong, he's always right.  And if we understood that, we'd like him because we would also be right.  It's our fear of the truth that messes with things.

BTW, I've seen variations of this over the decades and this is a liberal distinctive.  Whenever liberals don't get what they want from the electorate or population at large, it's because we're dumb or ill informed or misinformed or something.  It's never because we've done our homework, run the numbers, laid out the info, and concluded that the liberal in question is wrong. Nope.  It's always because of some deficiency on our part.  Always. 

*To clarify, when I capitalize Science like that, I usually mean science misused and abused in our society for reasons that have little to nothing to do with actual science. 

Deacon Greydanus knows not what he does

By wading into the tangled jungle of Southern Baptist culture.  Fact is, from a purely orthodox Evangelical perspective, c. 1990s, losing Ms. Moore, at least as a 'Bible Teacher', would be like Van Halen losing Sammy Hagar.  Despite her sucking up to #MeToo claims that criticism of her was due to sexist men, it was actually based on substance.  For most of us, her Bible studies came off like a loosely Evangelical combo of Oprah and Smilin' Joel Osteen.  She often seemed a mile wide and an inch deep.  While not all of what she produced was bad, it smacked more of the 'Talk Show' feel that was the rage in the day than a grounded approach to Scripture study.

As for the black pastor, I have no clue.  I see he posted on his church's Facebook page that learning figures in the Bible, like Solomon, were black makes it all the more special.  I guess embracing the idea that it's really all about the skin color.  Other than that, I don't know.  

I do know the tangled mess of SBC polity is something best not commented on, especially if you're Catholic.  Because, you see, Moore and the pastor and others in question can do just what they're doing.  That is, if they don't like their current denominational affiliation, they can happily ditch it and find another Protestant denomination more to their liking.  A characteristic of Protestantism that Catholics rightly criticize.  It's something that has been a cancerous rot in the greater Church for centuries: I'll choose the faith tradition that fits best.  Doing so under the modern 'because their politics are the problem and I'm not' template only compounds the scandal. 

Catholics can't do what Moore is doing, however, and must take the good Deacon's approach of blaming the Church's ills on those other Catholics over there who don't approach political narratives like the way I do.  Though so universal is the 'Be Leftists or be Nazi' paradigm, notice that both Catholic Deacon Greydanus and those Evangelicals interviewed in the article accept it as the goto ecclesiastical framework.  If you aren't aligning with the Left's narratives, you're a nationalist (read: Nazi), racist, sexist, etc.'   That framework is, in the end, simply a 21st progressive version of 'thank you, Lord, that you didn't make me like those wrong politically thinking Christians over there.'  

How the left defines niceness

At some place called Market Watch.  Perhaps it isn't a leftwing source, I don't know.  I've never heard of it.  I just had to chuckle when it came across my desk.  I have a gut feeling, though, that the author isn't exactly hostile toward a progressive POV.  The whole point is 'Labor Day weekend shows America is getting nice.'

How did it show this?  Because liberal views and ideals and individuals were promoted, and those who aren't liberal were trashed, hashed, banned and in other ways shown the door.

It's the 'of course liberals, duh' attitude that drove many a voter into the arms of Donald Trump in 2016.  It appears those clever liberals haven't figured it out yet.

When guns prevent crime

I know from experience that when you  bring up the idea that a gun can be used to prevent crime, you'll be laughed out of the discussion.  Gun Control Advocates will smack down the idea that gun owners use guns to stop crime as if it's believing in Big Foot, Unicorns or Eskimos.  

Yet, like so many things that seem associated with progressive agendas, there is a Himalayan sized pile of evidence that the Gun Control Advocates seem to ignore.  There's been a bit of a buzz over the last few months regarding a study that suggested a whopping 2.5 million cases (that's million, with six zeroes, or .00001 of Bill Gate's net worth in dollars) in which American gun owners used their firearms to defend themselves.  

