Does Robert F. Kennedy Jr., heart censorship?

After reading his article on the Huffington Post, you would think.  Something disconcerting about the emergent Left's flagrant celebrating of censorship, oppression, and generically hateful contempt for those who fail to conform.  Read the comments if you have any doubts.  Remember, this is the world view born of those 60s hippies who taught all about tolerance, diversity, and love.  Those radicals who suggested there was no such thing as absolute truth, absolute values, and therefore no right for anyone to look with contempt upon those who don't think the way they think.  That liberalism, that the emergent Left claims as its ancestor, and yet reshapes into almost everything that bygone liberal dream once condemned. 

The unbridled power of the Gay Rights Movement at Rutgers

Rutgers University, in response to the sad case of a suicide last year, has decided to allow students of any gender to room together.  In order to mix things up, male and female students can share the same rooms, the same bathrooms, everything.  Apparently, it isn't unique to Rutgers, with Columbia, University of Maryland, and George Washington University offering similar plans.  It figures.  There are few movements more powerful or influential than the modern GLBT rights movement.  I don't know what it will look like ten years from now.  But I do know that, unless things change, it will look however the GLBT movement wants it to look. 

Post modern, gay friendly Europe

The land of intolerance.  As this good couple found out, adopting children demands conformity to the dogmas of Leftist doctrine.  I'm more and more convinced that when historians look back centuries from now, they will conclude that homosexuality was one of the crucial nails in the coffin for liberty. 

No, the media doesn't get religion

In a piece from the Guardian.co.uk, filled with more flaws, falsehoods, and fallacies than a Glen Beck lecture, we are reminded that the Catholic Church is ever against science and learning.  I was going to go bit by bit over each point of error, the parts that rely on Hollywood imagery and defunct anti-Catholic polemics, and general ignorance of history.  But it would take far too long.  Basically, I would be commenting on almost every sentence.  And yet, this is exactly the view that so many in our society have of the Catholic Church.  Apparently because that's the view so many in the media have of the Catholic Church.  A Church the piece accuses of basically hating science, and yet despite all of the overwhelming evidence, can still only point to the broad and simplified case of Galileo to support its thesis.  If the Church was really so much against science, learning, and knowledge, can anyone tell me why all of the accusers turn to the same exact example every time the issue is raised?

Western Civilization: The first civilization to die from guilt induced suicide

Bernardo Cervellera, over at Catholic Online, bemoans Europe's lackadaisical response to the persecution of Christians.  He suggests the timidity is the result of falling contracts with failed dictators.  I believe it's much deeper, and not just because of some vague charge of secularism.  I believe it's because Europe is a post-Western society.  It has spent multiple generations focusing exclusively on the sins of their fathers.  They have developed a warped and twisted level of neurotic guilt that has convinced them that Europe, and by extension America, are the truly evil players of history.  All other cultures and civilizations were in all likelihood not that bad. Even if things like conquest, imperialism, genocide, mass slaughter occurred - it was no doubt with the best of intentions. 

This is unlike Europe and America, that are seen as inferior in every way.  Stupid, boorish, evil, racist, bigoted, intolerant, prudish, barbaric, smelly, uncouth, sexist, homophobic - you name it.  Nothing, not one thing, good came of that.  Anything that was good was almost a bizarre happenstance, a cosmic coincidence.  And nothing exemplified that more than the Christian faith.  Not a few Christians, those stragglers who are left, who live in Europe embrace that very notion.  So it should come as no shock at all that Europe sees the uptick in persecution and murder of Christians around the world and yawns.  What of it?  The source and summit of evil is getting its just deserts.  Besides, when other cultures do such things, it is defensible.  And in all likelihood, it's our fault in the first place, so it's what we have coming to us.

Catholic League on Billboard removal

They get it right.  This is censorship through intimidation clear and plain.  The thing about Political Correctness, which is more or less the censorship arm of the Left, is that it's vague.  No one can point to any one agency or organization and say 'they made us do it.'  Instead, there is this somewhat ambiguous, ethereal presence behind it all that makes folks know they had better keep certain things under wraps, or else.  So the company insists no one group made them take the billboard down.  They just did it because of all the violence that could happen?  Really?  Was there any indication that violence would happen?  And what does that say about those who oppose the billboard's factual message? 

Of course, this also points out the glaring hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement.  For a movement that insists it's all about choice, it bends over backwards to keep any information or factual data from entering into the debate.  If I want choice, I want informed choice.  Not coerced choice.  Which, I can't help but feel, is the type that is being advanced by the pro-abortion rights crowd, where only one choice seems to be preferred.

