Notre Dame has a Gender Studies
program? Why?
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Freedom: Progressive Dystopia
Wow. My girls devoured the Hunger Games, divergent and The Giver books series and movies. I'm glad to see the content was enough to make a commentator for the Guardian warn against letting Progressive children read them.
It is frightening to me, though, to realize that Progressives would consider the Donald Sutherland character in Hunger Games or the Meryl Streep character in The Giver to be the GOOD GUYS.
Very scary to think the Utopias that Progressives promise are so dystopian in effect.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Why isn't it National "Catholic" Reporter
I'm thinking the National Catholic Reporter must be some sort of parody or false flag operation run by Fundamentalists or something.
Case in point, Fr. Thomas Reece is purportedly a Jesuit priest and a Senior Analyst for what National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap). But he and his readers consider themselves more Catholic than the pope, or at least the American bishops. He is certain that the mark of true Catholic charity is to be found in tut-tutting doctrinal orthodoxy and tsk-tsking those benighted spirits who don't share his enlightened (read politically Progressive) views.
Case in point, Fr. Thomas Reece is purportedly a Jesuit priest and a Senior Analyst for what National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap). But he and his readers consider themselves more Catholic than the pope, or at least the American bishops. He is certain that the mark of true Catholic charity is to be found in tut-tutting doctrinal orthodoxy and tsk-tsking those benighted spirits who don't share his enlightened (read politically Progressive) views.
Fr. Reece sees the Church in the world
through an unfortunately bifurcated lens. In charity, I will say that
his concern for the poor and for Progressive causes has blinded him
to the real meaning of “the
consistent ethic of life.” That blindness leads him to say
things like this: “The last thing
troubled families need is bishops quoting papal encyclicals to them.”
I could say that he appears to believe that troubled families need
access to abortion, birth control and divorce more than they need the
pastoral teaching of the Magisterium to show them what is truly true
and beautiful and good. Perhaps he would have the bishops do away
with Jesus’teaching as well that “what God has joined let no man
put asunder.”etc. Frankly, there are trillions of tax dollars and
billions of corporate and private charitable dollars going to help
the poor. Somehow, they are not having the desired effect. Perhaps
Fr. Reese should spend some time thinking about why the Progressive
program to help the poor has failed so miserably. At the same time,
there are precious few who are willing to defend the Truth in regards
to the Family and sexual ethics. Does the proud Father consider that
the bishops’ voices appear louder on those subjects because there
are so few other voices? Fr. Reese’ is missing from the pro-family
chorus. And I have the sorry sense that he wished the bishops would
be silent too – or worse, join the amen chorus of Progressives who
cheer the re-definition of marriage, the dissolution of the family,
the misdirection of an individual’s sexual powers, the intentional
sterility of the womb and the death (when “compassion” demands)
of the unborn.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
A Modest Proposal
Ross Douthat has “A Modest Proposal” that entails
giving wealthier people more money will never float with the
egalitarians. Rather, they've already voiced their preferences for
Jonathan Swift’s version in the form of funding Planned Parenthood with federal, state and insurance dollars to kill the extra children that they find inconvenient.
Why I'm Not a Leftist (one reason among so many)
Things Leftists think are bad: “To
find the Tea Party throughline in this election cycle, you have to
look past the ballot counts and toward the policies – the
radicalism of which the GOP establishment refuses to recognize, much
less censure: voter ID, ratcheted down abortion access, bigotry
masquerading as "religious freedom", concealed carry.”
Progress? From what? To where?
""The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. " GK Chesterton From the Illustrated London NewsApril 19, 1924
Fr. Reece sees the Church in the world through an unfortunately bifurcated lens. In charity, I will say that
his concern for the poor and for Progressive causes has blinded him
to the real meaning of “the
consistent ethic of life.” That blindness leads him to say
things like this: “The last thing
troubled families need is bishops quoting papal encyclicals to them.”
I could say that he appears to believe that troubled families need
access to abortion, birth control and divorce more than they need the
pastoral teaching of the Magisterium to show them what is truly true
and beautiful and good. Perhaps he would have the bishops do away
with Jesus’teaching as well that “what God has joined let no man
put asunder.”etc. Frankly, there are trillions of tax dollars and
billions of corporate and private charitable dollars going to help
the poor. Somehow, they are not having the desired effect. Perhaps
Fr. Reese should spend some time thinking about why the Progressive
program to help the poor has failed so miserably. At the same time,
there are precious few who are willing to defend the Truth in regards
to the Family and sexual ethics. Does the proud Father consider that
the bishops’ voices appear louder on those subjects because there
are so few other voices? Fr. Reese’ is missing from the pro-family
chorus. And I have the sorry sense that he wished the bishops would
be silent too – or worse, join the amen chorus of Progressives who
cheer the re-definition of marriage, the dissolution of the family,
the misdirection of an individual’s sexual powers, the intentional
sterility of the womb and the death (when “compassion” demands)
of the unborn.
Of course, this story only presents one side of the argument; because that is the side NCR supports. But it leaves to be assumed that NCR prefers that the pope redefine truth and reality and will be disappointed if the Vicar of Christ uses the data to infuse the New Evangelization in order to teach the Church what is true and beautiful and good about human sexuality, marriage, children and the family.