I must admit that I don't do stats because I know stats can be easily manipulated to say whatever.  The push-back by Gun Control Advocates seems to be that such a figure is grossly inflated.  The problem is, in all the criticisms I've read, nobody suggests what they think it should be.  They just say it's an exaggeration, it's impossible, it's too high, it's overblown, but they never say what they feel it probably is.  And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.

Let's assume it is exaggerated.  Let's assume guns weren't used to defend against a crime 2.5 million times in a year in America.  How many times do we imagine they were used to defend against a crime?  2 million times?  1 million times?  Half a million times?  Let's just say a quarter of a million times.  250,000 times guns were used in self defense in a year.  That's a far cry from 2.5 million.  That is crazy off the study.  That number is nowhere near the claim made by Gun Rights Advocates.  

And yet, it's 250,000 times guns were used for self-defense.  Even if we drop it down to a paltry 25,000 times that guns were used for defense, that's still 25,000 Americans who are alive and happy and not victims of a crime, perhaps a violent one, all due to a gun.  I mean, that's a lot of people.  25,000 people not victims of crimes, be they violent or not, isn't bad.  

Think on that.  Even if the study is a whopping .01% of the truth, that's still tens of thousands who are not victims of a crime.  Given that around twice as many Americans are murdered by guns a year as die of HIV/AIDS (that would make it around 12,000/year give or take), that's still half as many killed by guns as crimes prevented.  That's assuming an epic fail on the study's part of missing the reality by 99%.  Sure, many of those would not be violent crimes.  But even so, what in the world are Gun Control Advocates doing acting like you just declared faith in a flat earth when you bring up guns being used for self-defense?  

What is one reason why am I more skittish about the Left than the Right, about progressives more than conservatives?  Because this line of argument seems to be common from top down and side to side when it comes to various progressive causes.  What would be laughed off the map if done by some wacky right winger in the back hills of Montana in his parents' basement, is often the line of arguing you here from mainline progressive pundits and leadership.  Whether #MeToo or abortion or transgender or gay marriage or open border immigration or tearing down Confederate memorials or gun control or whatever, there always seem to be this giant pile of facts and data that are not only ignored, but any who appeal to those are mocked at best, attacked a worst.

Forgive me, but if your entire argument is best summed up with 'please focus on the molehill and ignore the mountain range behind it', there's a good chance you'll lose me every time. 

Christianity and Karl Marx

John C Wright reminds us that, up until recently, Socialism, much less Communism, were as compatible with Christianity as Kosher ham.  All of a sudden however, socialism is practically the only path for salvation.  Even more shocking is the view that maybe Communism, which certainly had a few rough spots in its history, is not so bad.

The almost epic level of dumb required for this turn in events is bind boggling.  The countries that cast longing glances at socialist models of government in Europe are the best of the lot.  And they are mostly aborting themselves out of existence through low birthrates and a general apathy about the future of their own civilization.

Those are the best countries.  In other places that have trended toward socialist/communist, the record is cesspools of poverty, misery, oppression, tyranny, gulags, killing fields, and the suffering and death of endless tens of millions.

Despite it all, our best and brightest continue to move the line inch by inch toward a world where only that leftist dream of a truly socialist mandate can save us.  A world where Marx is the key, and Socialism the dogma.  That's like wanting to bet on the Dodgers for the 2017 World Series - today. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is doing scant little to resist the urge.  Some could argue it is becoming a willing accomplice. 

Granted, things change and we could always assume that Socialism today doesn't mean it will turn out military tyrannies or spin into Communist nightmares.  But that doesn't mean it will work either.  Given the conditions where it is in practice today, the burden is on those advocating for more of the same.

One of the driving forces behind this lunacy is the myth of progress.  That is, the idea that yesterday the world was fallen because everyone was stupid and evil, but today we're much better now.  Why, unlike everyone yesterday, we're now the intellectual apex of cognitive evolution and the moral and ethical hub of godlike perfection around which the entire history of the universe will spin.