Hugo Chavez makes it tough on Leftists

Hugo Chavez, a darling to many radical Leftists in our culture, has come out in support of Gadhafi.  This is tough.  After all, because he hated the putrid, rotten, stinking guts of George W. Bush, he became somewhat of a celebrity in his own right.  He is certainly beloved by such notables as Oliver Stone, Sean Penn, and Danny Glover.  Even our own press has tipped their hats.

During this rebellion, comparisons between him and Gadhafi have been made, with Chavez being given the better, even respectful, treatment by pundits.  But now, as various news organizations such as CNN and MSNBC, which have given a wink and a nod to Hugo, labor to portray the Libyan leader as a sadistic, insane mass murderer propped up by America's twisted and demented administrations, Chavez has thrown a wrench in the works.  How will they handle this?  How will they handle Chavez supporting Gadhafi? And more than that, he is warning America, under the Obama administration, of what it can and cannot do. How will they continue to give a free pass to Chavez, and yet show Gadhafi as a genocidal murderer?  It isn't easy using maniacal dictators to advance political and social agendas, since you just never know where they will turn.

America's last World War I veteran has died

Rest in peace Frank Buckles, America's last WWI veteran.  The passing of more than just Mr. Buckles, but also an era.  A time of America's ascent has given its last representative to the period of America's descent.  May a hundred years from now see that we were able to turn things around and claim, once again, the potential for a country founded on the lofty goals of freedom, liberty, and equality. 

Live Action, Lying, and the land of a thousand blogs

You would think that until the debate sprung up across the blogosphere in reaction to Lila Rose and Live Action's sting operation against Planned Parenthood, I wouldn't have known lying is wrong.  I certainly didn't realize that the Catholic Church condemns all falsehoods, including but not limited to, espionage, spying, undercover police work, law enforcement sting operations, and undercover investigative journalism.  It must be true.  Folks on the Internet have made it clear: There is only one obvious take on the question.  Some suggested that those, like Peter Kreeft, whoonce may  have been a respectable Catholic professor of philosophy, are now in the muck and mire of heretical thought for not conceding this clear point.  Obviously Christians who lied while they hid Jews during WWII were sinning, too.  Corrie ten Boom, I was informed during a discussion, was just a sinner who screwed things up and is loathed by many for having caused the deaths of so many innocent people by way of her sinful falsehoods.  As did all who dared sin the great sin in their incompetency. 

Now, the thing I've come away with during all of this?  Beware the Catholic blogosphere, the posts that bite, the comments that snatch.  It is, for the most part, amateur apologists with little to no actual theological training.  Those who do have it, more often than not have no real ministerial experience behind it.  For instance, Dawn Eden, whose article, written with William Doino, Jr., was among the first to take attention off of Planned Parenthood and place it firmly on Lila Rose, has a degree in theology.  She just earned it.  A former rock groupie journalist who converted to Catholicism in recent years, now has a degree.  By that logic, this former Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and spends the next two years getting a business degree, can then go up and down main street telling all of the business owners how badly they are screwing things up.   I don't mean to dis Dawn, or anyone for that matter.  I'm sure they're fine Catholics and great people.  But it's not for nothing that Paul warns those who are new converts to be slow in throwing their hats in the overseer ring.  If ministery teaches you anything, it's that you can be right and still end up being wrong, in more ways than one.

Am I saying there is no debate here?  No. It is an old debate that has been passionately argued for ages: is any lie or falsehood not only always wrong, but so bad that it's worth risking your own life and the possible lives of innocents in order to avoid the telling?  Or is there a principle involved?  Does this fall under the heading of 'the Sabbath of made for man, not man for the Sabbath'?  Good Christians of good faith have had radically different opinions.

The problem is, this became fodder for the Internet, a forum where people react and act in ways they never would to someone sitting next to them, looking them in the face.  Thus both sides hurled the insults, the accusations, the judgements.  The side that insisted on the sinfulness of lying looked like nothing so much as a KJV only fundamentalist Baptist preacher.  Fans of various bloggers rushed to their defense, insisting that all of those other folks who are obviously wrong are NOT the Magisterium - missing the clear fact that those bloggers they are fans of are not the Magisterium either.

And in it all, a possibly horrendous act on the part of an already dubious institution has more or less gotten off free.  The discussion was used to split, once more, the Catholic ranks.  A pro-life organisation that was filled with young people passionate about defending the unborn was not gently reminded to walk closer to the truth, but was used as a case study for the evils of lying by folks who I can't help but guess have probably told a lie or two in their lives, and for reasons far less noble.

