tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-198124132024-03-12T22:03:47.690-06:00The Western ChauvinistS11 Republicanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394384190338300732noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-89209641118044588482021-06-26T10:34:00.003-06:002021-06-29T06:55:26.569-06:00"The rich he sent away empty"<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/videos/16801483/thumb/1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="451" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://cdn.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/videos/16801483/thumb/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I'm just a Catholic out here with an opinion on Eucharistic coherence, which has been in the news lately. At their recent conference, the American bishops agreed -- although not unanimously, sadly -- to have a <i>discussion </i>about whether public figures who profess the faith (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Lieu, Joe Manchin, . . .) yet remain in obstinate and <i>very </i>public disagreement on fundamental teachings of the Church maybe sorta kinda should be denied Holy Eucharist. It seems pretty obvious anyone not <i>in communion</i> with the Church should not <i>receive </i>Communion (that's why non-Catholic Christians are denied Eucharist after all). Simple. What's to discuss? A basic requirement of being a Catholic in good standing is to submit to what the first Church of Christ teaches. <i>All of it</i>. Whether one knows and understands all the whats and whys, or not. We are called to obedience -- to seek understanding in faith -- to <i>trust </i>that Christ established His Church and has protected it from the gates of Hell prevailing over it for more than two thousand years.<p></p><p>Catholic apologist Trent Horn has a good video on the tactics used by pro-abortion Democrat politicians (but, I repeat) to elide and obscure their heretical positions. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_3tuK-fZW18" width="320" youtube-src-id="_3tuK-fZW18"></iframe></div><br />The six tactics he identifies, in brief:<p></p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>They double-down on professing their Catholic faith (invalid argument from authority) while denying the Faith's core tenets. </li><li>They express false humility with the "I can't impose my views on others" lie. They would impose their views on the death penalty by abolishing it, if they could. They believe (hopefully) that infanticide should be illegal, etc.</li><li>They accuse pro-lifers of having double-standards by not opposing the death penalty, for example. But, would they submit to the Church's teachings if it prohibited the reception of Communion for <i>both </i>pro-abortion and pro-death penalty public figures?? To ask is to answer.</li><li>They bring up the "ensoulment" canard. I agree with Trent that the soul is the animating principle of life and, therefore, when a living body exists a soul exists. A precious, God-created, unique and unrepeatable person exists at conception. Personhood is <i>science</i>.</li><li>They appeal to "free will." But, they can't possibly believe it. My free will says we should outlaw abortion, but they don't believe <i>my</i> free will is correct, do they? I know with an uncommon certitude that their free will is malformed by the belief that it's <i>ever </i>morally acceptable to set out to kill innocent human beings, wherever they're located (in the womb, for example). </li><li>They argue from the "primacy of conscience," but they don't believe that either. They believe pro-lifers' consciences are mistaken. </li></ol><div>But, I have a gripe with most apologists arguing this issue as well. They seem to argue from the philosophical/legalistic point of view while completely missing the <i>pastoral </i>aspect of denying someone in grave error Communion (with one exception being <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/a-petulant-rebellion" target="_blank">a woman over at CRISIS Magazine</a>, who writes passionately on the subject). The bishops' vocation is to guide the flock to heaven. Why, then, <i>for Pete's sake</i> (irony alert), would they even <i>think </i>for a split second of allowing someone to eat judgment upon himself? <i>Even </i>a Democrat politician? It is deeply unloving.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, so, I come to Mary's Magnificat, where she says, "the rich he sent away empty." If one were to interpret this as an uncaring and indifferent God who favors the poor at the expense of the rich, one would have an erroneous view of who God is. He sends the rich away empty <i>because </i>He loves them! It is meant as a corrective, and a call to conversion. Our decadent culture is a sure sign of what happens when we become too rich and comfortable (in Old Testament parlance: we have too many horses, too many wives, and too much gold). God doesn't want us to be comfortable; He wants us to be holy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whenever I pray the Magnificat, I place myself in the role of both the sinner and the saint, because I have had the experience of God in both ways in my life. Try it for yourself:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote><div><b>My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord</b>, </div></blockquote><blockquote><div><b>my spirit rejoices</b> in God my Savior</div></blockquote><blockquote><div>for he has <b>looked with favor on his lowly servant</b>.</div></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p>From this day all generations will <b>call me blessed</b>: </p><p><b>the Almighty has done great things for me</b>, </p><p>and holy is his Name.</p><p>He has shown the strength of his arm,</p><p>He has <b>scattered the proud in their conceit</b>.</p><p>He has <b>cast down the mighty from their thrones</b>,</p><p>and has <b>lifted up the lowly</b>.</p><p>He has <b>filled the hungry with good things</b>,</p><p>and the <b>rich He has sent away empty</b>.</p><p><b>He has come to the help of his servant</b> Israel</p><p>for He has remembered his promise of mercy,</p><p>the promise He made to our fathers, </p><p>to Abraham and his children for ever.</p></blockquote><p>Do you sometimes (daily) proclaim God's greatness in His Goodness, Truth, and Beauty -- in His infinite Perfections? Do you oftentimes rejoice in being a precious child of God, for whom He was willing to humble Himself to suffer and die for your salvation? Has He looked with favor on you in your lowliness? Do you call yourself, "blessed?" Has God done great things for you? Has He scattered you in your conceit? Has He cast you down when you attempt to exalt yourself? Has He lifted you up when you're suffering? Has He filled you with good things? Has He sent you away empty? Has He come to your help when you are in need, and shown you mercy?</p><p>Yes, yes, the bishops should deny the Sacramental Presence of Jesus to those who bring scandal upon the faithful. But, these dissenters should be sent away empty <i>because God loves them. </i>He wants them to come Home to Him, and to do that, they need to repent and to correctly form their consciences in Christ, with the moral guidance of the Church He established. And mostly they need to stop advocating for and enabling the killing of God's <i>other </i>precious children. </p><p>Amen. <i>Alleluia!</i></p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-52365009114484744652021-06-12T08:07:00.007-06:002021-06-12T08:30:21.069-06:00Gay Rights Advocate Has Trans Regrets<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/2020/ht_nikki_and_thomas_101019_ssh.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="411" data-original-width="531" height="248" src="http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/2020/ht_nikki_and_thomas_101019_ssh.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Author and expat gay rights advocate, Bruce Bawer, has written a lengthy lament on the history of gay rights advocacy turned queer activism and, finally, transgender ideology in <i><a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/10/the-great-consonant-shift/" target="_blank">The Great Consonant Shift</a></i> over at American Greatness. I skimmed the history parts to get to his main complaint because, frankly, I don't care about the minutia of <i>how </i>we got here -- only that we're <i>here, </i>at the end of western civilization. I'm more of a big picture gal when it comes to my love for the West.<p></p><p>Mr. Bawer is upset that "transgenderism" was attached to his noble pursuit of "equal" rights for gays by queer activists, since sexual appetite isn't the equivalent of gender identity. He acknowledges that leftwing <i>queer </i>activism was always about tearing down the longstanding institutions of the West and argues . . .</p><p></p><blockquote>. . . indeed, that the gay-rights movement and the transgender movement are utter opposites: while the former is rooted in the objective reality of homosexual attraction, the latter asks the general public to acknowledge an objective impossibility -- namely, the fanciful notion that subjective feelings alone can determine gender. The moment a person declares that he's now a she, or that she's now a he -- no hormones or surgery required -- one is supposed to respond with immediate and absolute affirmation.</blockquote><p></p><p>Oh, dear. I think Mr. Bawer has missed the forest for the trees. Respectfully. His "equal" rights advocacy (of which he was an early promoter of SSM) has asked something very similar of the public. Namely, that we "acknowledge" the objective impossibility that two men or two women can be married to one another. In fact, gays insist on overthrowing reality, they don't just "ask." Because "<i>equality</i>" -- 'er something.</p><p>I've long argued that SSM advocates weren't asking for "equal" rights for gays. Persons who are same-sex attracted always had the "equal" right of legal and social acknowledgement of marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Heck, they even had that right within the Church! And the union of two men or two women isn't the <i>equivalent </i>of a married man and woman. What homosexual advocates laid claim to with SSM was a <i>special </i>right -- the "right" to overthrow the <i>reality </i>of marriage.</p><p>To recap: marriage has the dual purpose of 1) unifying a man and a woman for the (hopefully) intended purpose of 2) procreation. The unity piece is so essential not just for the couple's happiness, but because of the procreation piece. When mothers and fathers divorce, they "blow up their kids' planet," as Andrew Klavan says. And you should see what happens when <i>homosexual </i>couples with kids divorce! It's <i>doubly </i>confusing and tragic. This is no way to form a happy and healthy society.</p><p>While gays may find unity in a homosexual relationship (although the rates of promiscuity among gay men and domestic violence among lesbians as compared to heterosexuals would seem to suggest a problem), their relationship is <i>intrinsically </i>sterile. In short, marriage wasn't <i>made </i>for them either by nature or nature's God. If it's discriminatory to say so, it's discriminating an objective truth, which Mr. Bawer seems to be passionate about when it comes to transgenderism coopting his pet cause.</p><p>All of this societal degradation was totally predictable and was, in fact, <i>predicted </i>by opponents of the SSM cause. The slippery slope argument isn't always fallacious. Once we insist on lying about fundamentals such as what marriage <i>is</i>, it follows pretty naturally that we'd lie about other basic truths such as gender identity. </p><p>When I was a lefty I used to complain about conservatives wanting to "get into our underwear" on sexual morality. Now I wish gays had gotten out of <i>their own</i> underwear long enough to see the big societal/cultural picture. </p><p>My advice to Mr. Bawer? Never <i>ever </i>side with the Left -- not on feminism, not on economics, not on nationalism, not on social causes -- not even the ones you think are in your self-interest. That way leads to destruction. It always does, as that's the Left's <i>objective </i>and competence. The Left is <i>very </i>good at destroying, and I'm of the opinion it's too late now for the West. What we will have is anyone's guess, but I'm confident in saying our society will be neither free nor respectful of human dignity, as the one very much depends on the other, and we can have neither when we're lying to each other on the essentials of human anthropology. </p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-73183377178302944072021-04-02T12:15:00.001-06:002021-04-02T12:19:04.191-06:00Extraordinary Suffering, Amazing Grace<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.images.express.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fdynamic%2F130%2F590x%2FWhat-happened-on-Good-Friday-What-happened-to-Jesus-1417985.jpg%3Fr%3D1617292709880&f=1&nofb=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="590" src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.images.express.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fdynamic%2F130%2F590x%2FWhat-happened-on-Good-Friday-What-happened-to-Jesus-1417985.jpg%3Fr%3D1617292709880&f=1&nofb=1" /></a></div><br />The spiritual advice often given to Catholics is "to unite your suffering to Christ's." I've struggled with the Church's theology of redemptive suffering through many years of my children's, my husband's, and my own suffering. I've had a shallow understanding of our "participation" in Christ's suffering until recent news about someone <i>else's </i>suffering cast new light on the subject for me. <p></p><p>I haven't allowed myself to think of my nuclear family's suffering as "unfair," although it clearly has been extraordinary (that is, out of the ordinary) compared to <i>most</i> families I know. Not many families deal with <i>two</i> children with rare conditions causing life-long travails. It's painful to contemplate the (possibly) lost potential of my beautiful, brilliant girls. </p><p>Nor do many people live a charmed life with little suffering, although it's better for <i>everyone's </i>character to be grateful for our blessings rather than bemoan our curses (Jordan Peterson says "better to think of yourself as a perpetrator than a victim). We're friends with <i>three</i> couples who have also experienced extraordinary suffering through the tragic loss of their children. But, something about this recent example allowed me to "go there" and to finally see how <i>unjust</i> suffering changes the world for the better, and how the sufferers really do participate in the redemptive suffering of Christ. It's one of those mind-blowing paradoxes of the Christian faith.</p><p>Let's face it. No one is moved by the suffering of people who get their well-deserved comeuppance. Can anyone say they feel compassion for Hitler in a burned out bunker with a bullet in his brain? Or Mussolini shot and hung upside down from a girder over a service station? Or does anyone have a conversion experience because heartless bastards like Mao and Fidel Castro die peacefully in their beds at a ripe old age? We may feel angry toward God for the temporal <i>injustice</i> of such undeserved endings, but we have some consolation in believing God will have the final say about these killers' eternal destinies.</p><p>But, it's <i>unjust</i> suffering that changes hearts, both for the sufferers and those who love them. I write this on Good Friday, when Christians observe the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As part of the Liturgy of the Word, Catholics will recite the Passion narrative, with the congregation taking the part of the crowd shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" It's terrible -- my least favorite observance of the liturgical year -- and it's <i>meant</i> to be. It's meant to <i>finally</i> impel us to turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel, as we were instructed upon receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday at the beginning of Lent. Because anyone of good conscience who participates in the re-presentation of the Passion will be <i>heartbroken</i> about his sinfulness leading to the torture and slaughter of the Innocent Lamb of God. It's painfully apparent to me, God <i>wants </i>us heartbroken, because that's how He finds His way in and redeems us. </p><p>I've been heartbroken by my little family's suffering. So has Mr. Chauvinist. And the softening of our hearts has drawn us closer together -- and closer to God. Sometimes I'm startled by how tenderhearted Mr. C is toward others who suffer. It's not unmanly -- in fact, it's a sign of being more <i>fully </i>human. More Christ-like. </p><p>I finally appreciate Saint Paul's rejoicing in his suffering for the sake of souls. My pastor once told us that we "are at the very heart of the Church" because of our suffering. Now, because of this other innocent's suffering, I can see how <i>he </i>is united in Christ's suffering -- how his suffering will move hearts toward God -- for the sake of the whole world. Pope Saint John Paul II once said, "suffering unleashes love." My loved one may not know it yet, but he's been privileged to share in Christ's suffering -- and so have we. </p><blockquote><p><i>Let us bear all things thankfully, be it poverty, be it disease, be it anything else whatever: for he alone knows the things expedient for us. . . Are we in poverty? Let us give thanks. Are we in sickness? Let us give thanks. Are we falsely accused? Let us give thanks. When we suffer affliction, let us give thanks . . . Affliction is a great good. "Narrow is the way," so that affliction thrusts us into the narrow way. He who is not pressed by affliction cannot enter. </i></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>-- Saint John Chrysostom </p></blockquote>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-70381725396101651932021-03-30T10:55:00.004-06:002021-03-31T08:42:28.879-06:00(Corrupted) Words of the Day<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcf.ydcdn.net%2Flatest%2Fimages%2Fwordfinder-background.jpg&f=1&nofb=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="800" height="166" src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcf.ydcdn.net%2Flatest%2Fimages%2Fwordfinder-background.jpg&f=1&nofb=1" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>I suppose we should first define what we mean by "corrupt." This is what I intend when I say these words are "corrupted:" debased or rendered impure by alterations or innovations (from etymoline.com). My selection of these (corrupted) words of the day is based on the change of their meaning from something originally intended by their definitions to something now used as a slur. I'll be working my way backwards in time based on how recently these words were corrupted. Let's begin.</p><blockquote><p><a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/nationalism#etymonline_v_30269" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000; font-size: large;">nationalism (n.)</span></a></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1844, "devotion to one's country, national spirit or aspirations, desire for national unity, independence, or prosperity;" </p></blockquote><p>"Nationalism" has gone from a positive good (willing the good of one's fellow countrymen in a free and prosperous country) to something even <i>conservatives </i>use in a derogatory way (Jonah Goldberg). It used be okay to be a fan of America back when America was the land of opportunity and not "systemically" hateful and hated, whatever that means. But, now, to be an American nationalist is to be inordinately and <i>unjustifiably</i> proud of one's homeland, <i>at best</i>. At worst, and now that "whiteness" is a thing (and totally <i>not </i>racist -- /snark), "<i>white</i> nationalism" is implied. Never mind that Donald Trump's policies did more for black and Latino employment and wage increases than has been seen in my lifetime. He's such a terrible racist (meaning the <i>opposite</i>). </p><blockquote><p><a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/discriminate#etymonline_v_11411" style="font-size: x-large;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">discriminate (v.)</span></a></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1620s, "distinguish from something else or from each other, observe or mark the differences between," from Latin <i>discriminatus</i>, past participle of <i>discriminare </i>"to divide, separate," from <i>discrimen </i>(genitive <i>discriminis</i>) "interval, distinction, difference," derived from <i>discernere </i>"to separate, set apart, divide, distribute; distinguish, perceive," from dis- "off, away" (see dis-) + <i>cernere </i>"distinguish, separate, sift (from PIE root *krei "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). </p></blockquote><p>Back in the day, when someone was described as "a discriminating man," it was considered a compliment. It meant he showed <i>good</i> prudential judgment. Now we're not even supposed to notice differences as fundamental as those between men and women. Unless it's a trans-woman and then she/he/they is <i>totally </i>different from a man! And if you deny it, you're a bigot. That's some fancy lexicographical footwork. Try to keep up.</p><blockquote><p><a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/cult#etymonline_v_450" style="font-size: x-large;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">cult (n.)