Hence the quick and easy condemnation of people in history based on today's latest standards.  Hence the tendency of going through the lists of men who are guilty of having done what they were told was acceptable up until a few weeks ago.  That was then, when all was wrong.  But today, everything is right because, well, it's today.

So when the manifold terrors and failures of socialism and Communism are brought up, we're assured that those problems - if they're admitted to at all - where just part of the past.  Sure, there were rough roads, but that's because it wasn't us doing it.  Just as Pope Francis pointed out that the Church's teachings on the Death Penalty were the result of the Church not being as Christian as we are today, so our modern culture assumes that we will make all the changes necessary to ensure a socialist, or even Communist, success story.  After all, the problems were because those old timers weren't as good as we are today.  The evidence shows that when we get our hands on an issue, the result can only be success.  At least until tomorrow that is.

Is Pope Francis the Catholic the Church has been waiting for?

That seems to be the gist of what he is saying.  I know, it can be those rascally translators.  But assuming it's not a conspiracy of bad linguistics, there is this little bit from a piece about the Death Penalty:

“Let us take responsibility for the past, and let us recognize that these means were dictated by a more legalistic mentality than Christian,” [Pope Francis] said.

See that?  A lot of Catholics are appealing to the Church's track record regarding slavery, or the abuse or sins of the past to explain this away.  Catholics did wrong, the Church wasn't clear enough, Christians sin, so we're here to apologize.

Here's the thing.  It's one thing to apologize for the sins of the past.  It's one thing to apologize for what Catholics did.  But it's another thing to apologize for what the Church officially taught.  And it's yet another thing to suggest that for the first 2000 years, things were pretty bad, but thank goodness we're here to set them right.  That statement about the Church's teaching, that back then it was just too legalistic, too concerned for maintaining power, but now we're more Christian, is troubling at best.  Especially since many of the notions feeding into this new notion of dignity sound much more external than the result of some internal revelation brought about by careful studying of the ancient Faith.

I understand that this is a rather ugly way to spin the Pope's words.  But it's also a common modern, progressive view, this idea that we are the generation God has been planning on.  Hence the ease with which we condemn to complete judgement, not those sitting next to us or down the street, but those who came before.  It's like saying God finally got it right by creating us.  We're not looking farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We are the giants, looking back with unbelievable contempt on all those dwarfs who came before.

I have no problem with arguments against the Death Penalty.  I've always felt Christians of good will could agree to disagree on that issue, and both sides brought fair points to the table.  Likewise, I understood that there wasn't really a compromise with this one.  If you think the Death Penalty should be banned or allowed, there is no real middle ground.

But the arguments used by the Church, from the Catechism's strange declaration of the State's infallible ability to protect people without Capital punishment, to this, where we find out that the Church was a legalistic mess, but it's much better now, just suggest something is amiss.  Not to mention that if we're changing one teaching based on that idea of how wrong the Church was, it stands to reason we can change other teachings based on the same logic.

Bing or Google?

Donald McClarey points out a glaring difference between the two.  Google is well known for its preference for radical, Marxist inspired anti-Christian and anti-American activists, as well as its reluctance to give a nod to anything close to what most Christians or Americans would think is important.

Bing, about which I know little, apparently has its priorities more in line with what traditional American, and possibly even Christian, citizens might like.  I don't know to be honest.  But I do know Google's track record, and if there was ever an alternative that seemed in the same league, I wouldn't mind switching, even if the alternative didn't necessarily give lip service to my own preferences.  Not supporting ideals directly at odds with and hostile to me and my faith and values is good enough.

A powerful ability of liberalism

Is its ability to encourage adherents to be ready to jettison all of the most cherished truths they recently adopted as soon as a newer truth arrives on the scene.  So expect hardcore liberal feminists to begin backtracking on some of their dogmas regarding femininity and what it means to be a woman or to break gender stereotypes.  Of course not all will, and that's where you will soon learn about what it takes to be a real woman, and what it takes to be regarded as nowhere near a real woman enough.