But then, the Internet tends to breed a certain fundamentalist attitude.  Bloggers, many of whom are so because they are talented writers, have the craft and ability to make powerful cases.  They attract followers and fans who quickly circle the wagons and dare any would be critics to beware.  And if the heat gets too bad, if a person plows forth with disagreements and hits too close to home?  Well, that's where the handy 'delete' button on the blog kicks in.

Altogether, a reminder.  The Internet is not the Vatican.  Catholic bloggers, no matter how talented, insightful, Christ loving, and faithful, are NOT the Magisterium.  Some of them are wonderful.  Some have insights and understanding of the Faith that would put a theology professor to shame.  But they still are not coequal with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  And the Catholic blogosphere is not some denomination of exclusive Truth within Sacred Tradition.  So when we do step forward to guide and lead people to truth, we should do it like Catholics, not like the average Protestant fundamentalist caricature.  It wasn't to hear Himself talk that Jesus, in telling us to be innocent as doves, also told us to be shrewd as serpents.  And in this little train wreck of a discussion, many may feel they have truly achieved the 'innocent as doves' portion of the charge, but I can't help but feel it was done at the expense of the 'shrewd as serpents' clause.

Coptic Monasteries under attack in Egypt

You wouldn't know it if your world view is shaped by the MSM.  Terry Mattingly over at Get Religion asks if anyone has seen mainstream coverage of this.  I sure haven't.  But then, it is early Monday morning.  It's not like this is the Oscars or something.  It's Christian monastic communities being attacked by Egyptian soldiers.  Best part of Mattingly's article:

"As always, however, it’s crucial to remember that there is no one Islam in this scene"

Fact is, there is never no one of anything in any scene, despite all attempts to suggest otherwise.  Since 9/11, we have tried, tried, and tried again to frame Islam into two groups: poor, starving terrorists who hate us because we made them do it, and the rest of Islam that is about tolerance, love, peace, and John Lennon songs. 

It is a shame that it takes stories like this to challenge that.  The good news is that the MSM, never quick to allow an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good narrative, will probably not make to much of this or similar stories. 

Fun note.  Read the comment by reader Jerry.  His beef?  Mattingly chose to focus on this story, instead of the stories about Muslims lending a helping hand to their Christian neighbors.  Tmatt's response makes it simple: We hear nothing other than how wonderful, tolerant, and welcoming Muslims are to their Christian neighbors.  It's those cases where Muslims are kicking down doors, blowing up churches, and shooting nuns that don't get the press time.  Now, if this were a Christian minister threatening to burn a Koran, then you can be the coverage would increase a hundredfold. 

Save Baby Joseph

A more heart wrenching story I've not heard of recent months, and that's been in a period of heart wrenching stories.  Brave young baby is fighting for life.  It doesn't look good.  Parents would like him to come home and be with the family. Canada, in following the footsteps of every great, post-Christian socialist society, has decided it knows how to define and handle what is and isn't valuable life.  Ordering Baby Joseph removed from his ventilator, he has been condemned to die.  In addition, he will not be allowed to go home with his family in keeping with the parents' wishes.  Typical.  Canada is, after all, keeping the faith of the post-liberal left that in all things sex, drugs, and vulgarities total freedom; everything else, including human life, right to religion, speech, and thought, will be controlled and suppressed by the government that gave you unfettered access to the aforementioned sex, drugs, and bathroom humor. 

 

You can go to Save Baby Joseph on facebook.  Do what you can.  Remember, before the Nazis were slaughtering Jews and other minorities by the millions, they were training Germans to believe that some life just isn't worth the keeping.  And we all know how that turned out.

Sam Harris dubunked

Which isn't hard to do.  Simple common sense derails most modern neo-atheists.  But over at the MoralMindfield, a PhD student has done a better job than many.  The best, and most obvious problem with Harris - to anyone who's read his works - is that he appeals to reason as the ultimate source of truth, and then plays on pure emotion, bigotry, anger, and other knee jerk feelings in his books to make the point.  The PhD student sums this problem up nicely:

"Emotional, arrogant, glib rhetoric.  Harris’s approach to writing is to make it amusing, readable, and emotional.  Harris almost always appeals to emotion, not reason, despite how much he doth protest.  He knows reason isn’t how people work.  People want something to hate and something to love.  All he has to do is find the loves that the reader already has, and then link them to his own point, and he has made his case.  Then he just links reader hatreds to his opposing positions and voila, he has made his case again.  And because we share a common cultural background he already knows what most people love and hate.  All he has to do is name-call over and over and produce anecdotes of bad religion and he has drawn the reader to his side.  After all, who wants to be on the same side as a bunch of irrational perverts?  Exactly.  This is in-group/out-group politics.  By setting himself up as the crusader against evil, Harris automatically attracts followers.  It is pathetic, in the classical Greek sense of evoking emotion, and certainly not rational.  It is a form of rhetorical persuasion to create political unity, not philosophy or science.  I will point out more of these as we go."