</span></a></p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1610s, "worship, homage" (a sense now obsolete); 1670s, "a particular form or system of worship;" from French <i>culte </i>(17c.), from Latin <i>cultus </i>"care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," past participle of <i>colere </i>"to till" (see colony). </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>The word was rare after 17c. but it was revived mid-19c (sometimes in French form culte) with reference to ancient or primitive systems of religious belief and worship, especially the rites and ceremonies employed in such worship. Extended meaning "devoted attention to a particular person or thing" is from 1829.\ </p></blockquote><p>As Catholics, it's not unheard of that we're accused of belonging to a cult. To which I say, "<i>Indeed!</i> I belong to the cult of Jesus Christ and his one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church!" Which puts a whole different spin on the second paragraph describing a cult as an "ancient or primitive system of religious belief and worship." Ah-yup! Catholics have an ancient system of religious belief and worship, although I doubt most honest critics would call Catholicism "primitive" -- read Augustine and Aquinas through John Paul II and Benedict XVI for non-primitive Christian thinking and belief. In fact, Catholicism goes right back to Jesus Christ and his apostles, thank you very much. But, even some Catholics are susceptible to the misuse of the word "cult" and <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/the-benedict-option-and-the-veritatis-splendor-community-are-they-the-same-thing" target="_blank">become defensive</a> about it. They shouldn't. It's similar to the message of the cross being a sign of foolishness for some. Being a member of the cult of Jesus Christ and the church he founded is no shame. It's just the opposite. </p><p>That's all for today. I encourage everyone to start using words correctly according to their intended meaning and <i>take back</i> the language from the Left.</p><p></p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-91213345382315521532021-03-09T10:19:00.002-07:002021-03-09T10:20:31.650-07:00Speaking of: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://progresoweekly.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pigsG.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="800" height="192" src="https://progresoweekly.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pigsG.png" width="320" /></a></div>I get a laugh out of the absurdity of the human condition as much as the next <strike>cynic</strike> average American. But, the world stopped being funny sometime last year in the midst of the plague and the political collapse of the country (but, I repeat).<p></p><p>Let me get this straight (probably should have saved that for the bit on transgenderism). Joe Biden bombed <i><b>Syria </b></i>in retaliation for <i><b>Iranian</b> </i>actors killing an <i><b>American</b> </i>contractor in <i><b>Iraq</b></i>. That would be the <i><b>Iran</b></i> of the "Iran Nuclear Deal" that Biden says he wants us to rejoin which would have, at <i>best</i>, if you believe the Iranians are honest negotiating partners (LOL), <i>delayed </i>Iran getting a nuke with which to intimidate everyone in the region (and Europe), and potentially bomb the "Little Satan," Israel, into oblivion. And since <i>everything</i> is blamed on racism, I'm sure Iranian hatred of Jews is because they're "evil" white people -- even though <i>everyone</i> in the region is ethnically Semitic. You can't make this shite up. </p><p>Do you miss President Donald End-Foreign-Entanglements-and-Unleash-Israel-to-Defend-Itself Trump yet? I do. </p><p>And speaking of entanglements in Iraq, did you hear Pope Francis visited that brutal and benighted country and met with the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Sistani for "dialogue?" Of course, Pope Francis never once publicly uttered the name of "Jesus," because whenever politically correct Christians "dialogue" with Muslims, they always bow to Allah rather than <i>the Savior of the World</i>. In case I wasn't clear, I <i>do not</i> believe Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Go ahead and call me an Islamophobe, but I will oppose any religion that treats women and religious minorities the way "faithful" Muslims do with my dying breath -- let's just hope it isn't brought on by the blow from a scimitar. </p><p>And since we're speaking of Muslim mistreatment of women, did you know adherent Muslims believe Mohammed is "married" to the Virgin Mary in heaven? What a <i>repugnant</i> thought. The whole thing about Muslim men satisfying their sexual appetites in heaven is bad enough (what other appetites do men get to indulge in the presence of Almighty God?). But the idea that Jesus would tolerate the sexploitation of our Blessed Mother goes <i>beyond </i>blasphemy.* Yet Francis believes if he just dialogues with Sistani, conditions for Christians under Muslim rule in Iraq will improve. Makes you wish for a return of Pope Urban II, doesn't it?</p><p><i>Hey</i>, what about the mistreatment of poor "Princess" Meghan Markle, you ask? I'm with <a href="https://youtu.be/Ixz1bfadHhs" target="_blank">Ben Shapiro</a> that the <i>real </i>villain in the pathetic saga of the <i>rrrrrracist rrrrrroyal</i> family is "Prince" Harry. I mean, I feel sorry that "Princess" Meghan suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and became suicidal because she had to learn to curtsy to the Queen like every other female subject of Her Majesty. . . (<i>ahem</i>, <i>cough</i>) . . . but Harry would have us believe his lefty father, pathetically "trapped" in a life of privilege and leisure, will not come to the aid of the damsel in distress, "Princess" Meghan, because she's light brown, and not because she's an obnoxious brat. <i>Puhleaze</i>. Way to smear your family, Harry. </p><p>Besides, how do we know Meghan is <i>really</i> a black "woman?" Has she "identified" as such? Has anyone asked her in the last five minutes? Maybe she changes her mind periodically! And just what does it mean to "<i>feel</i> like a woman?" I'm ostensibly a woman and I'm not sure I could describe it outside of the, uh, you know, <i>biological</i> woman stuff. Bruce Jenner seems to think being a woman means wearing dresses, stockings, and high heels. By that measure, he's more of a woman than I am, <i>that's for sure!</i> I haven't dressed up like a "woman" in more than a decade. I guess I should turn in my woman-card.</p><p>Speaking of the Equality Act, now that biological males can compete with biological women and enter their bathrooms and locker rooms -- and dissident doctors and hospitals can be penalized and driven out of the medical field for refusing to mutilate perfectly healthy bodies of tragically unhealthy minds. . . what happens when a compliant primary care physician does a (virtual) pap smear and breast exam during an annual physical on a trans-woman, but fails to detect the prostate or testicular cancer that could kill him -- er, her? Can said physician be sued for malpractice, and on what grounds? The whole trans ideology would be laughably absurd if it wasn't such a damnably destructive lie. Sort of like same-sex "marriage."</p><p>Speaking of -- did you hear about the gay throuple listed as three fathers on their children's birth certificates? Absurd <i>and</i> sickening for those poor children.</p><p>Stop the world, I want to get off.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>*For my non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, if you find the idea of Mohammed defiling Mary in heaven repulsive, you might wish to consider the Church's teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity in the context of <i>any</i> man having the b.b.b.bal. . . temerity to have relations with the spouse of the Holy Spirit, let alone the righteous and Blessed Saint Joseph. Some things you can know by faith <i>and </i>reason.</p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-52378639714566997062021-02-27T13:40:00.002-07:002021-02-27T13:41:34.683-07:00The Despicable, Despotic "Consensus"<p>Mr. C and I watched Eric Weinstein interviewed about the Intellectual Dark Web last night. I highly recommend it. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bsgWSPWX-6A" width="320" youtube-src-id="bsgWSPWX-6A"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'm not in full agreement with "progressive" Weinstein about everything. I think it's been clearly demonstrated that the only way to promote human flourishing (make <i>real "</i>progress") is to acknowledge broken human nature and try to tame it and direct it toward the good. There's nothing better for a) <i>defining </i>"the good" objectively (on the premise that there <i>is </i>objective truth and good) and b) inculcating virtues of chastity, prudence, self-control. . . than religion, and in particular, Judaism and Christianity. Weinstein seems to think human flourishing is dependent on technological and scientific advancement. As a mathematician and physicist, he <i>would</i>. But, I'd argue that's <i>demonstrably</i> untrue. Read Alexander Zubatov's <i><a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/24/we-are-living-in-the-ruins-of-our-civilization/" target="_blank">We Are Living in the Ruins of Our Civilization</a></i>. </div><br /><p>But, one thing Mr. C and I agree adamantly, passionately, <i>vociferously </i>with Weinstein about is the utter <i>civilizational destructiveness </i>of the "consensus," group-think orthodoxy that's taken hold of our society. As Weinstein says, "consensus" is all about incentives, and <i>more </i>importantly, <i>disincentives </i>to openly expressing novel ideas -- many of which turn out to be exactly the kind of innovative thinking that advance the common good. At minimum, even <i>wrong</i> ideas can stimulate the kind of conversations that lead to good and true ideas. But, only if we're allowed to <i>have </i>those conversations. </p><p>While Mr. C and I are just now becoming fully aware of the <i>strength </i>of our aversion to the "consensus," we realize it started some time ago with the "scientific consensus" on Climate Change. The phrase always rubbed us the wrong way, given that "consensus" is <i>not</i> how science works. It doesn't matter what "most scientists" think if they're wrong. In the pursuit of scientific truth, a hypothesis is proposed and tested. If the hypothesis fails to pan out under scrutiny, it is adjusted and tested again. If testing seems to confirm the hypothesis, and repeated testing by independent parties comports with earlier positive results, it may become a theory over time. But, the inquiry never ends. The hypothesis/theory is either repeatedly challenged under new conditions or is <i>disproven</i> and scrapped. Climate Change "science" is a <i>mess</i> due to its untestability (complexity and expansive time spans) and corruption by political actors (<i>ahem</i>, Al Gore). Computer models are not data, and computer models which fail to be predictive like the ones we have now, are only useful in that they show scientists they're on the wrong track. But try telling that to "believers" in climate "science."</p><p>So why has "consensus" thinking become so prevalent in our society? It's only recently infected the scientific community by comparison to public policy, economics, and politics. Think how long the progressive policies of FDR have been mistakenly credited with helping Americans through the Great Depression when the <i>opposite</i> is true. Progressive policies <i>contributed </i>to and <i>prolonged </i>the Great Depression. But that consensus has been held by people going back to my Greatest Generation parents and is still widely believed today. Same with LBJ's Great Society legislation, which decimated the black family and continues to damage black culture and the rural poor in America to this day. </p><p>"Capitalism has failed" says AOC and her crony capitalist allies at Amazon, Google, and Twitter. <i>Really? </i>Failed who? But, that's the growing consensus, leading to America-privileged, young, white fascists in the streets threatening to burn it all down. Half the country has Marxist sympathies, if not professing outright allegiance to the most murderous ideology of the 20th century, evidence be damned -- or, at least, ignored or memory-holed. </p><p>But, I haven't answered the question "why?" It's apparent to me the "consensus" is just one more bullying cudgel in the Left's arsenal. It's <i>intended</i> to shut up dissenters and stifle discussion. Because the Left isn't interested in persuasion -- it's only aim is <i><b>power</b></i>, which it currently has in abundance, God help us. It's what they mean when they say "<i>our</i> democracy" (is under threat from Trump and his supporters in dissent). It's what Hillary meant by her campaign motto, "stronger together" (subtext: join or die). It's why Michael Anton (and the rest of us election skeptics) is being persecuted for not agreeing to the 2020 election being "free and fair," despite acquiescing to the Biden presidency. Shut up. Shut up! <i>Shut up!! </i></p><p>This will not end well for any of us, even those who currently support the Left's effort to declare independent thinkers "domestic terrorists." The Left is insatiable in its quest for power, and ambiguity in defining its opponents will eventually lead to former allies becoming enemies of the state. It's impossible to keep up with the demands to conform when the definitions are constantly changing. They'll all become summer soldiers and sunshine patriots to the would-be tyrants of the Left sooner or later. </p><p>The rest of us shouldn't be surprised by any of this, though. We <i>know</i> where we stand right now in relation to the lefty Elect, and our position is precarious, my friends. We're <i>very</i> near the precipice.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>For an extra dose of doom and gloom, here's the Weekend Long Read at American Greatness:</p><p><a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/27/the-narrative-the-coup-and-the-bourgeoisie/">https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/27/the-narrative-the-coup-and-the-bourgeoisie/</a></p><p>BMGAA</p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-82640119953467444022021-02-22T09:29:00.002-07:002021-02-22T09:30:16.467-07:00The Imprudence of Joining the Mob<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/240000/velka/us-capitol-1508732884crV.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="800" height="215" src="https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/240000/velka/us-capitol-1508732884crV.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I know of no Trump supporter who believes President Trump is a paragon of virtue, despite all the accusations of a Trumpist cult of personality. I'm sure there are people who love him for his Honey Badger ferocity toward the globalist, status quo swamp creatures and are therefore forgiving of much of his boorishness. I might even be one of them. Does that make me a cultist? I appreciate the man, but I don't worship him, so I think not. However, this post is not a defense of Trump from Trump critics Left and Right. It's a <i>criticism </i>of conservatives who foolishly feed the Left's narrative and are therefore a drag on the efforts against the corporate fascist takeover of the country, at best, or are complicit in it at worst. <p></p><p>None of us like to have our actions described as foolish or a betrayal to the cause. But, conservatives, particularly religious ones, have a realistic take on broken human nature, and understand that we all have failings which mature and virtuous people have to fess up to at times. Three of the most important words strung together in the English language are, "I was wrong." This understanding of the human condition is the very ground of the separation of- and limitations on- the powers of government enshrined in the American Constitution that conservatives claim to love so dearly.</p><p>Which is why Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, and Liz Cheney among others were <i>so very wrong</i> to align with Democrats on the impeachment and removal of <i>former </i>President Donald Trump. In fact, <i>anytime </i>a conservative finds himself in agreement with the Left on <i>any </i>issue, he should reconsider his position or finally admit he's changed his affiliation, a la Arianna Huffington and Joe Scarborough. I can think of <i>nothing</i> which leftists have gotten right, from solutions to racism (personal virtue) to social justice to immigration to abortion to the minimum wage to climate change to free speech to gun rights to foreign policy. . . There's <i>nothing</i> notable leftists and conservatives can or should agree on. </p><p>There's <i>nothing</i> leftists have admitted as failures of their ideas nor is there any destructive policy for which they've suffered political consequences either, no matter how damaging to people they're ostensibly trying to help. Thomas Sowell identifies the root of this obstinate denial of reality as the enormous "ego-stakes" of intellectuals, whose "end product is ideas." And as Fr. Longenecker says, you know the People of the Lie by their refusal to <i>ever </i>admit they're wrong and by their masterful non-apology apologies. Think Andrew Cuomo's "I'm sorry people were lead to believe I did anything wrong" with regard to nursing home COVID deaths in New York. Shamelessness is a feature of the Left, not a bug. </p><p>Now, I understand Decorum Conservatives' discomfort with Donald Trump's rude New York manner and his difficulty (<i>ahem, </i>understatement alert) in fitting into the "presidential" mold. I was one of <i>them</i>, too, when this whole thing began. And I know of the DC's distaste for MAGA Trump supporters' reluctance to <i>ever </i>criticize the man. But, I think we have reached the point where it must be acknowledged Donald Trump received a <i>tsunami </i>of criticism, repeatedly daily -- hourly, minutely! -- from the People of the Lie. You could even say the frenzy of criticism -- obscuring anything he ever accomplished, which was <i>a lot</i> -- was/is an ugly <i>mob </i>of sanctimony and deceit (Russia Hoax, Charlottesville, fascist dictator, Capitol "insurrection," . . .). And it's never wise to join a mob, even one with which you agree ideologically. Just ask the Capitol trespassers. </p><p>Speaking of which, have you ever known an insurrection to take place within the velvet rope lines of a Capitol building? Did those "insurrectionists" look like your typical MAGA patriots? Did you see Viking Man occupying the dais and think to yourself, "Yep, there's yer standard Trump supporter in action?" My engineering background makes me a "show-me" skeptic about most things. But, witnessing the repeated lies about Donald Trump (plus "climate change," Bill and Hillary's innocence, "systemic" racism, failures of capitalism, America as a 1619 slave state, "peaceful" BLM/antifa protests . . .) leads me to believe <i>nothing</i> presented by the corporate fascists in media, academia, Big Tech, and government upon first (second or third. . .) inspection. After the last five plus years (decades) of leftwing lies aimed at grasping at power, and largely succeeding, I'm in agreement with Jesse Kelly that <i><a href="https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/18/the-first-step-towards-righting-america-is-refusing-to-believe-the-left-about-anything/" target="_blank">The First Step Towards Righting America is Refusing to Believe the Left About Anything.</a></i></p><p>It's finally coming out that the "five people murdered" at the Capitol on January 6 stemming from the "deadly insurrection" for which Donald Trump was impeached weren't actually "<i>murdered</i>." Surprise! Even the Capitol Hill cop who died (cause of death remains unannounced, suspiciously) was confirmed <i>not </i>to have died from blunt force trauma (the fire extinguisher lie). You would think it significant that he died the next day, after texting with his brother the night of the 6th. But, that little factoid has been obscured, too. </p><p>I'm not defending what happened that day as a good thing or even morally acceptable. I <i>am</i> saying the <i>reaction </i>to it, like the whole of Trump's presidency, was hysterical and is being used as a cudgel to beat President Trump and his 74 million voters into submission. I'm also saying, given the events of the 2020 summer of lawlessness, and the corporate fascists' tacit if not outright support for it, the Capitol trespass was <i>totally </i>predictable. Whenever tens of thousands of "mostly peaceful" protestors take to the streets, there will always be a few lunatics who make everything worse. And I'll add, it could have been <i>a lot</i> worse (and would have been if it had been Antifa's protest). After all, it's not like four Puerto Rican separatists stormed the Capitol and shot up a bunch of congressmen, as happened in 1954. The only gun I know of that was discharged was the law enforcement officer's pistol that killed Ashli Babbitt, tragically, but not without justification. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. </p><p>Which brings me finally to the politics of prudence and Rand Paul, as discussed by Jeremy Carl's excellent, <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/18/in-undermining-trump-gop-senators-rejected-the-politics-of-prudence/" target="_blank">In Undermining Trump, GOP Senators Rejected the Politics of Prudence</a>. Would you have guessed Senator Paul, who's been an outspoken supporter of the President at key moments and who has <i>literally</i> been attacked in the streets of DC for it, would have a lower "Trump Score" (538's measure) than <i>Ben Sasse</i>, based on his voting record? Have you considered also that Rand Paul got more of what he wanted from President Trump policy-wise (troops out of Afghanistan, tax and healthcare reform, . . .)