When rape became funny

Over at John C. Wright's site, there is a good piece noticing what is so true: The Left is quickly becoming worse than all of the things it once condemned.  I'm going by memory here.  I think it was feminists who turned the tide of 'no crime, just victims of unjust, corrupt societies' that dominated our approach to criminal justice for several decades after WWII up until the 1980s. Feminists gave us that when it came to murder and mugging and burglary and other crimes, you had to blame society and be open and friendly and think of the criminal first.  Or the victim of the unjust, corrupt society.

But when it came to rape, forget it.  Rape and sexual assault were to be condemned, punished and shown no mercy.  Any of the slightest references to men imposing themselves sexually was nothing short of rape and to be condemned.  I remember a Phil Donahue show, back in the mid-80s, when the famous scene in Gone With the Wind was shown in which Rhett Butler grabs Scarlett and takes her up the darkened stairs.  The point was, Scarlett wasn't going to have sex with Rhett and Rhett said no way.  The feminists on Donahue's show made it clear we were to spew condemnation on that scene and on that movie because of such a vile display.  Of course today Gone With the Wind will likely be condemned for other reasons.  That's the Left for you.  There's no end to what it wants to condemn.  But then,it was because rape was no laughing matter.

Fast forward to today:




I caught this when it was one CSPAN.  There were other parts just as telling.  The sheer hypocrisy and contempt that the two representing the liberal view displayed.  Desperately trying to hold onto classic Leftist anti-Western narratives in the face of ISIS and the immigration debacle, they more than once retreated to that modern Leftist tendency to rewrite yesterday's truth in order to win the latest debate.

But it was shocking when the stories of gang rape and sexual assault were met with accusations that those bringing them up were the ones obsessed with sex.  And done so to rousing laughter no less. Kudos for Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage for calling them out.  For reminding them, who accused Steyn and Farage of being 'obsessed with sex', that according to those feminists and liberals of old, rape had nothing to do with sex.  BTW, that was an attempt by liberalism to distance the ugly results of its sex and drugs cultures from the facts.  The idea that the more sexed up we were, the more sexual assault and rape seemed to be on the rise.  Liberals dealt with that by appealing to Academia and Science and demanding a new definition, which the 'experts' gladly produced.   Rape, it turned out, had nothing to do with sex.

At least until this year, when bringing up cases of rape get you accused by Today's Liberals of being obsessed with sex.  Part of that could be the byproduct of a typical progressive tactic: accuse the person you are trying to oppress of being obsessed with not wanting to be oppressed.  So kick down doors, go to the government, demand that all laws and all nations and all cultures adopt your superior morals and beliefs.  And when someone pipes up and objects, accuse the objector of being obsessed with the topic.

But in this case, the hypocrisy was too much, and Steyn loses it.  I was glad to hear at least some applause when he said rape shouldn't be laughed at.  And it's worth noting that the liberal panel did seem a bit squeamish about the whole topic once it went in that direction.  But it's not unique.  The Left's ability to discard standards, truths, morals and anything to win the latest argument is the biggest weapon in its arsenal.  If you thought rape was always bad, had nothing to do with sex, or should never be laughed at simply because that's what the Left said, then you had to know that soon you would be outside the fold.  And not just this once.  It turns out that hoping for rape and assault, like so many things on the Left, will swing from being horrific to being the hope and dream in order to lay claim to today's latest awesomeness.  Killing, rape, oppression, imprisonment, why the list goes on an on!  There's just no telling what the Left will declare to be the best thing ever by the time tomorrow rolls around.  Given the track record of the last ten years, I'd say the sky is the limit.

Catholics for consequentialism?

For those who have never visited the Catholic blogosphere, you might be shocked to find that consequentialism is the most horrible sin one can commit, and it apparently is unique to the United States.  I mean, you can do just about anything and be swell and awesome, but consequentailism might be outside of the reach of God's grace.