Read it all.  This fellow has done his homework.  And he makes sense despite his being one of those religious types that Harris and company so readily mock.

Meanwhile, things are beginning to slow down on the home front, and get back into some semblance of order.  That means there are only about a thousand things we have to worry about.  Of course, we will ever and always worry about my Dad, but that is something we have to live with at this point.  Hopefully, next week, I'll be back.  I hope folks will come back again.  Remember, add yourself to the Follower tab to the Left of the screen.  Tell others, invite them back, hijack a bus.  Do whatever.  I'll be back soon, and then we'll get things going again.  TTFN

A billboard that tells of an ugly truth about abortion

Has been removed.  Thank goodness Lamar Advertising stepped in and took care of that one.  For a minute there, I though people who didn't embrace liberal values had the right to display their beliefs.  Whew.  That was close.  Of course it has nothing to do with the controversy or the content. It's all about the obvious safety hazards that giant African American focused anti-abortion billboards can pose. 

Still busy

Just a note that I am still very busy trying to help my Mom and family get adjusted, and move things, and generally get settled in after placing my Dad in a nursing home.  Thanks for the prayers.  Will be back soon, maybe later this week, but likely next week.  Lot's of stuff happening.  Prayers for those in the Middle East, and in our own backyards who are struggling with financial woes.  Also a lot of wildfire in the Catholic blogs about Lila Rose and her sting operation against Planned Parenthood.  As usual, we pulled the pro-life bus off the side of the road and have insisted it's better to debate the morality of her sting action, thereby letting the fugitives escape as the MSM was able to quickly sweep the whole, sad episode under the carpet and turn out attention to Wisconsin, and not because of it's defeat of the Buckeyes.  Oh well.  We'll get into those things later.  For now, more prayers for those who need them most, and a few for us would be appreciated.

Johann Hari doesn't heart religion

This may come as a shock to those who don't read his work, but Johann Hari of the London Independent seems to dislike religion.  This article, this rant, reads like a 1950s anti-desegregation tract.  Or like any radical piece that says, basically, 'I hate those scum, they are responsible for the evil in the world, and it's damn time we do something about it.'  The great thing about the post-modern Left is how deliciously unaware of itself it is.  Of course, that's also the scary part, since most agencies and industries that might check its growth of power are more or less sympathetic to its causes.  The usual chorus of anti-religious Christophobes and Theophobes chime in.

Blogging will be light

For the next couple weeks.  We are making some big changes in our family as we prepare to move our Dad into a care facility.  We would appreciate prayers.  The ensuing help for my Mom and the various demands on time will make blogging sparse.  I'll pop in now and then if something catches my fancy.  Otherwise, blessings to all, and if there is anything of interest to the readers, just send it along and I'll do my best to post accordingly.  Till then, TTFN.

What about this doesn't seem strange?



Batman, Robin, Shaggy, Scooby Doo, and Weird Al Yancovic?



Science and the all explaining theory that explains everything

Over at the Huffington Post, Robert Lanze, M.D., tries to explain that science can explain everything, including what science can't explain.  Basically it's 'How do we give meaning to a race of people who have been told they are nothing but biological accidents who will die and rot in the grave - without straying from the idea that science has to explain everything.'

It seems strange to imagine that everything has to be explained by the physical sciences.  Physical science is great - for explaining the physical universe.  But to imagine that unless there is a physical scientific explanation, it can't exist, is odd to me.  Especially when I imagine just how many things we are wrong about now that, a thousand years from now folks will laugh about.  I actually imagine a time, sometime around the year 3011, when a child will ask his father, "Daddy, do you mean people in the 21st century actually believed that science could explain everything, and if science couldn't explain it, it didn't exist?" 
"Yes, son, that's what people believed." 
"Well, that was silly wasn't it?"
Nope, for me I'm content with saying there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies - or sciences.

And the funny thing is?  There is nothing in any science today that can prove or disprove my prediction.  The world will have to wait.  Whether I am right or wrong, at this point in history, depends on what we belive in the first place.  And that's sort of the point, isn't it.

The ultimate definition of post-modernity

When a man like Bill Maher actually believes it's wrong to treat our presidents disrespectfully because it makes the president look bad in the eyes of the world.  And Lawrence O'Donnell agrees.  The reference is to this interview Maher did with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.  And people laugh at Glenn Beck.  Well, I laugh at Glenn Beck.  But I laugh at the likes of Bill Maher as well.  

Beowulf socks!

I have to find me a pair of these.