? I'm libertarian-sympathetic, but not a Rand Paul libertarian (I don't think), in that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist and I don't think all wars are unjust, but rather I'm concerned with how they're conducted and what the end goal is. But, the <i>wisdom</i> of Rand Paul in knowing his enemy (the Left) and refusing to kneecap his party's leader makes me admire him and want to take a closer look at his positions. I have <i>no use</i> for the "Sanctimonious Seven." As Carl says,</p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px;">Contra the NeverTrump Lilliputians, getting along with Trump required sacrificing neither one’s integrity nor one’s vote. It simply required using political intelligence and prudence—understanding where, and how, one could push on an issue without feeding the ravenous Anti-Trump media, which is always happy to trade a patina of temporary “respectability” (witness their recent fawning coverage of Cheney) to any politician willing to undermine the core interests of GOP voters.</span></p></blockquote><p>Trump supporters should get a good laugh out of Liz <i>Cheney </i>being the new media darling. We might if she and the other useful idiots weren't so damaging to the cause, pissing away our liberties for their sanctimonious virtue signaling. I repeat, it's <i>never </i>wise to join the mob -- particularly if it's a lefty one. </p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-81278207025295649552021-02-05T12:58:00.003-07:002021-02-05T13:09:25.045-07:00'Immortal Combat' Addendum: Reflections on the Gospel of Mark<p style="text-align: center;"> <u><span style="color: #990000;">A reading from the holy Gospel according to Mark 6:7-13</span></u></p><p></p><blockquote><span>Jesus summoned the Twelve two by two and gave them authority over unclean spirits. He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick -- no food, no sack, no money in their belts. They were, however, to wear sandals but not a second tunic. He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from there. Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them." So they went off and preached repentance. The Twelve drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them. </span></blockquote><blockquote><p>The Gospel of the Lord</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: center;"> <span style="color: #990000;">_________________________________________________________________________</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></p><p>The following is a meditation by Sister Ruth Burrows, O.C.D. She is a Carmelite nun at Quidenham in Norfolk, England. I found it well-aligned with Fr. Longenecker's book</p><p style="text-align: center;">Nothing for the Journey but Jesus</p><p>Deep in us all is the will to power, the will to control the world, to control people in order to serve our own ends. Our own ends may seem modest indeed, little more than self-preservation; nevertheless the ego standing behind this modest need has a rapacity far outstripping its claim. It is a mistake to think it is only powerful personalities that are involved. The drive may be more obvious in them but it is there every bit as much in the weak. . . The way to God for all of us requires on our part an unselfish generosity in the efforts we must make towards it in accepting the work of God, who reaches down to our entrails to wrest us from our selfish selves.</p><p>In reality these two aspects intertwine. God is always working to bring us to an awareness and acceptance of our poverty, which is the essential condition of our being able to receive him, and the petty frustrations, the restriction, the humiliations, the occasions when we are made to feel poignantly and distressingly hedged around, not in control of the world, not even in control of that tiny corner of it we are supposed to call our own, are his chosen channel into the soul. It is the one who has learned to bow his head, to accept the yoke, who knows what freedom is. </p><p>No one who has read the Gospel seriously can think that this counsel of Jesus means a passive, cowardly "I'm-a-door-mat-walk-over-e" attitude. He always remains our example. He accepted as none other ever can the essential poverty of the human condition and the working out of that in everyday life. . . Only living faith can see this. It means really embracing Jesus, really believing in the Son of Man.</p><p><u> </u></p><p>From the Magnificat magazine, Thursday, February 4, 2021</p><p></p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-91511206332571432442021-02-05T09:57:00.003-07:002021-02-07T11:04:27.322-07:00Why No One is Afraid of Joe Biden's "Catholicism" -- Except Faithful Catholics<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/53459/updateVDARE-wilton-gregory-biden.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="750" height="225" src="https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/53459/updateVDARE-wilton-gregory-biden.png" width="400" /></a></div>Have you ever wondered why there's no outcry about Joe Biden's "Catholicism" by non-Catholics and, in fact, his administration touts his strong "faith" at the daily press briefing whenever a Catholic outlet asks about a deeply anti-Catholic policy? "<i>He goes to Mass regularly with his family! Why, he even attended Mass this very morning!!</i>" Right before he signed the EO to force every American to pay for abortions at home and overseas, including his fellow Catholics. Formal cooperation with evil much there Joe?<p></p><p>Kamala Harris had a <i>big</i> problem with Trump's nominee to the federal bench who was a member of the "extremist" Catholic group, Knights of Columbus. Of course, the Knights of Columbus is a global charitable organization founded to serve the working poor and immigrants. It is probably one of the largest, most genuinely beneficial charitable institutions in the world. But, it is <i>anathema</i> to VP Harris.</p><p>When Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court, Democrats characterized her as one of <i>The Handmaids Tale's</i> oppressed breeders, in addition to being a racial imperialist for adopting two black children from Haiti. Barrett's excellence as a wife and mother, a professor of law, and a jurist could not overcome her insufferable orthodox adherence to a faith that teaches the dignity and infinite preciousness of every human life from conception to natural death, the biological reality that He made them man and woman, the radical self-donation of man to woman and woman to man in <i>holy </i>matrimony (without withholding <i>anything</i>, including the God-given faculty of reproduction), and the Real Presence -- body, blood, soul, and divinity -- of Jesus Christ in Eucharist -- unlike Joe Biden's "Catholicism." </p><p>I don't know Joe Biden's interior life; only God knows that. But, his public life would seem to indicate he's a modernist heretic -- by <i>Catholic</i> standards. What is modernism? It's the Mother of all Heresies. It is rooted in subjectivism. It's a close cousin of relativism and the postmodernism which absolutely denies the existence of absolute truth, unironically. And, like feminism (which is really leftism dressed up in a vulva costume), it finds its home in <i>leftism</i>. Its basic tenet is that there's no immutable truth. The one "ism" it assuredly <i>isn't </i>is Catholicism. No, the princes and principalities of this world aren't threatened by Joe Biden's "Catholicism" in the least.</p><p>But, Joe Biden isn't the modernist heretic that distresses me and other adherent Catholics the most. It's the modernist <i>bishops</i> and priests that make us want to rend our garments. And I have one in particular in mind: Joe Biden's bishop, Cardinal Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Washington DC. </p><p>Even some Catholics might wish to believe our objection to Gregory is political in nature. He was an outspoken critic of President Trump and aligned himself with Joe Biden early and often. I'm not inclined to review the specifics, but I will say I object to his behaviors on these matters based on prudence and justice, it's true.</p><p>Others might believe we find Gregory repulsive because of his personal corruption and his association with the disgustingly wicked, now laicized former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was Gregory's mentor. I <i>am</i> disgusted by any prelate who would spend diocesan funds to build himself an extravagant palace and then have to sell it after the public outcry. [I'm equally disgusted that Pope Francis would elevate such a man to Cardinal after the facts were known to enhance his own "diversity" virtue by appointing the "first" African-American Cardinal, when Pope Francis overlooked the opportunity to elevate the eminently worthy (but too conservative?) "first" Native-American Archbishop Charles Chaput)].</p><p>But, what I find <i>horrifying</i> about Gregory is his unconcern with Joe Biden's <i>soul </i>as his appointed shepherd. It is literally a priest's <i>vocation </i>to guide souls to heaven. It should be his <i>avocation</i>, too. Something he enjoys doing. <i>At best</i>, Gregory appears to be indifferent to the state of Joe Biden's soul. He offers him Communion knowing that receiving Eucharist in a state of mortal sin (like formally cooperating in the grave evil of abortion) is eating judgment upon oneself. Gregory balances his <i>supposed </i>disagreement with Biden on abortion with his agreement with him on open borders immigration. As if denying people unfettered access to our country is in any way the moral equivalent of murdering nearly a million unborn babies every year. It's particularly repulsive that a black man would make light of abortion given that Planned Parenthood has killed more blacks than any other organization in American history. It's a genocide.</p><p>If Gregory were just lukewarm it would be bad enough, and worthy of him being spat out. But, it's much worse than that. He's bringing scandal to the Church:</p><p></p><blockquote>Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to 'social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.' </blockquote><p></p><p>Cardinal Gregory not only refuses to counsel Joe Biden on the gravity of his scandalous behavior and formal cooperation with evil (with the <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/04/joe-bidens-unrepentant-abortion-policies-are-grounds-for-excommunication/" target="_blank">implied risk of excommunication</a>), he invites him to receive Eucharist -- the Source and Summit of the Faith. It's prelates like Gregory who will be the demise of the American Church (Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail, but He didn't promise to preserve the Church in the West, and by all appearances, He isn't saving Christendom from itself). It's Cardinal Gregory who has succumbed to modernism and its lefty politics. Joe Biden's isn't the only soul Cardinal Gregory should be worried about. He should look to his own as well.</p><p>Jesus came with a dividing sword. There are those of the Kingdom and those of the world. Joe Biden and his "shepherd" have joined the world, and that's why no one <i>of the world</i> is afraid of Biden's "Catholicism." Only <i>faithful </i>Christians are scandalized by it. </p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-49259430588885799352021-02-02T12:08:00.010-07:002021-02-07T09:10:01.705-07:00Why I Reject the Doctrine of Sustainability, and You and the Church Should Too<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #2b2b2b; font-family: Merriweather, serif; font-size: 16px;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.nuenergy.org/uploads/environmental-sustainability-examples.jpeg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="571" data-original-width="800" height="286" src="https://www.nuenergy.org/uploads/environmental-sustainability-examples.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><div>Back in May [2015], I noticed an article on CRISIS magazine’s website that I knew I wouldn’t have the</div><div>proper time to devote to reading. It was titled, <i><a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/what-does-sustainability-really-mean" target="_blank">What Does “Sustainability” Really Mean?</a></i>, so I added it to my menu bar for later perusal. It was worth the wait.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Sustainability” is one of those watchwords which has found common usage across the political spectrum. On the left, it typically raises concerns about the environmental impact of humans using limited natural resources like water and fossil fuels. On the right, there’s more worry over the sustainability of a government or economic system burdened by $18 trillion of debt. Having read William M. Briggs’s excellent article hasn’t changed my mind about the latter, but it has given me pause about the concept of sustainability generally. There’s just so much we simply don’t (and can’t) know.</div><div><br /></div><div>What are the known unknowns? Well, for starters, how much of the finite resource is currently available? Then, what will be the demand for the currently desired effect in the future (somewhat population dependent — another unknown)? Finally, will there be a replacement technology developed or some other factor which changes the rate of usage? Here’s how Briggs puts it:</div><blockquote><div>The calculation is complicated. To decide if a non-renewable resource is unsustainable depends on how much of it there is, the changing rate of its use, and the number of people expected in the future. It also hinges on whether the non-renewable will remain non-renewable, that a substitute for the non-renewable will not be discovered, and that the effect caused by use of the non-renewable will always be desired. We must know all these things, else the point at which we run out of the non-renewable will be unknown. If we do not know all these things, it is wrong to claim use of a resource is “unsustainable.”</div></blockquote><p>Ah, problems with limited information and an inability to predict the future duly noted. But, how does this relate to the Catholic Church, you may ask?</p><p>People. The Church’s concern is with people and their relationship to the Divine — something any fair-minded observer of the environmental sustainability movement will admit is incompatible with its goal of “minimal impact” on Pure Nature. In the New Manicheanism of environmentalism, people are the problem of evil. All would be right with Nature if it weren’t for dirty, rotten, filthy, wasteful people. <i>Ptui!</i></p><p>It’s somewhat shocking then to learn that the Pontifical Academy for Science (PAS) has used the term “sustainable population” unironically. By doing so, it accepts the false premise that people and nature are separate with opposing interests, and it calls into question the PAS’s dedication to the idea of just Who Is the Author of Life. <i>Whose side are they on anyway?!</i></p><p>This is where Malthus is usually invoked. But Briggs is helpful in explaining how we get Malthus wrong:</p><blockquote><p>It is not that more people are encroaching upon more food sources, it is that more food leads to more people. Plentiful, cheap, and nutritious food caused, or rather allowed, the increase. Think: if there is not enough food, there cannot be an increase in population! It follows there cannot be “too many” people.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Briggs further explains there cannot be too many people in either the scientific or eschatological sense. He quotes Father Schall:</p><div><blockquote>The root of the “sustainability mission,” I suspect, is the practical denial of eternal life. “Sustainability” is an alternative to lost transcendence. It is what happens when suddenly no future but the present one exists. The only “future” of mankind is an on-going planet orbiting down the ages. It always does the exact same, boring thing. This view is actually a form of despair. Our end is the preservation of the race down the ages, not personal eternal life. </blockquote></div><div>“Sustainability” as it is commonly used by environmentalists is not just incompatible with the mission and ethic of the Church, it’s incompatible with the truth. Which is really a way of saying the same thing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Pope Francis uses the word “sustainable” in its various forms over two dozen times in his environmental encyclical <i>Laudato Si</i>. This is a mistake. Sustainability is a false doctrine which should be rejected by the Church.</div><div><br /></div><div>It will take me at least another six months to figure out if conservatives should also reject the idea of economic/fiscal sustainability. A little help?</div><div><br /></div><div>--------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>Originally published on Ricochet on October 16, 2015 under the title, <i>Why the Doctrine of Sustainability is Anti-Catholic and the Pope Should Reject It.</i></div>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-11179318061609271172021-02-01T10:55:00.003-07:002021-02-10T07:24:02.325-07:00‘Immortal Combat,’ Triumph of the Secret Son: One Priest’s Insight into 2020 (Part 3)<p>F<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">r. Longenecker managed to give me a whole new perspective on the Gospel texts by explaining the frequently-told narrative of the secret son conquering evil by his hiddenness, his humility, and, ultimately, his self-sacrifice. Recall the </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">many </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">stories where the “secret son” triumphs in this way: Luke Skywalker, Clark Kent, Frodo Baggins, Peter Parker, . . .even Neo of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Matrix</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and Dorothy of Oz and Kansas. </span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-e1e85874-7fff-cd48-1ce0-c9666cd90eca"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course, the comparisons with Jesus are limited since He is the Divine Son disguised as the son of man. Fr. Longecker explains that we so often get Jesus wrong because we look at what He </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">did </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(and end up fashioning Him to look a lot like us with all our good intentions), rather than who He </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">is</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. And as Fr. L says, if you really want to know who someone is, the question to ask is, “</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">what would they die for?”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jesus died to take away the Sin of the World described in the earlier chapters of Fr. Longenecker’s book (and in my previous posts). As John the Baptist says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” The Sin of the World being our (misuse of) power, the resultant pride and prejudice, and Resentment, Rivalry, and Revenge. Fr. L says, “He was the One who was to come. The Suffering Servant. The scapegoat. The Passover Lamb. . . He was Isaac’s substituted ram. He came into this world to be the wounded warrior. . . .He came secretly and silently, and kept the secret silence of His mission right up until the final week of His life.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Think of all the times in the Gospels when Jesus would heal the sick, cast out demons, and even undergo the Transfiguration, and would ask the witnesses not to tell anyone. He spoke often of His “hour” not yet come. Until reading this book, I was always mystified that He’d speak of this to His mother before performing His first miracle at the wedding feast of Cana. What “hour” was He referring to if it wasn’t His public ministry and accompanying miracles? Why so secret about who He is (Is)? Well, as it turns out, when you’re fighting ultimate evil -- sin and death -- you’d best do it undercover until you’re ready for the Big Reveal. In Jesus’ case, it would occur in His Passion and Resurrection. But, He had to die in order to triumph over Death. It’s what He </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">lived </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">for. It’s who He </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given who He Is, what should our imitation of Christ look like? Nothing like Antifa and BLM, that’s for sure! Think of the many great saints in their hidden labors: the hermits hiding in the desert or mountainside caves devoting their lives to prayer; the priests consumed with provision of the sacraments to poor sinners, and the nuns serving the materially poor and sick; the laborers in the field laying down their lives for the Kingdom -- “the harvest is great and the laborers are few.” Even Old Testament saints who became famous in salvation history started out in secret. Moses was hidden in the rushes of the Nile as an infant and, even though he became a Prince of Egypt, he ended up a shepherd whose real mission began with an encounter with the Burning Bush. Joseph, the favored son of Jacob, was sold into slavery by his brothers and was presumed dead until his family discovered he’d found favor with pharaoh (and more importantly, God) and was providentially positioned to save them from famine. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The examples are too numerous to cite (and God’s greatest creation deserves a post of her own), but for us the message is clear:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“To engage in the battle, we will not trumpet our plans or complain about the evil in the world or the Church. We will not organize activists, publish papers, or plan a great campaign. To start, we will roll up our sleeves and do what we can with what we have, where we are. [Saint Theresa of Calcutta’s “do what’s in front of you."]