So it was at first a bit of a shock when I saw that Mark Shea, one of the most vocal crusaders against consequentialism, posted a post in which he seemed to be saying stealing from people with abundance was justified.  Of course by abundance, we always mean people with more than us.  Not us.

Now there is a long history of feeling that those who have obtained their wealth dishonestly deserve what they get.  And if you steal from someone who has taken wealth wrongly, and give it to those who are in need, there are worse things in the world.  But this post seemed to be saying the rich deserve what they get, no rules.  No Commandments.  As long as you're doing it to the rich, you're in the clear.

Now, in fairness, I've learned that consequentalism, like so many things across the Catholic blogosphere, is only an evil as long as it advances the Cause or wins the latest argument.  So when Catholics violate the Church's clear teaching about how to treat others, or not judging, or interpreting what people say in the best way, it doesn't matter.  For the sake of greater good they are free to ignore those teachings.  Even the teachings of Jesus! And that's how they justify it!  They're doing it for the greater good.

And clearly if it isn't an intrinsic evil, there is no end to the wiggle room that Catholics can find across the blogosphere to justify things.  Why, it has been said a million times that it's better that ten thousand babies be murdered than to tell a white lie to save them.  Nonetheless, you are free to be dishonest, deceitful, and to weave entire tapestries of falsehoods as long as you don't technically lie.  After all, being false is not an intrinsic evil.  Only lying is.

So unless you can show that all stealing is actually an intrinsic evil, then sometimes it might be awesome.  That's not to say you can ask such questions about interrogation methods or anything.  Then you're just trying to be stupid and consistent.  In the case of torture, it's always evil and anything done might be evil without question.  But stealing isn't always evil so it can sometimes be right unless not.

See how easy it is?  Are you confused yet?  For my money, I was more interested in this post, in which Mark praised those holding truly consistent pro-life ethics, including an obviously progressive evangelical who, by his own website, opposes increasing the legal restrictions on abortion rights.  Sure, like most liberal Christians he says he's opposed to abortion.  Just like President Obama.  But like most, apparently he believes that the right to abortion shall not be infringed upon while we seek to eliminate the root causes of abortion like poverty. Something that used to be not pro-life.

Perhaps I misread the evangelical, but he echoed, along with his support of gay marriage, the same viewpoints I heard other liberal evangelicals hold.  So I would be interested in knowing how someone opposed to legally restricting abortions can be consistently pro-life, while a person holding to the Church's traditional teaching - and still its official teaching - regarding the death penalty is not.  But then, again, if you're asking questions like this about the Catholic blogosphere, or how a self proclaimed conservative Catholic can love liberalism and hate conservatism, then I'm afraid you're just being stupid and consistent.

Jon Stewart reminds us

That he's part of the growing consensus that progressivism and legislation should never be far from one another.  Follow this link and see him loving on the Redskins verdict, wondering why it's taking the country so long to legislate the indisputable truths as understood by the Left.  Like his partner yap dog for the left Mr. Colbert, Stewart occupies an important role in reaching a growing number of people with no time for facts, and a love for bumper sticker principles that uphold the post-modern Golden Rule: Do unto others as long as you don't do unto me.  Well done Jon.  You're everything we've come to expect from the post-liberal Left.

Also, Stewart inadvertently demonstrates the disdain and contempt for minorities who don't support the Leftist call for Censorship in the name of tolerance.

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.  

The most immoral television show of all time

My boys sometimes like watching older shows.  I was a fan of the show Frasier, and they've watched that show, even asking for DVDs for Christmas and their birthdays.  They love The Andy Griffith Show.  And over the last year, they picked up on the classic series MASH.  I didn't get them started there, though I was a fan growing up.  Over the years, I look back and almost cringe at some of the heavy handed moralizing that went on in 70s television.  Those shows made Ozzie and Harriet look subtle and balanced by comparison.  But upon watching MASH through the eyes of brand new viewers, I was shown something I hadn't noticed before.