</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We will go incognito. We will be princes of the kingdom disguised as paupers -- God’s secret agents in the world. This is how we will fit into His battle plan.”</span></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What does it mean to “walk in the Way of the Lamb?” In the faith in which the “central image” is of the “crucified man?” “Because the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus demolishes the Sin of the World from the inside out, the Church keeps the image of that profound and astounding victory as her central focus.” Living according to the Law of Self-giving means “giving our lives as a secret and small sacrifice.” When we live in, with, and through Christ, we can be assured that every authentic prayer and good work is part of His triumph over evil.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To engage effectively in Immortal Combat, our daily prayer should be, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, Living Lamb of God, have mercy on me, a sinner! Here I am, standing before You. Just as I am, without one plea, O Lamb of God, I come.” </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And why is this effective? Because “faith” is ultimately more than trying hard to convince oneself of something incredible, or assenting intellectually to certain doctrines, or trusting in God’s protection and provision, although it’s those things, too. But, it is through </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">repentance </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">-- admitting our brokenness and need for redemption -- that power, pride, prejudice, Resentment, Rivalry, and Revenge are destroyed. It’s what Christ did on the Cross by becoming the Sin of the World in our place. We imitate Him by laying down our lives in repentance and love. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Fr. L describes the ten Swords of the Spirit a Christian is given for the fight in this Immortal Combat, which I will briefly review:</span></p><br /><ol style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-inline-start: 48px;"><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sacraments</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: the seven Sacraments are “outward signs instituted by Christ for imparting grace.” Christ came to establish a Church and the ordained ministers of that Church have as their vocation the duty and the privilege of sacrificial service to the faithful. In the case of marriage, sacrificial service is to our spouses and families. This is how we participate in the Cross and resurrection of Christ.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sacred Scripture</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Fr. L encourages us to read the Bible daily and memorize Scripture, “for the words of Sacred Scripture are powerful weapons in the spiritual battle." “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel; he has come to his people and set them free. "</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Small</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Be small and hidden, for only those like little children will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Be small as a mustard seed, because smallness makes us authentically who we are. And by becoming who God made us to be, we become powerful.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Secret</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Fr. L says the real action takes place in secret, even though the Church has a very visible, public presence. “This secret life is the true life of the Christian warrior. It is there, in secret, that we draw closer to the Lord Jesus. It is in contemplation and the mystery of the Mass that we come to identify with the Crucified and so become living conduits of Christ’s victory in the world.” This is a winning strategy because Satan doesn’t “do” secret. He can’t fathom humility.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sacrifice</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Satan is also baffled by the Law of Self Sacrifice. “When we live out the Faith in a practical, sacrificial way we are living out the victory of the Cross, and each action of self-sacrifice, no matter how small is one more stroke of the sword of sacrifice in the everlasting battle."</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Simplicity</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Fr. L says simplicity is a form of honesty. “Simplicity of speech allows no lies.” And, “simplicity of life is the art of loving all things according to their worth.” "The saint is not an extraordinary person, but an ordinary person who has become all that God created them to be.”</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Steadfast</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: “Nothing great was ever accomplished quickly.” “What is required of us is patience, hard work, and the ability to never give up. Ever.” “Being steadfast in the midst of hardship, disappointment, and failure is the mark of a saint. This is the sign of what the Church calls ‘heroic virtue.’” </span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Silence</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: The faculty of speech is given for expressing truth and reason. When no one is listening (for instance, in discourse with a committed leftist), the answer is silence. Silence is also the means of contemplative prayer and “abiding in the truth of Jesus Christ who went to the Cross mute as a lamb to the slaughter.”.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Supernatural</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: Immortal Combat is supernatural by nature -- a fight with principalities and powers of the world. We need to keep this in mind. We should remember, therefore, that “we can do nothing by our own strength,” but only through grace."</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Suffering</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: One of my favorite stories of Pope Saint John Paul the Great was when he was working his way down a reception line of young priests, one of whom had a broken ankle in a cast. He asked the Holy Father to pray for him in his suffering, upon which JPII thunked him on the head and said, “</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Don’t waste your suffering</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.” Fr. L says, “it is in suffering that we are most fully unified with the Crucified.” It is </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">only </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">through Jesus that we find meaning in our suffering -- for the redemption of the whole world.</span></p></li></ol><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">The central division between the secular humanist Left and the religious Right is this: the Left is full of <i>self</i>-righteousness (they are as gods, deciding right and wrong and imposing their "moral" authority on us) and is therefore undeterred in the exercise of raw power over others. The activism we saw in the streets in the summer of 2020 and the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Democrats now in power is because they're <i>so very convinced</i> they're right and it's up to <i>them </i>to fix the world -- to immanentize the eschaton. The religious Right believes the world is only improved when we fix ourselves first -- when we submit to a Higher Moral Authority. These two worldviews are utterly incompatible, and the Left is currently exercising all manner of power over us, which leftists simply are <i>incapable</i> of recognizing as persecution of innocents. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">The good news is Truth and Charity win out in the end. The Light has come into the world, and darkness shall not overcome it. Keep the faith.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">UPDATE: Adding this 8.5 minute video of Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager in which they agree with me about the right/left difference.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mzLFZBb-n5U" width="320" youtube-src-id="mzLFZBb-n5U"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div></span>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-77777191456645476652021-01-28T12:08:00.008-07:002021-02-04T10:47:32.245-07:00'Immortal Combat,' the Gorgons and Geryon: One Priest's Insight into 2020 (Part 2)<p> I was reminded of Fr. Longenecker's book and my first crack at it in the post, <i><a href="http://westernchauvinist.blogspot.com/2021/01/immortal-combat-and-cerberus-unleashed.html" target="_blank">Immortal Combat and Cerberus Unleashed: One Priest's Insight into 2020</a></i>, after listening to Andrew Klavan answer a mailbag question yesterday. He addressed a secular Jew who was reading his book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Great-Good-Thing-Secular-Christ/dp/071801734X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+great+good+thing&qid=1611857132&sr=8-1">The Great Good Thing</a></i>, about his own conversion to Christianity, and who was questioning whether his experiences were really coincidences or were God-directed. Klavan answered at length, but he began by saying, "The narrative of materialism is so powerful that you can't <i>talk </i>about the supernatural without sounding like a lunatic, even to yourself." I <i>know </i>this is how I sound to non-believers, because I was one once, and Klavan is right: I sound nuts even to myself.</p><p>This is why I find Fr. Longenecker's book so valuable. As westerners, Madonna had it right when she said we live in a "material world," but it's also true that we accept that fiction and myth can teach us about reality. Novelist Andrew Klavan would agree. Fr. Longenecker uses this to great advantage by engaging our imaginations. </p><p>In the first part of the book, Fr. L writes about the three-headed Hound of Hell, representing power, pride, and prejudice. In the middle chapters, he takes up the mythical figures of Medusa and her sisters, the Gorgons, to reveal the next unholy trinity of fallen human nature: Resentment, Rivalry, and Revenge.</p><p>He purposely capitalizes the three R's because he wants us to consider that Resentment isn't some temporary peevishness at some slight. It's a way of life. He writes, "It is the repeated reliving of a negative emotion. It is a deep-seated cycle of anger in a person's life. It is relentless restlessness and discontent that comes from our power, pride, and prejudice being frustrated." He calls it the "Resentment loop." And like looking into the face of Medusa, it hardens us and allows us to justify cruelty to others. </p><p>Dennis Prager has long described this as the poisonous effect of the victim mentality. But, Fr. L goes even further and explains <i>why we enjoy it</i>: In the Resentment loop, "we are asserting ourselves over our rival. We feel powerful again. In our minds, we prove that we are right, and they are wrong. Our pride is fed. Our prejudices have been proven. We prevail. We are omnipotent again, and that feels good. Very good. . . Resentment becomes the motivating factor in our life." And If we're busy blaming others for our unhappiness -- which, even if accurate (there really are victims of mistreatment), resentment is self-destructive -- we aren't very adept at assessing our own culpability.</p><p>Sidebar: this is why the Christian notion that "we're all sinners" is so essential to civil society. A people who are preoccupied with putting their own house in order do not wish to assert dominance over others. They're practicing the conservative ideal of personal responsibility (through self-reflection, or what Catholics call the "examination of conscience") and are amenable to limited, separated powers of government, understanding that <i>no one</i> is qualified to tell others how to live. Drew Klavan describes this in his answer to his pen pal as acting "in humility," knowing that there's a (supernatural) reality beyond our ability to comprehend. Or, as I said in my first post, practicing self-doubt.</p><p>Now, once a powerless person enters the Resentment loop, he relieves his frustration by expanding both the target of his resentment and by gathering with others into a Resentment group. "His unhappiness isn't 'caused by 'that woman,' but by all women. Her problem was not caused by 'that rich white man,' but by all rich white men. Their problem was not caused by 'that Hispanic or African American or Jew or Catholic, or Muslim,' but by <i>all </i>Hispanics, African Americans, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims." And by forming a group of the resentful (BLM, Antifa), the Resentful has more power -- "stronger together," as a certain failed Democrat nominee for president declaimed. </p><p>"The Resentment group is not satisfied with discussion and debate. They want action. They need to go to war against the enemy. They develop an identity and demand change -- and all of it fueled by Resentment." In other words, they become <i>activists</i>. I think Fr. L may be onto something, she says dryly.</p><blockquote><p>When the resentful form into a collective mob, it is truly frightening to see. Their Resentment and rage render them <i><b>irrational</b></i>. There is no discussion with the slaves of Medusa. They are obsessed with their righteous crusade because it has become the source of their <i><b>self-esteem</b></i>. Unwilling to compromise, they are driven by an <i><b>unholy energy</b></i>. Like the living dead they stagger on, never stopping, never resting, always seeking Revenge. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>They can never be appeased because they do not want their problem solved. <i><b>They do not want the problem to be solved because their Resentment has become the only source of meaning in their lives</b></i>." [emphasis mine]</p></blockquote><p>Ouch.</p><p>Before leaving the Gorgon sisters for even darker images, Fr. L makes one more important point: the religious zeal with which the Resentment group pursues their crusade makes them feel noble and heroic. And it is under the guise of good works -- "social justice" -- they act out on their Resentment. I have some personal experience with this in my interaction with what Fr. L calls a "religious Resentment" group called JustFaith (which is connected with Jim Wallis of lefty-evangelical Sojourners notoriety, who has been in the news recently <a href="https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/25/jim-wallis-canceled-for-not-being-anti-catholic-enough-n824430" target="_blank">for being canceled and removed from his own publication for not being anti-Catholic enough</a>). </p><p>Several other conservative Catholics and I joined a pilot program with JustFaith many years ago to discuss the moral implications of the federal budget. When I questioned if the "socialist" justice ideas the group had for the budget were actually doing good, the mask slipped from the leader's face. I contend this moment when the pious lefty Christian "shocks you with a snarl instead of the usual smile" and "his eyes flash" and "you are turned to stone," is the moment you've struck on a truth he doesn't "handle" well, as Colonel Jessup might say.</p><p>Which brings us to Geryon, the guardian of Dante's eighth circle of hell, where the fakers, the cons, and the hypocrites reside. Where the damned are so convinced of their righteousness, they perpetually question why their golden robes are lined with lead. These are the People of the Lie. And the horrifying part about them is their monstrous form is disguised with the face of an honest man or woman. "Indeed, they often have a respectable face of a member of the establishment. The 'honest' face is smiling and charming. The face has good manners. The face is courteous and polite. The face is well educated. The face is caring. The face is pious. The face is even prayerful and serene. . . Judas himself had the face of an honest man." Maybe even more terrifying is that we're <i>all </i>People of the Lie. We all want to be seen as righteous crusaders for truth or justice, no matter how distorted our view of reality is.</p><p>Fr. L says you can spot the People of the Lie because they <i>never </i>admit they're wrong (Nancy Pelosi's spa scandal comes to mind. -- she actually blamed the salon owner!), or they deflect from their errors, dismiss your attack, and "prove" their moral superiority with brazenness and skill (Democrats' failure to quell the violence of their voters is Trump's fault). It's <i>always </i>someone else's fault. There's <i>always </i>a scapegoat. </p><p>Fr. L tells a couple of heartbreaking stories about kids of "respectable," churchgoing families who project their problems onto a "black sheep" child and ruin his or her life. The People of the Lie are capable of such cruelty because 1) they're self-deceiving 2) they project their own Resentment and rage onto others (Saul Alinsky's "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."), and 3) they are impervious to criticism. They are "experts at the fake apology" and "their failure cannot be their fault. Others must always be to blame." Wow, anyone else picking up on the resemblance to the left-wing movements Antifa and BLM?</p><p>But, it's even more common for the People of the Lie to "occupy the top jobs" rather than be rioting out in the streets. They are "the smooth, successful ones -- the media manipulators, the polite politicians, the urbane bankers, and the smiling socialites. They are the pastors with pleasant faces, the bishops and cardinals with slick diocesan systems, and the smooth prelates in scarlet robes. . . They are charming and sophisticated. They are suave and svelte, respectable and smooth. They are powerful and persuasive, but deep within they are the sons and daughters of perdition. Their father is the Father of Lies, and they are the People of the Lie, and there is no human cure for them."</p><p>I wanted to quote the former at length to contrast Obama and Trump. Does anyone really think Trump, the quintessential Ugly American, wears the mask of shape-shifting Geryon? How about Obama, whom Joe Biden called "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy?" I credit Trump with being an <i>authentic </i>sinner rather than a fraudulent saint.</p><p>Before getting to God's supernatural solution as explained by Fr. L in Part 3, we have to go all the way down into the pit of hell of human depravity with Geryon, because "the perceptions and behaviors of the People of the Lie are basic to our humanity. This is the Sin of the World" which Jesus came to take away.</p><p>Power, pride, and prejudice lead us to Resentment, Rivalry, and Revenge, which ultimately end in self-deception, projection, groupthink, scapegoating, and eventually, murderous tribal mobs. Activism in pursuit of "social justice" (never just "justice") becomes a religious crusade complete with warrior heroes and martyrs. War, whether metaphorical or literal, is a means of unifying and inspiring the Resentment group. However, there is no possibility of a perfect union based on lies, so those who stand out as unique -- whether because they're eccentrics or disabled, or even particularly talented or intelligent (think Socrates) -- must eventually be purged from the group. What we call "eating their own." And it must be done violently to appease the gods and as a deterrent to other non-conformists. </p><p>Ironically, Fr. L says "we may not burn witches at the stake or wheel out the guillotine, . . ." But, he wrote this book last year (2019) and didn't anticipate the vicious hatred of the President, who was guillotined in effigy at one of the protests recently. Can the real executions of political opponents be far behind? I <i>know</i>. Don't answer that.</p><p>We become habituated to this cycle of sin and violence such that anytime a new crisis arises (Chinese flu), we "solve" our problem with blood sacrifices and scapegoats. Cain had no remorse for murdering Abel (out of resentment). In fact, he snarkily replied to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Remember Obama badly distorting this story to mean the opposite? Was that ignorance or a lie?</p><p>"Eventually the dynamic of lies reaches a climax. The dark cauldron boils over, and violence erupts. And the system of sacrifice is the way the society of lies channels the violence." Today, it's the police and whites (mostly white men) designated as the sacrificial victims -- the scapegoats. It's different from when the Jews would designate a literal scapegoat on the Day of Atonement and send it out into the desert with the people's sins attached to it. There is <i>no admission of guilt</i> in our society of lies. Only blame-shifting.</p><p>This is why the Baptist preached repentance -- "make straight the way of the Lord," and God Himself provided the blood sacrifice in Jesus. There is hope. Stay tuned for Part 3.</p><p>-----------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>First published on September 11, 2020 on Ricochet. Reproduced here with some edits in anticipation of Part 3.</p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-31209263058020732922021-01-26T15:01:00.002-07:002021-01-27T20:27:16.936-07:00"Immortal Combat" and Cerberus Unleashed: One Priest's Insight into 2020<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/9lUAAOSw~INe7wqv/s-l640.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="326" height="320" src="https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/9lUAAOSw~INe7wqv/s-l640.png" width="206" /></a></div>Fr. Dwight Longenecker dated the Introduction to his book, <i>Immortal Combat: Confronting the Heart of Darkness</i>, October 31, 2019. Was he divinely inspired, prophetic, or did he just have a foretaste of the societal crisis playing out in 2020 as indicated by the irrational hatred of President Trump and the bad behaviors of actors both Left and Right resulting from it?<p></p><p>Whatever the case, <i>Immortal Combat</i> is the best explanation for the position we find ourselves in I've read to date. As Fr. Longenecker says in his critique of therapeutic Christianity, "From the beginning to the end of time, the heart of the old, old story is not comfort, but conflict." He then proceeds to engage our imaginations to understand spiritual warfare using the Bible, Greek mythology, <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, and other popular culture references. Even Fluffy -- Harry Potter's three-headed Cerberus in <i>The Sorcerer's Stone</i> -- merits a mention. He says, </p><blockquote><p>We must go into those swamps and caves, for if Christianity is true, then it is the most astounding and revolutionary message ever to take humanity by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>It is desperately important in our age to speak in these terms because our moral imagination, on the one hand, is weak, pale, and sickly, while ironically, in the realm of popular culture, the mythical imagination is healthier than ever. The academic world is a dry husk of learned articles filled with jargon and footnotes, while in the world of movies, television, gaming, and fantasy literature, the imagination roars and soars. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>We must, therefore, use the imagination to dive like a spelunker into the depths of the underworld, then surface spluttering with joy, clutching the pearl of great price -- which is to truly grasp the mysterious meaning of Christ's sacrifice. </p></blockquote><p>You might think the obvious place to start exploring the conflict between good and evil would be in the Garden with The Fall of Adam and Eve. But, Fr. Longenecker reminds us the story of Lucifer and his rebellion predates humanity. He says the Bible itself is a "chronicle of war. It is the record of brutal, seemingly endless cosmic combat taking place in the gritty reality of human history." He reminds us of the warriors' stories told there: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Jael, Samson, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Saul, David, and Elijah. . .</p><p>But immortal combat didn't end there either. It didn't even end with Christ's victory for those of us inhabiting Satan's domain here on earth. Even "the history of our religion is one of war:" the Crusades, the Albigensian purges, the Thirty Years' War, the battles of Lepanto and Vienna, the brutalization and murder of martyrs and suspected martyrs. Fr. Longenecker doesn't let anyone off the hook; in fact, he reserves his harshest critique for the religious who serve at the command of the Father of Lies. </p><p>As for Jesus, he was no pacifist: "He recognized immediately who His real enemies were and called them out as a brood of vipers, hypocrites, sons of Satan, liars, and murderers. He said clearly that He did not come to bring peace but a sword, that He would baptize with fire, and following Him would mean separation from wife and children, mothers and fathers. To join Him is to join the forces of light against the powers of darkness." And no saint ever attained heroic virtue except by fighting the good fight. Even the Little Flower said on her deathbed, "I will die with my weapons in my hand!"</p><p>If you're convinced we're engaged in "total war," Fr. Longenecker helps us to get to know our enemy, and he does so by describing the Sin of the World that Jesus overcomes. He begins with Minotaur and the Labyrinth. "He has the virile power of the bull combined with the intelligence and pride of man. He blends the brute strength and malice of the bull with the cunning deception of a cruel and violent man. At once stubborn and aggressive, he is at the same time shrewd and brutally handsome. Most intriguing of all, Asterion the Minotaur <i>is hidden in the dark</i>." [emphasis mine]</p><p>This is key to understanding the Sin of the World (fallen human nature): we don't see it in ourselves. We think we're the hero, Theseus, sent in to rescue the innocents sacrificed to Asterion, but in actuality, we are the Minotaur lurking in the labyrinth with murderous intent. Do you doubt? Just wait, there's more.</p><p>Next Fr. L takes on the Dragon in the Garden. He heard from an exorcist, "A real exorcism. . is a knock-down, bare-knuckle, snarling, hand-to-hand combat with the devil. You fight amidst the stench of hell, and the worst of all is the fact that you lose track of where you are. You seem to be in a wilderness with no points of reference. There is no logic or reasoning. Nothing can be predicted and planned. You're wrestling on quicksand; everything slips and slides. There is no foothold. It is like grappling with an octopus in oil in the dark."</p><p>I wrote in the margin next to this paragraph, "Critical Theory." Sounds like it, doesn't it? No logic, no reason, disorienting in the extreme. I have said before that confronting a leftist with the truth is like having hold of an octopoidal creature that squirms and flails until it escapes. "There is no truth in him." It's horrifying.</p><p>We always have to remember the devil is a liar, first, foremost, and forever. "His realm is chaos and destruction." Does that sound like 2020 much?</p><p>Fr. L gives us a new way of understanding Original Sin. We often think it is Pride or disobedience, which it is. But, it comes because God has given us a share in His power -- the power to <i>choose</i>. He values our freedom to love so highly that he gives us the freedom (and the power) to sin. And the fallout from that power of choice is eternal. It was Adam and Eve's free will that made them believe they could be "as gods." To not just <i>know</i> what is good and evil, but to <i>decide for themselves!</i></p><p>"Embedded in this power to choose is a little red spark called 'desire.' . . . Desire is the engine of choice." And desire is the wrench the devil throws into the works. He corrupts our innocent desire for the good, the true, and the beautiful into something selfish. Something covetous. Something murderous. God becomes our rival and we desire to displace him. This longing to be our own gods (Fr. L calls it "imitation desire") is the murderous impulse we hide from ourselves. As T. S. Eliot said, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." </p><p>Which brings us to Cerberus, the three-headed Hound of Hell. Fr. L describes the three heads of Cerberus as representing power, pride, and prejudice. We've seen how the corruption of desire leads to poor uses of our power to choose and that our being "as gods" convinces us our choices are justified, but what do we mean by "pride?"</p><p>Fr. L says pride is the "total conviction I am right." And here I want to segue into a personal story about the importance of self-doubt.</p><p>My sister, Trink, and I are separated by fifteen years and we've lived over a thousand miles apart for most of my adult life. But, we've developed a close relationship by phone -- many <i>lengthy</i> phone conversations. Probably twenty years ago, she and I were having a discussion about society or politics or something (I don't remember the specifics), and she asked me the question, "So you believe in social engineering?" It was a small thing. About the size of a mustard seed? But, it got me thinking -- "no, actually, I <i>don't</i> believe in social engineering" -- and <i>doubting</i> my long-held lefty, atheist convictions. The simple question had to come from someone I trusted and who I knew loves me, and it set my feet on the path to political and religious conversion some years later. Keep this story in mind when I get around to part three about how to engage in this immortal combat. Hint: it's going to depend on the imitation of Christ.</p><p>Back to Fr. L: "Pride is the total, complete, foundational assumption, before all else and above all else, that I am right, that my choices are right [after all, why would I choose to be wrong?], that my beliefs are right, that my decisions are right, that everything I do is right." And it is the hiddenness of this abuse of power and resultant pride that leads to the third head of Cerberus: prejudice.</p><p>"Furthermore, prejudice poisons our relationships because if my choices are right, then the people who choose differently must be wrong. Power and pride automatically demand that the person who is different from me and who has chosen differently must be wrong -- and if wrong, then bad." </p><p>Now we've come to the heart of the current conflict in our society. Lacking all humility, we hate each other for our differences. And, I would say, the worst examples of the unleashing of Cerberus are out in the streets causing mayhem and murder. They are <i>justified</i> in their incivility because they are <i>right</i> (in their own minds), and if they are righteous (they decide what's right and wrong, remember) and we don't <i>agree</i> to defunding the police, or teaching the 1619 Project as authentic history to our elementary students, or kneeling for the anthem, or affirmative action, or universal healthcare, or, or, or . . . we are <i>evil</i>, and we deserve what's coming to us. After all, you have to break a few eggs. . .</p><p>In a healthier society, "we soon learn that to live together with others, power, pride, and prejudice must be suppressed. We have to keep Cerberus on a leash. Family, society, education, and religion all provide the leash we need [and we see now the results of degraded family, society, education, religion. . .]. We are taught self-control. We learn that it is unacceptable to exercise raw, selfish power. We come to understand that we cannot assert our instinct to be 'right' all the time." </p><p>But, our fallen nature, and the devil's influence are so strong, we practice self-deception and dress up our aims as virtuous -- Black Lives Matter! Anti-fascism!! Anti-racism!! When in reality, we manipulate others to get our way, at best and, at worst, we form mobs and riot in the streets.</p><p>And it's not just the Left, but the religious Right does this, too: "In fact, too often we fall into the trap of asserting our power by using religion to control others. With endless rules and regulations and a hefty does of guilt we manipulate and control. With 'scholastic' debates about points of doctrine and morality, we assert our pride and prove ourselves not only right but righteous. We use religion to bolster our prejudices rather than challenge them. Furthermore, we do all this believing God Himself approves."</p><p>There's so much more to this little book (144 pages), but it seems this is enough for now. Go buy a copy and read it, or you'll have to wait for me to get around to Parts Two and Three. And who knows how long that will take! 2020 will not wait. It's <i>relentless</i>.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------</p><p>First published on August 6, 2020 on Ricochet. Reproduced here in anticipation of Parts 2 and 3.</p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-70902809763190690562021-01-19T17:17:00.004-07:002021-01-29T06:14:29.809-07:00Good News You Can Use -- and Keep Your Peace<p><br />Welcome back to all my R> friends and especially to those who made comments! I forgot I had comment moderation turned on and needed to approve comments before they'd show up! I wasn't feelin' the love, but I am now. Thanks!</p><p>I hope to post links here periodically that I find uplifting and hopeful. I'll start with a podcast episode giving <a href="https://www.catholic.com/" target="_blank">Catholic Answers</a> to people living through the present turmoil called <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/living-in-peace-2" target="_blank">Living in Peace</a> with Fr. Jeffrey Kirby. I particularly like his response to the woman who's always tried to live a faithful life, but her family is highly dysfunctional and she's questioning God's love for her amidst it all. He tells her, basically, God puts people like her just where she's needed most. I think that's a message we can all use in times of suffering -- it's <i>not </i>pointless. God brings good out of <i>all </i>things and He has us where we are for a reason. Keep the faith.</p><p>On a lighter note, but one I take as a very, <i>very</i> good sign of the times: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/christian-podcast-tops-the-charts-shockingly-beating-the-new-york-times-npr-and-the-washington-post" target="_blank">Fr. Mike Schmitz's Bible in a Year podcast is #1 on the Apple Podcast charts</a>, beating out popular secular fare like social commentary and true crime stories from NPR and NBC News. Fr. Mike was already a popular YouTube figure in the Catholic world, but now he's teamed up with noted Catholic convert and teacher, Jeff Cavins, and is using his Great Adventure Bible Timeline to read through the narrative books of the Bible to tell the story of salvation history. I've completed Cavins's study twice -- long and short version -- and have found this method of reading the Bible very helpful for getting the arc of the story in a memorable and coherent fashion. But, having Fr. Mike <i>read</i> it to us this way is a special treat. I highly recommend <a href="https://ascensionpress.com/pages/biy-registration" target="_blank">subscribing</a>.</p><p>In other good news, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kristi-noems-no-lockdown-win-people-moving-to-south-dakota" target="_blank">South Dakota is growing!</a> It turns out people prefer less draconian "safety" measures in favor of freedom. I know there's always a risk when Californians flee their state to take up residence in a "free" state, but I'm going to take this preference for a lighter government touch as good news.</p><p>And, finally, this is brushing up against political-talk, but I find these black voices commenting on events of the past year <i>much</i> more compelling than even some of my favorite Catholic authors (Fr. Longenecker) or the head of the USCCB, Archbishop Gomez:</p><p><a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/race-faith-and-justice-an-african-catholics-perspective" target="_blank">Race, Faith, and Justice: An African Catholic's Perspective</a></p><p>and</p><p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-left-hijacked-civil-rights-11610748711?st=exx35q2s9xu1bzw&reflink=share_mobilewebshare" target="_blank">How the Left Hijacked Civil Rights</a></p><p>I think you'll need a Wall Street Journal subscription to read that last one, but it's worth it if you're excited to run into truth-tellers. We're donating to the <a href="https://woodsoncenter.org/" target="_blank">Woodsen Center</a>.</p><p>Thanks for your patience while I work out the kinks of this long-neglected blog. </p><p>Oh, and here are some pretty picture from my garden. Spring is coming!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--hQhtO5yO_Q/YAd2M3RI7AI/AAAAAAAAqNg/ITO9p1N8O7M360kAb8_2FlM9fEnT859wACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_20200721_152329.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--hQhtO5yO_Q/YAd2M3RI7AI/AAAAAAAAqNg/ITO9p1N8O7M360kAb8_2FlM9fEnT859wACPcBGAsYHg/w400-h300/IMG_20200721_152329.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hofw9GBSgAU/YBQKAfNScqI/AAAAAAAAqY0/cu8QnGhbegYq9sl0aeZg-PSwG-Yeym2pQCPcBGAsYHg/s1124/Garden%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="843" data-original-width="1124" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hofw9GBSgAU/YBQKAfNScqI/AAAAAAAAqY0/cu8QnGhbegYq9sl0aeZg-PSwG-Yeym2pQCPcBGAsYHg/w400-h300/Garden%2B1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p><br /></p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-56608270015538697542021-01-18T09:47:00.000-07:002021-01-18T09:47:34.620-07:00Anthony Esolen on Practical Freedom<p> I keep returning to Anthony Esolen in these times of plague and social upheaval like a desert wanderer returning to a well. He's convinced me to "do more human things" (see post below) and now he consoles me with "practical freedom" in a time when our freedoms seem so imperiled. He <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/10/practical-freedom/" target="_blank">writes</a>:</p><blockquote><div style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box; color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 2.125rem; margin: 1.33333em 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box;">In this time of plague, when children cannot be together, why are they not roaming the outdoors? I walk the trail in the woods behind our neighborhood, and see only the prints of dogs and men’s boots in the snow; no children. At every pass we have absorbed laws, not of morality, which are liberating, but of etiquette, which is a curb on adventure and genius, and of security and sloth, which deaden the soul.<br /></span><span style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box;"></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box; color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 2.125rem; margin: 1.33333em 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box;">One of those absorptions is the notion that everyone must graduate from high school. For many young Americans, high school is little more than an antisocial sandbox, a terrible waste of youth. </span></div></blockquote><p>I worry about our young people and the deadening effects of postmodernism and its bastard step-children critical race theory, scientism, "social justice" (as opposed to actual justice), and secular "humanism" (as opposed to religious humanism of the made-in-the-image-and-likeness of God sort), among others. What, really, is so "educational" or human-fulfilling about public K-12 education followed by a debt-driven four or five years at university in America now? Not much, I would argue. </p><p>In <i><a href="https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/16/practical-freedom-part-ii/" target="_blank">Practical Freedom, Part II</a></i>, Esolen compares modern life for America's young to the past lives of cartoonist Chuck Jones and the father of gynecology, Horatio Storer, and he notes:</p><blockquote><div style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box; color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 2.125rem; margin: 1.33333em 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box;">Though the malady may now be acute, this constriction of life has been going on in the United States for at least 50 years. In 1983, I visited for the first time my cousins in a rather poor region of Calabria, in southern Italy. By then I could speak Italian, so I asked my great aunt Concetta why she had left us so soon after coming to the United States in 1976 to visit her brother, my grandfather, whom she had not seen since 1920. She had planned to stay more than a month, but two weeks was all she could endure. Her answer took me aback.<br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box; color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 2.125rem; margin: 1.33333em 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="border: 0px solid rgb(210, 214, 220); box-sizing: border-box;">“You have no liberty in America,” she said.</span></div></blockquote><p>And:</p><blockquote><span style="color: #374151; font-family: "Source Serif Pro"; font-size: 18px;">I am not describing an idyll [in Italy circa 1983]. That is the point. You can have life, or you can have safety at all costs, but you cannot have both. </span></blockquote><p>Here's the thing. Chuck Jones didn't even <i>know</i> he was risk-taking when he traveled cross-country with a friend at age 14, or when he dropped out of school and became a janitor at the studio he would one day dominate with his art at age 15. Storer didn't think it was out of bounds to build a log cabin with his friends at age 10, or enter Harvard and at 19 voyage around the storm-tossed seas of the North Atlantic as a naturalist. It was all <i>normal </i>to them.</p><p>Think how stunted our kids are in the "new" normal. Some of us remember when at least <i>one </i>neighbor friend would have a cast to sign every summer from falling out of a tree or playing tackle football sans helmets and pads. I remember playing kick-the-can with maybe ten other kids well into the summer nights, and even running across the sloping roof of a neighbor's modern home built into the hillside. We were wild -- and free. Creative expression was a thing, even in the now cancel-worthy un-pc name-calling we'd do and the consequences we'd learn from. Maybe even a bloody nose.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://thewisdomdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/iStock-528709343-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="http://thewisdomdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/iStock-528709343-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>So, why am I consoled by the disturbing contrasts Esolen highlights? Because it's still <i>possible </i>to do <br />human things. Tree climbing and summer nights spent outdoors are not monitored and regulated by either Big Tech or Big Government, despite Gavin Newsom's best attempts. Maybe you have to get permission from the farmer down the road for your 10-year-old to build a log cabin in his woods with his buddies, but it's <i>possible</i>. Sign a promise that you won't sue him if someone gets hurt (and damn the lawyers and insurance companies). <p></p><p>We've tried the "safe" life with our kids, and you know what? Life is <i>still</i> full of tragedy and suffering. Might as well grab on and live it to the full. And get your kids and grandkids to go climb a tree.