MASH is perhaps one of the most horrifyingly immoral shows ever produced.  My boys caught it, never having watched it and having no presuppositions going into it.  Hawkeye is the epitome of 70s  liberalism, and he and his colleagues B.J., Col. Potter and Col. Blake, Trapper John all represent the best that 70s liberalism had to offer.  And how did they do this?

Well, they were tolerant, witty, charming, caring, open to women's rights, gay rights, civil rights and anti-war. They were everything that liberalism promised and more.  That was why Alan Alda was the poster child for liberalism well into the 1980s.

And yet.  Through the eyes with which my boys first watched the series this year, those same icons of virtue and moral superiority encompassed almost everything that decent humanity should shun: they lied, cheated, stole, slept around, had affairs (though that did pass with the rise of feminist sensitivities in later episodes).  They bullied, brutalizing and terrorizing anyone who ran afoul of their sensitivities.  They used their knowledge of medicine to scare, intimidate and coerce.  They prescribed faulty treatments, frightened with fake diagnoses, and even performed unnecessary surgeries to eliminate antagonists (this happened twice, and in fairness, the second time did include discussion about whether it was right to do or not).

Not to mention that, as Mark Shea pointed out a while ago, Communism - history's most murderous ideology - was often given a wink, a pass, and even tacit support.  While the United States, its history, its government, its military and its culture were frequently mocked, laughed at scorned and dismissed.

My boys pointed out that they should have been tried and court-martialed and convicted for treason, aiding the enemy, and endangering our own troops.  Morally they should have been condemned on just about every level, with the possible exception of the character Fr. Mulcahy. And their behavior of doctors?  If they didn't end up in jail for their medical crimes, they certainly should have lost their medical licenses and been banished from practicing medicine for life.

Really, watch it with someone who has never seen the show before, and you might be surprised. In an age where bullies are the Nazis of society, wonder why Hawkeye and Trapper, or B.J. for that matter, are anything less than ostracized.  Most school bullies pale in comparison to how they treated Frank Burns, or anyone who got in their way for that matter.  It gives you something to ponder now, as that which was once called liberalism embraces the Dan Savages and Bill Maher's of the world to be its voice.  Should we ever have been surprised?  Look at a show that was celebrated by those who promised our enlightened age a kinder, gentler and more moral society.

Bill Maher goes after Neurosurgeon

Yep, you read right.  One of the most ignorant and hate filled bigots in modern society has turned his cross-hairs on a neurosurgeon.  Really.  That's like Glenn Beck going after Einstein, or Justin Bieber going after Mozart.  Again, if you start thinking that the secular left might have some credible insights, just spend some time reading and listening to the appointed celebrities of the secular left.  That should energize faith in traditional values and religious views like nothing else.

Freedom is relative

On this, the celebration of our nation's independence, I'm reminded of something.  Freedom is relative.  Recently, most notably in a New York Times editorial a year or so ago, there have been some arguing that it's time to put aside these old notions of freedom of speech or religion as absolutes.  After all, it was argued, you can't just say anything.  You can't practice any religious devotion.  Never could.  Nobody would argue that you can today.  You can't, for instance, yell fire in a crowded movie theater (unless there is one).  You can't sacrifice virgins on a pagan altar.  You just can't.  So clearly we had some built in qualifiers when we said, from the get go, that our freedom of religion or speech will not be tampered with by the government.

The arguments go on to talk about what are absolute freedoms: reproductive health, gender equality, no discrimination based on sexual orientation, access to healthcare, and so on.  For these, so the theory goes, there is no qualifier.  We all agree that they should be protected without reservation or exception.  But that part is for another time.

Which brings me back to this strange story, about a student at Sonoma State University who was told to remove a cross during freshman orientation.  The student in question, from what I gather, was a helper.  Apparently, school officials feared that the crosses she wore could offend someone.  From what I can tell, many administrators now are backpedaling from this.  We'll see.