</p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-41682335589124805662021-01-15T09:55:00.003-07:002021-01-15T10:02:51.713-07:00More Human Things with the Carmelites<p>I've adopted Anthony Esolen's <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/my-new-years-resolution" target="_blank">New Year's resolution</a> to "do more human things" since leaving Ricochet, and encouraging my friends and family to do the same. In my case, I'm returning to playing piano and taking lessons from a truly great teacher, working on behalf of the garden committee planning this year's <a href="https://extensionfriends.org/" target="_blank">Colorado Springs Garden Tour</a>, "reading" the <a href="https://ascensionpress.com/pages/biy-registration?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ad&utm_campaign=BIY&gclid=CjwKCAiAl4WABhAJEiwATUnEF9Kt7iuXbMkRQwU1PBfWecsqat42oQjLb7KZj7HOIiPohkf3y3F0ZRoCWYIQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">Bible in a Year with Fr. Mike Schmitz</a>, praying (lots of praying), and taking care of my family as usual. </p><p>But, the <a href="https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/a-new-carmel" target="_blank">Carmelites of Fairfield, Pennsylvania</a>? They're <i>really</i> upping the ante. Watch and enjoy. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uSCo5csrme4" width="320" youtube-src-id="uSCo5csrme4"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wNkmk_IL7r4" width="320" youtube-src-id="wNkmk_IL7r4"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Oh, and <a href="https://photos.app.goo.gl/b79LKpvCTCY4g5497" target="_blank">playing with my dogs</a>. </div>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-81655319629554399142021-01-12T12:54:00.000-07:002021-01-12T12:54:13.271-07:00Antecedents to Consequence<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Mx1-+LlLL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="227" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Mx1-+LlLL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" /></a></div><i>Joan of Arc</i> is the fictionalized memoir of a contemporary of Saint Joan's, which Twain described as the "best of all my books." Some literary critics agree, but others have problems with the novel because they doubt Saint Joan's visions as antecedents to the consequences that played out in Joan's real life. As the author of the Introduction states, <p></p><blockquote><p>Readers who can accept the historical validity of Joan's visions will be able to read the fictional memoir in an historical way, that is, according to the ordinary way history proceeds, by antecedent to consequence.</p></blockquote><p>The events of the past week in our nation's capitol bear examination by the light of their antecedents, and the <i>reaction </i>to those events might be considered as antecedents to future consequences. I won't pretend to be thorough in this post, I only present my thoughts in brief now before they are overcome by further events.</p><p>The Capitol crimes were preceded by months of social and political disruption due to COVID-19 and BLM/antifa riots, and the model for the events of the day was established in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, and Kenosha, to name several. I needn't recount the details. And before that? Ferguson, and Occupy Wall Street. It isn't the <i>Tea Party</i> that established political violence and destruction as the means to ends. It was the <i>Left </i>and its useful idiots, among whom we can count the president-elect and vice-president-elect.</p><p>Last week was tragic on many levels. As the blogger at The New Reform Club noted,</p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">Nihilism is what is killing our democracy. The leftists who toppled statutes believe, because they are taught to believe, that the people the statues depict – the people who founded our country – </span><i style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">hated them</i><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">. And thus that the country itself </span><i style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">hates them</i><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">. The Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol believe – because the people in that very building told them – that the people in that building, who run this country today, </span><i style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">hate them</i><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 17.6px;">. A country cannot have peace while its government tells its people the country hates them. Yet our government has managed to tell both halves of its divided nation that they are hated. If there were a Darwin Award for governments, the American political establishment would be tough to beat. </span></p></blockquote><p> <a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2021/01/peace-is-miracle.html?m=0" target="_blank">Read the whole thing</a>. </p><p>This spirit of hatred, accusation, unforgiveness -- <i>murder</i>, in the end -- must necessarily precede violence. What did we expect? Which begs the question, what <i>do </i>we expect from the (over-)reaction to January 6, 2021? </p><p>It's my belief the violence will only be <i>stoked </i>by reactions like that of the Editor in Chief of Ricochet. A people stricken by the last year of disease, joblessness, personal and professional loss, and a significant loss of freedom, are given the message they're hate-worthy because of the misguided actions of a few. That they're <i>unworthy</i> of the representation of their choice and that they must be silenced for the "common" good.</p><p>While I believe the hatred of Donald Trump is mostly irrational, I will hold him responsible in one way, suggested by Elder Daughter: he should have said some time shortly after the election, "<i>if </i>I must leave office, I will do so peacefully." He needed to reassure the hysterical Nevers who've always exhibited a bad-faith belief in the worst of him (he's a Russian agent, he threatened Ukraine for personal political gain, he believes neo-Nazis are "good people" on both sides -- all lies), and he needed to signal to his supporters that this would be an orderly transition <i>one way or another</i>. <i>Not </i>saying so was irresponsible and unwise.</p><p>But, I am in agreement with Dennis Prager when he says "it <i>matters </i>who starts it" (a conflict). The breakdown of the rule of law and civil society was started by the Left. The Left has spent decades corrupting our institutions and destroying the public trust. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (both of whom corrupted our government and deserve prosecution more than Donald Trump ever will) signaled their hatred of ordinary Americans with "bitter clingers" and "basket of deplorables." Have candidates for high office ever spoken of people they hope to govern that way before? I suppose so, but I don't know of examples.</p><p>I agree with the blogger at The New Reform Club that <i>rough </i>speech is preferable to political violence. I expect most of us on the Right do. Too bad the Left, Big Tech, and the ruling elites prefer suppression of dissident speech. I predict they're going to get more political violence as a consequence -- and so will we all. </p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-88128637186981806932021-01-10T18:00:00.000-07:002021-01-10T18:00:23.966-07:00It Still Works!<p>I haven't updated this blog since 2014. I wasn't sure all the buttons and levers would still operate, but they do! At least, I think they do. This is my test run to see how it goes. </p><p>If you're just visiting for the first time, I'm guessing you're a friend from Ricochet. Welcome. I'm going to use this as an outlet for ideas no longer welcome there. But, I also plan to keep mostly clear of politics. That doesn't rule out religion and philosophy and those creative enterprises that make us human. I hope to opine on those. </p><p>It's a fresh start on this blog. I've learned a lot while I was away. I hope you find the lessons I'll share worthwhile. </p>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-58149331599351655062014-01-22T19:47:00.002-07:002021-01-10T17:50:41.738-07:00What Feminists Really Want for Their Daughters: A Maid<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Carolyn Jones, feminist, tells the story of shopping with her mother for her three-year-old daughter's birthday present <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/11/how-are-our-daughters-supposed-to-grow-up-to-be-lean-in-worthy-execs-if-most-of-the-play-mops-and-stoves-are-labeled-for-girls/" style="color: #3388cc; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">here</a>. Sure, there's all the requisite feminist angst about glass ceilings and Barbie's DD breasts and persistent gender inequality in housekeeping duties, but I find the whole read delightfully revealing.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
I'll concede housekeeping isn't glamorous. And no one -- not even the girl with the most traditional "I only want to be a wife and mother" aspirations -- envisions herself cleaning the commode someday. But, to state the obvious, <i>someone</i> has to do it!</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
There are a million and one ways to make oneself <i>unhappy</i> in life and marriage. One of the most common we succumb to is having unrealistic expectations. As a favor, let me advise the ladies: it is in a man's nature to go out and make the kill and drag it back to the cave for you to cook. It is <i>not</i> in his nature to notice that your mother's cut glass cruet collection could use a thorough cleaning.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="content-view-embed" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="class-image" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="attribute-image" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s5Af6w9xPHI/X_ugONvRpUI/AAAAAAAAqDw/RQQ6eLEuB5c7mZL66B2VZtwHBwyzWVfDACLcBGAsYHQ/image.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="1110" height="300" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s5Af6w9xPHI/X_ugONvRpUI/AAAAAAAAqDw/RQQ6eLEuB5c7mZL66B2VZtwHBwyzWVfDACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h300/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Let's face it, women will continue to shoulder the lion's share of housekeeping, because it's more <i>important</i> to us. It is in our <i>nature </i>to keep the cave tidy and free of pests. If you marry a man expecting the even distribution of housework, you're in for some unpleasantness. Feminism, once again, has lied to you and set you up for serious disappointment.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
I recommend spending some time considering what it means to have a full and meaningful life. I entered adulthood knowing I wanted a husband and family, but not realizing the full implications for how I would end up spending my <i>time</i>. Once I saw the struggles of my contemporaries to <i>have it all</i>, and experienced the "joys" of the working world, I knew the feminist myth wasn't for me.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
I'm very privileged to have a husband able to sustain our family and provide for our retirement without my having to get a job. We're <i>both</i> blessed that he likes his work -- he's out there on the fruited plain with his hunting buddies every day.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Do I feel my life is less fulfilling because I don't use my engineering degree to pull in a paycheck? Not at all. The service I provide to my family in the way of homemaking is more than compensated by the time I'm able to spend practicing my faith and satisfying my intellectual curiosity (thank you Ricochet).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
There are two ways to approach that which must be done. One may graciously accept the fact, and make the best of it. Or one may resent the fact, and make oneself (and usually everyone else) miserable.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
We all want our daughters to have choices. I'm not opposed to women becoming high powered CEOs, stay-at-home moms, or anything in between. What I am opposed to is denigrating work that, most likely, <i>somebody's</i> daughter will be doing, even if it's not your own.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
Keep the "pigeonholed pink" toy vacuum cleaner with the brightly colored bouncy balls. Lose the elitist feminist attitude about housework.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14.4px; line-height: 19.6px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding: 0px;">
<i>First published on <a href="http://ricochet.com/main-feed/What-Feminists-Really-Want-for-Their-Daughters-A-Maid">Ricochet</a>, May 13, 2013. Subsequently linked at James Taranto's Best of the Web, Wall Street Journal under, "Questions No One is Asking."</i></div>
The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-47308604656036814092011-06-24T10:58:00.004-06:002011-06-24T11:18:46.853-06:00Was Jesus Anti-Eunuch?<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Circumcision, Marriage and a God-Ordered Universe: Why the Right Should Never, <span style="font-style:italic;">EVER</span>, Align With the Left on Social Issues</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br /></b></div><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Hv8yTlHlViw/TgTEBp9XWjI/AAAAAAAAAqA/lzqoKoOqVa4/s400/Creator%2BGod.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 283px; height: 178px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621833767587371570" /><br />What I'm about to express may seem like a theological argument. It is really the background for the political positions I hold, which I believe are well-aligned with the live-and-let-live conservatives and libertarians on the right, even though we may not share anything in common theologically. I'm going to give an orthodox religious view, in my case Roman Catholic, on the timely and controversial issues of circumcision, which the Left in San Francisco is working to prohibit, and marriage, which the Left nationally would like to redefine to include same-sex partners.<br /><br />These issues are two of the battlefronts of the cultural war the Left is waging on the orthodox religious, with only the life issues drawing more blood – literally. I contend that in a highly advanced Western society based upon Judeo-Christian values and exceedingly tolerant of homosexuals, the attempts by the Left to order the universe according to its image of perfection is not about tolerance and social equity. It's about coercion and thought control, which are the hallmarks of the totalitarian temptation to which the Left routinely succumbs.<br /><br />Before I give the orthodox explanations for the practices of circumcision and opposite-sex marriage, let me say I'm very understanding of people's view, on the left <i>and </i>the right, that these traditions are antiquated, if not barbaric, given I spent the first two-thirds of my adult life as an atheist liberal. I only ask that we remember the cultures which formed these ideas are the progenitors of the society in which we are very fortunate to live. And I ask, if we think of ourselves as being on the right, to please remember our commitment to defend the right of orthodox believers to hold these beliefs, whether we ourselves share them or not.<br /><br />Orthodox Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Bible, respectively, are the authoritative word of God. They believe God made a covenant, an unbreakable promise, with His people. The Abrahamic Covenant is in three parts: The Land Promise (Mosaic Covenant); the Kingdom Promise (Davidic Covenant); the Promise of a Worldwide Blessing (Christians believe this was fulfilled in Jesus Christ).<br /><br />These covenants are manifested in multiple signs:<br /><ul><li>The Sabbath observance commanded to the first holy couple, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-3);</li><li>The rainbow as a sign to the first holy family, Noah's, of God's promise not to flood the Earth again (Gen. 9);</li><li>Circumcision as a sign of God's covenant with Abraham at the establishment of the one holy tribe of Israel (Gen. 15, 17, 22);</li><li>The Ten Commandments given as The Law to Moses at the establishment of the one holy nation of Israel (Ex. 24, Deut. 29);</li><li>The Temple at the establishment of the one holy kingdom at the time of David (2 Sam. 7);</li><li>Finally, for Christians, the one holy catholic and apostolic church established by Jesus (Mk. 14). </li></ul>Without putting you through a nine month Bible study, I hope it is apparent how essential, foundational really, are the signs of God's promises. Marriage is the first relationship established by God. Circumcision is the price of entrance into God's family. Orthodox religious believe God ordered the universe in this way for His purposes.<br /><br />You may be wondering, why circumcision? It was the practice of the Hebrews at the time of Abraham to seal an important contract, a marriage covenant, for example, with a blood sacrifice. The families joining in the covenant would split sacrificial animals from nose to tail and lay the pieces on either side of a pathway, which was then traversed by the patriarchs of each family to signify the seriousness of the promise being made. If either party broke the covenant, it would be as the sacrificial animals – bloody and dead.<br /><br />Circumcision is a splitting of the flesh. God made a three-part covenant with Abraham and commanded that the sign of that covenant be forever carried by the men of Israel. To not circumcise one's son would be to break the covenant with God, or to not have the child enter the holy contract at all. It's asking too much of an orthodox Jew to forgo the practice. Prohibiting circumcision is a direct assault on religious freedom.<br /><br />On the other hand, same sex marriage is an indirect assault on religious freedom, but an assault nevertheless, because rather than a prohibition of religious practice, it is an attempt to co-opt an institution the orthodox religious view as instituted by God. For this argument, I refer you to Matthew Chapter 19, which is Jesus' teaching on marriage.<br /><br />By this point in the narrative, the Pharisees want Jesus dead. They set a trap by asking him if a man may divorce his wife for any cause whatever. Jesus responds,<br /> <blockquote>“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Mt 19:4-6) </blockquote>There are several layers of importance in these verses. First, Jesus is quoting from Genesis at the establishment of the institution of marriage by God. Second, he is referring to the natural order and procreative nature established by God. And third, he is affirming the covenant nature of marriage and how divorce was not part of God's original intent.<br /><br />The Pharisees then ask why Moses gave a command allowing for divorce. Jesus refers again to God's intent at the original establishment of the institution of marriage, he explains that the Hebrews were excepted because of the hardness of their hearts, and he presses the point home by saying anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. At this point, his own disciples are concerned about the seriousness of the covenant and suggest it is better not to marry at all. And this is where Jesus' teaching gets really interesting for our purposes. He says,<br /> <blockquote>“Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Mt 19:12)</blockquote>The notes of my study-Bible say that Jesus is talking about eunuchs in this verse, but he was speaking before the idea that homosexuals might want to marry was even conceivable. His teaching could easily be universally applied to anyone who is incapable of entering a procreative sacramental marriage. But, what about infertile couples, you ask? I think intent counts in this case. Very few infertile couples enter marriage knowing they're infertile, and certainly none did during Jesus' time. The vast majority enter marriage having accepted “this word”.<br /><br />Same-sex marriage is a social innovation promoted by the Left. This, <i>alone</i>, should make anyone on the right wary. In a Judeo-Christian society where homosexuals are not only not ostracized or abused, tortured and murdered like, say, in Arab Muslim societies, but are our neighbors, friends and family and have access to most of the same legal protections as heterosexuals, if pursued through powers of attorney and such, <i>tolerance </i>is not the issue. What gays want through same-sex marriage is <i>approval</i>. Tolerance is a behavior, but <i>approval </i>is a belief. Advocates of same-sex marriage don't want us to change our society's behavior toward gays. They want us to change our thinking. If you understand the orthodox explanations I gave above, you'll understand why orthodox religious people consider same-sex marriage coercive. Freedom of conscience is at stake.<br /><br />I predict there will be dire consequences to tampering with the foundational cultural institutions of our society, even if these innovations “don't affect my marriage” – a specious and narcissistic argument, at best. Already Catholic adoption agencies are being driven out of business because they refuse to adopt to gay couples. Here's a question for the social equity crowd. If an adoption agency has two couples contending for the same child and, all else being equal, one couple is gay and the other is straight, should the agency be allowed to discriminate on the part of the mixed gender couple? Why or why not?<br /><br />When same sex marriage is considered as equal in every way to male/female marriages, what happens in state-run education? Do the teachers read <i>Johnny Has Two Daddies</i> or <i>One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads</i> to the class as an exercise in “tolerance”? I'll take my children out of public school on that day, because this is a perversion of my religion. If, that is, the Left hasn't already outlawed home-schooling.<br /><br />When same sex marriage is established on the well-intentioned vision of a universe ordered by man, will priests and ministers be free to teach from Matthew 19? Will they be allowed to teach a God-ordered universe? Don't scoff. Ministers in western European countries are facing prosecution for such things. Hate speech, as Mark Steyn well knows.<br /><br />If conservatives agree that life is a series of trade-offs, what will we be trading for blowing apart the standards for marriage which Jesus taught? Do homosexual couples teach a standard to their children? Do they want their children to have heterosexual relationships or are all relationships equal? If even we on the right can't agree to fight to preserve the ideal of covenant marriage, I'm pretty sure we'll find out.The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-91650060138449986082010-12-26T21:13:00.010-07:002010-12-27T07:02:53.655-07:00Imagining God and Christopher Hitchens<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TRgVTfOtLzI/AAAAAAAAAgY/_LdiUT44-EU/s1600/Hitchens.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 153px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TRgVTfOtLzI/AAAAAAAAAgY/_LdiUT44-EU/s200/Hitchens.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5555213564906385202" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TRgUtwINBII/AAAAAAAAAgQ/vviPLbj3QxQ/s1600/God-Sistine_Chapel-crop.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 191px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TRgUtwINBII/AAAAAAAAAgQ/vviPLbj3QxQ/s320/God-Sistine_Chapel-crop.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5555212916607485058" /></a><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Somehow I can't bring myself to believe my dog imagines me on all fours running for the food bowl at 5:00 pm every day or tearing out the patio door to chase a squirrel. However, I am delighted by the thought of my Pembroke Welsh corgi reclining in a tufted leather chair dressed in a paisley smoking jacket, reading glasses poised jauntily at the end of his long nose, with a pipe in one paw and a copy of G. K. Chesterton's <i>Orthodoxy </i>in the other. Christopher Hitchens prefers to believe that this human-animal distinction – this ability to imagine – is an accident of mutation over eons of evolution. What, exactly, is adaptive about my Alistair Cooke corgi fantasy, I can't, well... <span style="font-style:italic;">imagine</span>.<br /><br />I believe this distinction is explained by our Creator God who imagined and spoke us into being. We, not other animals, are made in God's image and likeness and therefore, we have this ability to imagine and, as such, are often capable of reflecting God's creative enterprise. Thus, an Alistair Cooke corgi nearly out of nothing.<br /><br />I love Christopher Hitchens and I'm not just saying that to establish my Christian bona fides. I really do. What I see in him is a righteous indignation about the suffering of innocents. I deeply admire his commitment and passion to his cause. He's willing to get his nose bloodied over it and even put his own life in danger. I find this very attractive and heroic. It doesn't hurt that Hitchens has one of the sharpest minds of our era and is a master of the English language too.<br /><br />Where Hitchens fails, however, is pride (it's always the pride, isn't it?) in his ability to <i>reason</i>. He cannot <i>imagine </i>how a good God could allow such abject misery and suffering in the world. And therefore, he rejects the very notion of God.<br /><br />The Christian response to the paradox of a God who desires mercy and yet allows evil into the world is often answered by “<i>evil is allowed to enter to reveal the glory of God</i>.” This isn't the most intellectually satisfying response, is it? The best I can do is the old Jewish saying, “if I <i>understood </i>God, I would <i>be</i> him.” Both are inadequate to a man who rests all his understanding of the world on evolution and reason.<br /><br />I like to imagine an omnipotent corporeal God with a restraining hand on Christopher Hitchens' forehead while the lesser, still beloved and magnificent creation, Hitchens, flails away with all the indignation he feels at injustice in the world, trying to land one good blow to make his point. If I can feel this way about a man I've never met and with whom I have profound philosophical disagreements, imagine how much more the Father, who sent his only Son to die for us all, must love and cherish such a man. <div><br /></div><div>And so, I pray, Lord, if it be your will, please save Hitchens from his pride and his sickness. After this lifelong struggle, let his hand come to rest on Yours so that he may know Your Presence and make him an example, like St. Paul, of the good that is possible when we imagine You.</div></div>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-1650488943511841302010-10-22T08:11:00.014-06:002010-10-22T08:52:49.288-06:00The Well-Deserved Bad Reputation of Good Intentions<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TMGckuM9nII/AAAAAAAAAUk/rt1MDx36MIA/s1600/road+to+hell.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 225px; height: 225px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TMGckuM9nII/AAAAAAAAAUk/rt1MDx36MIA/s400/road+to+hell.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5530873972079303810" /></a><p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><i><br />The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.</i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The original aphorism seems to have been, “Hell [itself] is paved with good intentions,” which is often attributed to St. Bernard of Clairveux, a doctor of the Church. Isn't it fascinating that in this formulation, good intentions aren't so much along <i>the route</i> one takes to Hell, but a sign that one is already <i>there</i>?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">I once told a campus missionary she should avoid “God-talk” if she wants to be understood by the youth she aims to convert. Now I'm going to illustrate the point by explaining the problem with good intentions in a way only some in my audience will fully understand.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">God, in the person of Jesus Christ, calls us to empty ourselves or <i>die to oneself</i> to make ourselves hospitable vessels for the Holy Spirit to indwell. We are to minimize the Ego, but being fallen humans, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to eliminate Ego altogether. However, when we succeed at hosting the Holy Spirit, good fruits are in abundance – <i>with no regard whatever to our intentions</i>.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br /></p> <p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><i>Blessed are the poor in spirit,</i></p><p align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><i></i><i>for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven</i>.</p> <p align="CENTER" style="text-align: center;margin-bottom: 0in; "><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Jesus is <i>The Way</i>, <i>The Truth</i> and <i>The Life</i>. “Period. End of issue.” - to borrow a phrase from my second-favorite Jew, Dennis Prager.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Practicing Christians are now dismissed. Lesson over. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Do dee do dee do... “oh, watch out there - you dropped your pencil!” </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">“See you same time next week. Don't forget your assignment!...” </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">“Test in two weeks.” Do dee dum dee do...</p><p style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0in; ">I now resume explaining, while limiting the “God-talk,” for the unbelievers. Please take your seats.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TMGcK6AHnHI/AAAAAAAAAUc/zQAIi5eSsfs/s400/nutty+professor+2.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 266px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5530873528570059890" /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Let's analogize using the “<i>virtue</i> bank account” or “VBA.” The VBA is like the Hotel California (you can check out, but you can never leave) in that you really only want to make deposits. If you withdraw from your VBA, you are behaving in un-virtuous (in God-talk, “sinful”) ways. It is like the Hotel California in one other way... it is a death-trap. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">See, tracking the balance of your VBA is all about <i>YOU</i>. It is about <i>your</i> virtue and <i>your</i> self-regard and <i>your</i> status among your peers. It has very little to do with actual goodness - <i>for the love of God</i>! <i>Good intentions</i> are its currency. And <i>this</i> particular currency is <i>worth-less</i>. Not worthless, but worth less than good results (fruitfulness in God-talk).</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Example One. Let's say you worked for the government advising the president in a time of terrible economic hardship for the country. And let's say you had the idea to devise a system which would provide financial security for retirees. Let's call your plan <i>Social Security</i>. The plan would have workers pay into the system over their lifetime of work and then make withdrawals upon retirement. <i>Theoretically</i>, most people would end up withdrawing about as much as they deposited and any overages would be covered by revenue paid in by current workers. This seems to work when the ratio of workers to retirees is six or seven to one. Not so much when the ratio gets down to two to one or lower. Good intentions? In abundance! Unsustainable? You betcha! In God-talk, we'd call this plan a “false-promise.” For our purposes, let's call it a Ponzi scheme.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Example Two. Let's say you worked for the government advising the president in a time of terrible economic hardship for the country. And let's say you had the idea to devise a system which would provide health care for everyone... Oh, wait. We've already done this one... let's see, um – massive sovereign debt and unfunded liabilities... check, false promises... Ponzi scheme... check, check, increased suffering of innocents... check... net evil... check.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-bottom: 0in; ">Example Two Redux. Let's say you want to do your part to care for the environment. In God-talk, this is called stewardship. Good intention? Check. You're convinced that recycling is a commonsense way to decrease the demand on limited resources. You decide to diligently recycle your newspapers to <i>save the trees </i>(<i><a href="http://www.envirovaluation.org/index.php/2006/07/08/the_financial_times_www_ft_com_1">Is recycling utter rubbish</a>?</i>)! What if the net effect of your recycling actually uses more non-renewable energy resources (oil) than the resources it saves (renewable trees)? What if transportation energy to haul your papers to the recycling plant and manufacturing energy to transform your waste paper into something usable is less efficient than the transportation and production of the newspaper in the first place? This is hypothetical, because frankly, I don't know the truth, but neither does anyone else. But, for the sake of argument, lets say the net effect of your good intention is increasing demand for and consumption of non-renewable fuel, the production of which has been limited locally in a heavily environmentally regulated and decent society (the U.S.) by the activities of well-intentioned environmentalists, effectively increasing demand and consumption of fuel from despotic environmentally disastrous societies such as in the Middle East, Sudan and Russia, for example. Good intentions... meet road to Hell.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Example Three. This is subtler yet. Let's say you are an elderly parent on a modest fixed income. You live relatively comfortably in your own home, but the financial stresses of paying your bills and shelling out every month for your expensive prescription drugs keep you on edge. You don't make long-distance calls to your kids despite your desperate loneliness because you're afraid you can't afford the expense. You worry about putting five bucks in the grandkids' birthday cards. So, your adult children agree among themselves to each make a modest deposit to your bank account every month to ease your anxieties. You make an unsolicited promise to them that you're spending as little of the money as possible so they'll all get something back when you die. You're making deposits in your VBA.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Unfortunately, your kids <i>still</i> aren't getting calls from you and you're <i>still</i> desperately lonely. You're <i>still</i> worried about the prescription drug costs and even refuse to fill some prescriptions because you can live without the medications although you'd be more comfortable with them. Your kids hesitate to call <i>you</i> because they hear the same complaints from you as before... and the repeated promise of “return” on their investment upon your death. Your deposits into your VBA have accrued exclusively to you and contributed exactly nothing to the good on their accounts. They would rather have their parent be serene, content and grateful for their show of concern than have their parent dead and receive a portion of the inheritance which came at the expense of their parent's happiness and well-being. You have stolen <i>their</i> virtue.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The previous case is the best example of good intentions gone awry. A priest once told me, “your life is not about you.” “Well,” an unbeliever might ask, “if it isn't about me, what is it about?” This is harder to answer without some serious God-talk. Perhaps, for the unbeliever, the best answer is, your life is about the truth. The truth is, as an elderly parent, you should receive your children's' charity with <i>grace</i>, and then pay the grace forward by delighting in the gifts. Let your children accrue something worthwhile to their own VBAs as well as contribute to your happiness.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The truth is, you'd contribute more to the well-being of the environment by picking up litter when you see it (a good moral test for any action is to ask, “what if everyone did this?”) and insisting on local oil drilling (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Oil-Canadas-Sands-ebook/dp/B00413QAE2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287111190&sr=8-1">Ethical Oil</a>, by Ezra Levant) and nuclear energy production than recycling your newspaper.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The truth is, neither you nor anyone else in the electorate should put your faith in or vote for politicians making false promises. You will not be spared struggle and pain by the federal government, or if you are, like the early recipients of Social Security, your consolation will ultimately come at great cost to people utterly innocent of the decision to implement an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, who will have paid into the system the better part of their working lives, who will receive nothing when the scheme becomes insolvent. Your secure retirement came from stealing other people's future. Sometimes, the truth hurts.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The answer to “what is my life all about?” is more succinct for the believer. My life is about The Truth. The Way. And The Life. Sounds simplistic, but as we've seen, it isn't. The “my life is <i>not</i> about me” Ethos is big and expansive and life-affirming. It is actually the “my life is <i>all</i> about me” Ethos and the fixation with one's VBA which is narrow, niggling and soul-killing.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Am I suggesting, because of my disregard for the VBA, we shouldn't practice the virtues – prudence, justice, courage, restraint, faith, hope and charity? Not at all. I am saying the type of virtue which accrues by <i>pride in our good intentions</i> into our VBA is counterfeit. Satan has a counterfeit for every aspect of God's Kingdom and this is no exception. When your life is all about you, Satan has lured you into a death-trap. In contrast, when you make your life about reflecting the love and mercy of Jesus (or if you prefer, the small-t truth), you are truly poor in spirit (humble) and will be received into the Heavenly Banquet (produce truly good results). You'll probably even get a taste of happiness here on Earth.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">I see our time is up. Class dismissed.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">For extra credit, watch the following video of Andrew Klavan and his dog, Virtue, on illegal immigration, titled, <i>Imagine There's No Border</i>. If you were paying attention, you already know where this road is going...</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br /></p><p align="LEFT" style="margin-left: 0in"><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E-DPA6VBe00?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E-DPA6VBe00?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object></p> <p style="margin-left: 0in">The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-8800275283870363492010-09-17T18:32:00.016-06:002010-09-17T21:33:18.933-06:00The Audacity of Dopes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TJQJFG0H9WI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/0DNVFWnWGcs/s1600/federal+budgets.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 299px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TJQJFG0H9WI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/0DNVFWnWGcs/s400/federal+budgets.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5518045426768934242" /></a><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><u>Source: <a href="http://www.federalbudget.com/">federalbudget.com</a></u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><u><br /></u></span></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OUy9j_OCoaM/TJQJFG0H9WI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/0DNVFWnWGcs/s1600/federal+budgets.gif"></a><div style="text-align: left;">Here's a Tea Party proposal... how much money would we save, that is, the American taxpayers who fund this monstrosity, along with our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be paying off the Chinese forever... if we eliminated whole departments, agencies, bureaus from our midst. This is going to be fun!</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Start big - the Department of Health and Human Services. Has HHS improved your health or that of anyone you know? Have you received any "services" from it lately? Consider it cut.</div><div><br /></div><div>Projected savings: $800,000,000,000 </div><div><br /></div><div>There! Doesn't that feel good? We've already shaved two-thirds off of this years projected deficit. I know this budget probably includes Medicare/Medicaid, but don't you believe if we addressed these expenses locally in a truly free market system, the costs would go down and we could serve our people more efficiently? Also, after Sebelius' little fascist stunt, I say kill HHS. Kill it dead.</div><div><br /></div><div>Next is the Department of Defense. Notice DOD is already scheduled for reduction in 2010? I'm feeling generous here, since national defense is one of the main reasons government exists. And we know the rest of the West has pretty much opted out of the enforcement game, with a slight nod to Britain and Australia for their previous support. We should also acknowledge the Religion of Peace (ROP) is making it more obvious every day it's at war with western civilization. No cuts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Next biggest are Social Security entitlements and the Treasury (including interest payments) which we can't even touch at the moment. No savings... yet.</div><div><br /></div><div>For reasons mentioned previously (see function of government and ROP), we also can't mess too much with Veteran's Affairs or the Department of Homeland Security.</div><div><br /></div><div>But now we can address those niggling annoyances which also happen to be antithetical to limited constitutional government:</div><div><br /></div><div>Department of Agriculture: $150,000,000,000</div><div>Department of Education: $110,000,000,000</div><div>Office of Personnel Management: $70,000,000,000</div><div>Department of Labor (notice the huge increase this year and last!): $210,000,000,000</div><div>Housing and Urban Development: $60,000,000,000</div><div>Department of Energy: $40,000,000,000</div><div><br /></div><div>Subtotal: $640,000,000,000</div><div><br /></div><div>Add this to our HHS cut and now we're making some serious progress on our national debt:</div><div><br /></div><div>800 billion + 640 billion = 1,440 billion</div><div>1,440 billion - 1,200 billion (projected deficit) = 240 billion we can put toward the debt.