FWIW, I didn't even know there was a Sonomoa State University.  And yet, this shows something.  After decades of pounding the pulpit about a judgmental free society, a diverse society, a society of tolerance and open mindedness, I dare say we're more judgmental and less tolerant than any time in my memory.  At best, at absolute best, we're no better.  In fact, when cases like this are pointed out to those advocating for a more progressive revolution, it's often thrown back that old timers did the same thing.  Which, IMHO, is not exactly a stellar argument.  If the most your glorious revolution can provide is the same thing, then it's probably time to rethink the glorious revolution.

But in all fairness, all progressives, or liberals, or whatever you prefer to call them, are realizing is that lofty principles come with qualifiers.  That's where law vs. principle comes in.  A law is a law is a law.  We're a nation of laws.  Our nation was founded on the belief that laws are good.  Our faith speaks of laws as a good thing.  We have a priest from Nigeria who praises the myriad laws of the U.S.  As he likes to say, try living in a nation with not enough laws for a while and you'll see why.

Yet laws are there because all the freedoms we promise have to be checked by reality.  We have freedom of religion, that is true.  But we can't sacrifice children on fiery altars.  We have freedom of speech, but we can't slander people.  And it goes beyond laws.  Sometimes society, without laws, does a bang up job of qualifying  its principles.  Freedom of speech you say?  Tolerance you say?  Tell that to Paula Deen.

That's because progressives either always knew and lied, or are now coming to realize, that freedom, liberty, equality, all of these things are qualified principles.  Freedom to do anything?  Not drop the N-word apparently.  Not speak out against homosexuality.  Not try to regulate the abortion industry. Not believe that one religion can be more true than others, or that eternal consequences could arise from our choices of said religions.  Of course many of these things are still at the societal level of taboo breaking.  It takes a while for things to move from common values to common laws.

So if we aren't ready to accept the progressive template for reality, then folks had best stop fiddling around.  Next time a progressive throws it back and says 'it's no different than conservatives or traditional people of old', agree.  Say yeah.  The difference was, they admitted that there were absolute moral standards, and that when we said things like 'freedom', they were logically qualified.  Just like Jesus explained to the Pharisees, the law is made for man, not man for the law.  Freedom exists for our benefit, not as a slick slogan used to strip away the very freedoms it promises.

And then go on and remind them that, contrary to the liberal promises of old, this is not some Utopian paradise of no morals or values or laws of rules, this is no world of just everyone doing what feels good.  This 'liberal' revolution apparently has some definite ideas about what is and isn't allowable, and is as willing as an old time puritan to hoist those values on everyone.  It believes that all promises (take, marriage 'equality') are obviously to be qualified.  It feels that those who exercise freedoms in ways offensive to liberal sensitivities should be punished. In short, it's no more open or tolerant or morally relative than any other movement in history.  Its promises of freedom and liberty and equality are just as qualified as any pilgrim setting up shop at Plymouth.  Once that is established, perhaps we can sit down and make them realize it's all a question of debating one tradition's idea of moral standards versus the latest, hippest tradition's idea of moral standards that increasingly seem to qualify all those promises of freedom from moral standards.

You can't argue with true post-moderns

Mark Shea had a little post zeroing in on the Texas pro-abortionists who chanted 'hail Satan.'  A bit of a public relations nightmare three decades ago.  Today, probably a feather in the cap for most on the Left.  Anyway, an individual comes to slam Mark's assessment, and praise the fact that the old America is dying and the new America (presumably where people chant 'hail Satan' in their support of abortion) has arrived.

A discussion ensues.  And what a discussion it is.  The basic underlying point made by the intrepid guest SandyRavage: all evidence shows he/she is correct, because the evidence that doesn't is irrelevant.  It's a long thread, and my eyes glazed over many times.