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm skipping over the Department of Justice and the Judicial Branch as, again, they're primary functions of government. Also, NASA. NASA is a pet I'd like to keep. Something like a goldfish in this zoo full of bloated government functions. Besides, every great country needs space toys.</div><div><br /></div><div>International Assistance Programs: $35,000,000,000</div><div>Other Independent Agencies (major cuts by Obama here): $20,000,000,000</div><div>Department of Interior: $25,000,000,000</div><div>Environmental Protection Agency: $25,000,000,000</div><div>Department of Commerce: $25,000,000,000</div><div><br /></div><div>Subtotal: $130,000,000,000</div><div><br /></div><div>What about the Department of State, you say? Again, another primary function of government. I'm also keeping the Corps of Engineers. I have a soft spot for engineers. They actually make things and make things work. Same for the National Science Foundation, although if science continues to be used by the Left for political purposes, I'm whacking it too. That leaves the Executive Office of the President, which we'll take care of in 2012 and the Legislative Branch which we're working over this year.</div><div><br /></div><div>GRAND TOTAL SAVINGS: $1,570,000,000,000</div><div><br /></div><div>Can you believe how much money the feds take from you and borrow for this stuff? </div><div><br /></div><div>There is nothing quite as satisfying as taking control of one's budget. I need a cigarette.</div><div><br /></div>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-71805174963173949842010-09-14T17:30:00.017-06:002010-09-14T18:08:32.469-06:00The Subspecies and Origin of the LeftistIt is clearer to me every day that my enemy and the enemy of western civilization is leftist ideology. It really <i>is </i>evil. Or, if you're uncomfortable with strong words like “evil,” let's say leftism is opposed to good. It is destructive to the happiness of the individual and tears at the roots of society, while promoting itself as having a <i>virtuous </i>concern for the common good.<br /><br />Here's an example:<div><br /><div align="center"><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vgvnqv1-_D4?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vgvnqv1-_D4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></div><br /><br />We live in such a morally confused and intellectually dimmed world, I feel compelled to explain up-front that I don't hate everyone on the Left, just leftist ideology. I mainly made friends with leftists in my youth because I was one. Some of them are still my friends even though I've moved on ideologically. And yet, as an example of how intellectually damaging the Left is, if you asked for my friends' private opinions of me, they probably would say I am “narrow” and “fixed” in my conservatism. Interesting – no?<br /><br />There is a frustrating opacity one experiences in trying to relate to a leftist. I have devised categories – subspecies, if you will, which help explain the lack of transparency they exhibit: the “shallow” leftist, the “committed” leftist and the “vampire” leftist.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">The Shallow Leftist</span><div><br />First, as Thomas Sowell has described, many leftists are subject to stage-one thinking. They tend to neglect the question, “and <i>then </i>what happens?” This makes their <i>reasoning</i>, if we care to call it that, very shallow. Perhaps “obtuse” or “his ideas are as intellectually interesting as a piece of dry white toast” would be more descriptive, but for ease of use, let's stay with “shallow.” You can't really penetrate the shallow leftists' thinking, because, well... they're not... thinking, that is.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">The Committed Leftist</span><br /><br />Second, sometimes the disconnectedness one experiences with the Left is because they are ideologically committed and know you would disapprove if they revealed their thinking. This is what we're seeing in the White House now. They have become as God and any doubts they ever have about the efficacy or morality of their plans is soon dispelled by Ego and Hubris. We don't have access to their reasoning because they know, if the public understands what they're all about, they will <i>never </i>be entrusted with the authority to <i>accomplish </i>it. Watching Obama's economic policy play out is like being at a seminar where the professor's theories are soon discovered to be horse puckey and the room is gradually emptying out while the professor “stays the course.” He's going to go to the bitter end whether the students like it or not, because, by god (he, himself), he knows what's good for them and they're going to take this medicine if it kills <del>them</del>!- I mean him... I think.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">The Vampire Leftist</span><br /><br />But the first two categories are not nearly as disturbing as this last one. This is the one which keeps me up at night... with a crucifix, a vial of holy water and a garlic necklace. There is a large portion of people on the Left comprised of good, intelligent and accomplished people who suffer what Gerard Vanderleun has dubbed the “Twilight effect.” I have called them vampires. I use the term reluctantly and with all the love of neighbor and desolation I feel at the mortal wound inflicted on them by leftist ideology. Perhaps <i>immortal </i>wound is more accurate, because, like the poor, the Left will always be with us it seems, no matter how many times the ideology proves to culminate in destruction and cruelty.<br /><br />The vampire leftists are simply incapable of seeing themselves no matter how often or how compassionately you hold up the mirror to them. I know one or two “shallow” leftists; I know one or two “committed” leftists; but the vast majority of leftists I know personally, fall into the “vampire” category. And it is this spiritual blindness I find so horrifying. It isn't that they haven't reasoned through the issues... or that they have, but they don't want us to know what they've concluded... it is that they deny to you, and worse, to <i>themselves</i>, having come to the positions they hold as true.<br /><br />I find having described these categories of leftists very helpful for clarity. But in addition, I think I've had an insight into the psychological/spiritual origins of such people... or, to rip-off Darwin:<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">The Origin of the Leftist</span><br /><br />Leftist ideology teaches that the moral code is <i>within </i>(the heart, the “evolved” ability to reason) and explains moral failings <i>without </i>(the parents or society). This is the opposite of the conservative believer or, using the better term coined by Chesterton, the <i>happy pessimist</i>, who seeks his moral code <i>externally </i>(God and the Bible, traditional moral codes “evolved” over millennia) and explains his moral failings <i>internally </i>(Original Sin, his imperfections). The happy pessimist believes human nature contains dark aspects and is immutable, which makes him seek a power higher than himself for moral guidance and/or compels him to struggle against his own demons before seeking to impose his ideas of social justice externally. Admittedly, this worked better when our society held Judeo-Christian values more homogeneously.<br /><br />Of course, there are as many jerks and buffoons on the Right as there are on the Left. And, there are wonderfully good people on the Left as well as the Right. But – and this is really the crux of the matter - leftist <i>ideology </i>tends to convince people of their own victimhood or the victimhood of the Lefts' favored minorities (what, Mormons aren't a minority?), which tends to make the recipients of victim status self-indulgent,self-pitying, narcissistic, dependent and unhappy. This is how individuals are ruined and whole segments of society are destroyed – the black family, for example. Individual leftists who have survived the onslaught have done so because they tend to personally live by conservative principles, while preaching, teaching and imposing leftist ideology on everyone else.<br /><br />In case the problem with victimhood isn't glaringly obvious, let me suggest it destroys human dignity. The victim mentality makes one less attractive to a potential spouse or friends because there is nothing quite as unappealing as self-pity. Believing you're a victim also shackles you to your present circumstances and makes you less likely to struggle for self-improvement. Why bother when <i>The Man</i> (the Other, whatever group or structure is the oppressor) is responsible for all your woes? Nah – to improve <i>your </i>lot, you should agitate – or <i>community organize</i> – to make sure everyone else treats you better.<br /><br />Leftism appeals to two of the baser human instincts as well. The first is the desire to remain childlike – to be coddled and made safe and not to have to buy your own health insurance until you're twenty-six. The second is an appeal to one's moral vanity: since I am a good person and I mean well, it shouldn't count against me that my ideology is so destructive to the good... and if you do count it against me, it just proves <i>you </i>are an evil greedy hateful conservative oppressor! Let's call this the “I'm ok... you're evil!” mentality.<br /><br />How to deal with the Left? I'm tempted to advise, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals), even though it goes against my Christian ethic. I do believe we have done too little “targeting” of the Left when we're arguing with the shallow or vampire leftists. Obama's support for infanticide in his opposition to the <i>Born Alive Infant Protection Act</i> would have disqualified him with <i>almost </i>every decent person I know – had they known it. Therefore, my first suggestion is, name it; identify it. Don't keep quiet about what you recognize. In the case of the shallow leftist, I would just love them and cajole them. Maybe open the door a peek occasionally on the view they're missing. The vampire leftist is a difficult case because of the self-delusion involved. I think we have to pray for these people. It is a psycho-spiritual problem best left to God to fix. And finally, the committed leftist... these we have to fight, because, given the chance, <i>they'll murder us</i>.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">Readings for the Roman Catholic Liturgy<br />Sunday, September 5, 2010<br />Reading 1<br />Wisdom 9:13-18b</span><br />Who can know God's counsel,<br />or who can conceive what the LORD intends?<br /><b>For the deliberations of mortals are timid,<br />and unsure are our plans.<br />For the corruptible body burdens the soul<br />and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns.<br />And scarce do we guess the things on earth,<br />and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty;</b><br />but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?<br />Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom<br />and sent your holy spirit from on high?<br />And thus were the paths of those on earth made straight.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">Reading 2</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">A reading from St. Paul's letter to Philemon</span><br />I, Paul, an old man,<br />and now also a prisoner for Christ Jesus,<br />urge you on behalf of my child Onesimus,<br />whose father I have become in my imprisonment;<br />I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you.<br />I should have liked to retain him for myself,<br />so that he might serve me on your behalf<br />in my imprisonment for the gospel,<br />but I did not want to do anything without your consent,<br /><b>so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary.</b><br />Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while,<br />that you might have him back forever,<br />no longer as a slave<br />but more than a slave, a brother,<br />beloved especially to me, but even more so to you,<br />as a man and in the Lord.<br />So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me.<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">Gospel: Luke 14: 25-33</span><br />Great crowds were traveling with Jesus,<br />and he turned and addressed them,<br /><span class="Apple-style-span">"</span><b>If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother,<br />wife and children, brothers and sisters,<br />and even his own life,<br />he cannot be my disciple.<br />Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me<br />cannot be my disciple.</b><br />Which of you wishing to construct a tower<br />does not first sit down and calculate the cost<br />to see if there is enough for its completion?<br />Otherwise, after laying the foundation<br />and finding himself unable to finish the work<br />the onlookers should laugh at him and say,<br />'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.'<br />Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down<br />and decide whether with ten thousand troops<br />he can successfully oppose another king<br />advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?<br />But if not, while he is still far away,<br />he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.<br />In the same way,<br />anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions<br />cannot be my disciple."</div></div>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19812413.post-37526982984829043982010-08-26T10:25:00.016-06:002010-08-28T12:21:53.115-06:00Gay Marriage? Yield * No * Quarter<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 20px; font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><div class="titleSidelines" style="font-size: large; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: normal; color: rgb(255, 0, 0); letter-spacing: 0.05em; padding-top: 6px; padding-bottom: 8px; ">Don't Support Gay Marriage? Fine...</div><p style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); "></p><p style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); "><strong>... Bookworm's asking this:</strong></p><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 30px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 30px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-top-width: 2px; border-right-width: 2px; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-left-width: 2px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 10px; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">My question for those opposed to gay conservatives who support conservatism on the most important political issue of the day is this: Can you afford to get into a divisive fight over what is, temporarily at least, a less significant issue than saving our entire country from frighteningly potential internal economic collapse and external terrorist and military attack? --<a title="Bookworm Room サ The blessings of gay conservatives" href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/08/25/the-blessings-of-gay-conservatives/" style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 600; ">Bookworm Room サ The blessings of gay conservatives</a></blockquote><div>This is from the sidebar at the creative controversial conservative blog <a href="http://www.americandigest.org/">American Digest</a>, by Gerard Vanderleun.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have argued here and elsewhere that there are two fascist ideologies threatening western civilization and the American society which has been at its apex for at least a century: Leftism and Islamism. Sometimes I feel I'm part of a very small army trying to hold it all together with sealing wax and sticky tape. We're battling these two enemies who currently hold much of the "high" ground and who are armed with the power of the state, the media, the judiciary and box-cutters. And about half of my side is blinded in the battle by a handful of self-interest tossed in their faces. Right now, my side is losing badly. In war, there can always be an abrupt change of fortune (November 2?), but I'm very pessimistic over the long-haul. (Thomas Sowell talks about <i>Dismantling America</i> <a href="http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/">here</a>)</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm finished being bullied on “gay marriage.” I will <i>not</i> concede that we who fight to preserve traditional marriage are gay-haters and I <i>won't</i> cede “marriage” to the Left for it to manipulate out of all meaning and existence. If gay conservatives are threatening to quit the battle, to switch sides over this – then sayonara, Baby. Join the Left. See how that works out for us.</div><div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">It would be easier on me, but I don't give-in to my children when they're being their narcissistic ungrateful little selves either, because I know it won't make them better people or better members of society. This battle IS NOT ABOUT gays! This is about the fascist Left and mind-control! If we conservatives don't <u><i>get</i></u><i> </i>that the LIE that “gender distinctions are an artifact” and the LIE that “men and women play the same role in marriage” and the LIE that “Johnny is just as fortunate, all else being equal, to have two daddies or two mommies as he would be to have a daddy and a mommy” are the roots of our civilizational destruction - then the fight really is OVER! The greatest evil always begins with such LIES... or to quote Leviathan, "<span style="font-style:italic;">You will not die</span>!" If gay conservatives don't understand <span style="font-style:italic;">that</span>, they might as well vacate the battlefield.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">And there's another whole ocean of hurt swirling up into this storm. This “gay marriage” movement is anti-religious and <i>specifically</i> anti-traditional orthodox religions – you know - the kinds conservatives tend to practice. The Bible, <i>particularly</i> the Five Books of Moses, has a sweeping theme of anti-paganism. God commands his people not to sacrifice their children to Moloch (abortion, anyone?), not to tattoo themselves, not to eat, dress or worship like the pagans and yes, not to practice homosexuality as it was practiced in an ancient world filled with pederasty and perversion. Well. There really is nothing new under the sun.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The Bible is also full of smiting by God of both the pagans and his own people who disobey. Huh, wonder what happens when a preacher, priest or rabbi even <i>reads </i>this history to his congregation, let alone refuses to marry a gay couple? Hate crime, anyone? Hello, McFly?! Are we prepared to see our religious leaders go to <i>PRISON</i>? Think it can't happen here? It is already happening in other western societies.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">And yes, I'm so pissed off, I'm going to <i>go there</i>. This is another, less obvious form of the fascist Left's antisemitism. I'm not Jewish, but I have a deep regard for the ethical system of Judaism which lies at the foundation of Christianity and western civilization. And male/female marriage is arguably “<i>the</i>” social institution which makes western civilization possible. Any <i>compelling</i> state interest there???</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">What don't gay marriage advocates <i>get</i> about having standards and ideals, which maybe even 99.9% of the population are incapable of achieving? Would they not even wish to teach their <i>own</i> children to desire the complementarity of male/female unions? Will any of us be <i>free </i>to teach our children the male/female ideal?? If you aren't cut out for male/female marriage, then fine. Don't have one. I bear my own cross and won't think any less of you.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">To gay conservatives who want to marry – GET OVER YOURSELVES! It isn't about you. Yes, it is “discriminatory” just the way we discriminate against a brother and sister who are "in love" and wish to marry or how we discriminate against Mormons and (gasp!) the Left's favored allies, Muslims, who wish to practice polygamy. Yes, it is somewhat tragic and unfair that you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to everything heterosexuals have. Wahahha! Quit your whining! Unlike elsewhere in the world, you live in a society so tolerant, so liberal, so generous, you not only don't have to worry about being executed or generally shunned by your fellow citizens, you can have almost <i>all </i>the legal protections of straight couples under civil unions. And I'll even fight with you to make sure you have them <i>all</i>. But you * can't * have * marriage *. As I tell my kids... take your Vitamin “N” (No!).</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">You can choose to be miserable under such a system or you can choose to be GRATEFUL and go on with your happy lives largely left alone by a vast majority of people who don't GIVE A RAT what you do in your bedroom.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Conservatives of every stripe should be about free conscience. Even if gays “win” by destroying the definition of marriage, a large majority of people will never be convinced that the relationship they have with each other is “marriage.” You can't control people's beliefs or thoughts, no matter how Orwellian the system. You can only destroy those whom you oppose. Welcome to 1984... or maybe even more apropos - welcome to Babylon.</p></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></span>The Western Chauvinisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05110055445490648780noreply@blogger.com11