My favorite parts: the individual appealed to Jefferson at one point to 'prove' Jefferson didn't think laws had a religious basis,

Even Thomas Jefferson laughed off the idea that America's laws were based off of religious values.

then later warned against appealing to Jefferson's 'rhetoric', presumably from the Declaration of Independence, to suggest Jefferson (or any of the Founders, who otherwise are called a diverse lot), thought our laws had a basis in religious belief:

And please spare me some simple rhetoric from Jefferson. The Founders were an incredibly diverse group of people, the vast majority of whom put no stock whatsoever in Locke's concept of natural rights.

And when appeals were made to the universal support for Jefferson's finished product?  Why, without evidence or quotes to back it up, we're informed that the Founding Fathers didn't really believe that part of it but cynically used it to accomplish a purpose:

They came to a compromise because they felt the document effectively gave a justification for declaring independence, irrespective of their personal feelings on its truth.They were politicians, politicians lie. Use your common sense

Again, no proof or quotes to back up this claim.  Apparently, it must be true because it is obviously true.

Later, the bold rebel appeals to Hamiltonian Federalists.  Another example of early Americans who dismissed this laughable notion of religion as a basis for laws.  Trying desperately to debate, someone posts a quote from Hamilton:

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

Is there a problem with the claim that 'Hamiltonian Federalists' rejected the idea that God has anything to do with our laws, after being shown the above quote?  Not at all for a post-modern!  You see, sudden appeal to Hamilton's 'private doubts' is all that's needed:

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that they appealed to divine will publicly, but privately expressed doubts? You'll fine the same in the writings of Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, And Emperor Josef of Austria

FWIW, I did miss it, because until that point, the claim that they had private doubts was not made.  The claim was made that they disagreed, or lied, or used documents for cynical purposes, but never had the issue of publicly stating one thing and doubting been touched upon till that point.

And again, no quotes or anything from Hamilton's private doubts.  Not saying there weren't any, just I noticed there were no quotes.  But it is strange, since he/she seemed to suggest that any private doubts negate public sentiments.  If you doubt in private, you apparently don't believe what you say in public? I can only assume that this means the individual on the thread has no doubts whatsoever about his/her beliefs!  Which is odd for a movement proud of its disdain for moral certainty and a preference for open mindedness.

But alas, if you read the thread, you'll see why it's tough to counter the liberal/post-modern juggernaut.  Appeals to evidence or historical figures, only to dismiss those same figures or references later when no longer convenient.  When faced with evidence, appealing to secret knowledge without evidence, making assumptions based on the fact that obviously liberalism must be right, or making strange claims such as the notion that any private doubts must mean public statements are either false, or outright lies for political expedience.

You can't beat it with logic.  You can't beat it with evidence.  In a world in which we appeal to reason, truth, and common sense, the post-modern progressive has the definite upper hand.

Yeah, Bill Maher

You may have heard right.  Bill Maher. Bill Maher has lashed out against Paul Ryan and Rand Paul for - get this - being intellectually stuck in their teen years.  Bill Maher.  This is not a joke.  It is not a SNL sketch.  It is real reporting.  It is an actually story that, with a straight face, reports Bill Maher's disdain for the intellectual inferiority of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. I'm not saying I agree with Paul or Ryan (that was weird).  But for it to be Maher, one of the least informed and least educated voices in the pop culture debate, whose public persona suggests he never made it past emotional puberty, has to be a new high in all time lows.  That the story reports this with no sense of irony shows the level of uselessness that our agents of information have obtained.  Really.  Bill Maher.  That's like Justin Bieber railing against Beethoven or Mozart for being no talent hacks.  The good thing about Fred Phelps and Glenn Beck is that most informed conservatives and religious believers either denounce them (Phelps) or take them with more than a few grains of salt (Beck).  But on the secular left, Maher is considered quite the hero, and often is given respectable time on such venues as MSNBC or CNN.  The Rational and Reasoned side indeed.

Editor's note: I know this came from The Blaze.  But in the internet age, outlets like The Blaze are increasingly seen as respectable journalism, and often are quoted as sources in various traditional news outlets.