Of course, this story only presents one side of the argument; because that is the side NCR supports. But it leaves to be assumed that NCR prefers that the pope redefine truth and reality and will be disappointed if the Vicar of Christ uses the data to infuse the New Evangelization in order to teach the Church what is true and beautiful and good about human sexuality, marriage, children and the family.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Dave Brat, Watergate Conspirator? Politico would like you to think so
This partisan piece in Politico is
unsurprising. Sometimes for what it says, sometimes for what it
doesn't say. It doesn't say anything about Democrats possibly
taking the House. Politico presumes Republicans will retain the
majority there. A really cute line attempts to subliminally link Brat
with Watergate,
“It’s perhaps no accident that
Cantor was defeated by an insurgent named Brat, an upstart
conservative Roman Catholic who received a master’s degree from
Princeton Theological Seminary, the alma mater of Watergate
conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder. Brat’s platform: Washington is
awash in corrupting cash, and it’s time for a change.”
- Let’s make fun of his name, mature.
- “insurgent,” “Brat,” “upstart,” “conservative Roman Catholic,” “Watergate conspirator.” Loaded language much?
- “conservative Roman Catholic” Didn’t that sort of anti-Catholic bias die with JFK? No, only if you are an ‘enlightened Catholic’ like Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc. But a ‘conservative Roman Catholic’ can only mean that Brat hates women and is in favor of pedophile priests, right?
- And since Brat attended the same college as Jeb Stuart Magruder (wait, don’t they only use all 3 names for serial killers? Unless I missed the subliminal between Brat and the Civil War general – of course! Brat also wants to sent African Americans back to the plantation!), of Watergate fame, Brat is also as tricky as one of Nixon’s henchman.
- It mentions Dave Brat, the man who soundly defeated Eric Cantor only once. It gives his last name once. Seems to me that the first person to defeat the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives in a primary since the Nineteenth Century deserves to at least have his name mentioned in a Politico hit piece.
It should be noted that Politico is one
of the few places where readers might possibly know who Magruder and
Stuart were or what Watergate was about. I’d wager that the
majority of people who vote for Brat’s opponent in November will
not know at least 2 out of 3 of those facts.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Can you believe this Anti-Christian bigot?
A huffpo blogger asks a loaded question: "Is Every Christian Who's Against Gay Marriage Necessarily a Bigot?"
Rhetorically, of course. He and every Huffpo reader (but one, I read the post too) already knows that anyone who doesn't swoon at Ellen Degeneris' bravery and demand "gay marriage" and all the rest is ipso facto, a bigot. But must all Christians be bigots?
Actually, he lies. He says, "You, anti-gay Christian, have the God-given freedom and the American right to believe whatever you want, and to worship and congregate with anyone and everyone who shares your beliefs. What sane person would argue against that?
Rhetorically, of course. He and every Huffpo reader (but one, I read the post too) already knows that anyone who doesn't swoon at Ellen Degeneris' bravery and demand "gay marriage" and all the rest is ipso facto, a bigot. But must all Christians be bigots?
Actually, he lies. He says, "You, anti-gay Christian, have the God-given freedom and the American right to believe whatever you want, and to worship and congregate with anyone and everyone who shares your beliefs. What sane person would argue against that?
For all practical purposes (and for such concerns, what else matters?) it is not beliefs that make a bigot. It's actions."
Well, except for a group of Christians, if there was one outside of Westboro Baptist, who refused to congregate with homosexuals (or should I say LBGTQ...). Or, more realistically, a Christian baker, photographer or florist who declined to participate in a "gay wedding." Nope, I'm pretty sure our bigoted blogger would argue with that.
But I suppose Christians should be grateful that he permits them to believe, worship and congregate.... so far. Insofar as the worship might entail reading the Bible (Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; ⇒ 1 Cor 6:10; ⇒ 1 Tim 1:10) or giving a sermon, I suspect Mr. Blogger may become a bit less generous with his tolerance. Don't even try to go beyond the limits he has set by perhaps obeying the precepts of your faith outside of your church building, by offering charity, adoption services or education to those in need - or even whispering in the dark ("If, in private, you intimate to your dearest friend that you don't think gay people should be allowed to get married, you are a bigot.") Nope! Once you step outside the Church, you are a bigot unless you sign-on to the entire ''gay rights'' agenda. Just ask Catholic Charities and more than a couple Catholic schools.
So, basically, this guy hates anyone who doesn't act exactly like he wants them to act. What a bigot!
Friday, May 16, 2014
I Don't Usually Read Paul Krugman.....
.... but when I do, I wonder how he can hold such illogical thoughts.
And this article is no exception.
Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."
Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.
While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.
Except not.
In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.
Let's give it a try:
Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."
Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."
And this article is no exception.
Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."
Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.
While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.
Except not.
In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.
Let's give it a try:
Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."
Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."
Friday, February 28, 2014
Don't Let Your Dingell Dangle
John Dingell Jr. recently announced that he intends to retire from the House of Representatives. He succeeded his father, John Dingell, Sr. in December 1955. Earlier in 1955, Winston Churchill resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, The Salk polio vaccine received full approval by the Food and Drug Administration.West Germany became a sovereign country.
Six months after Dingell Jr. took over his father's seat, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, creating the Interstate Highway System. So, Dingell Jr.'s term in Congress is older than the highways upon which drove the cars once made in his district.
A year after John Dingell ascended to Congress, Fidel Castro and his followers land in Cuba in the boat Granma.
Judging from before and after photos of Detroit and Cuba, it looks like Detroit has fared worse under 60 years of Communist rule than Detroit has under Democratic management.
Michigan Theater, Detroit
Detroit street before and after
Havana streets before the Revolution
Havana after the Revolution
John Dingell Sr was seated in Congress in 1933; the same year that construction began on the Golden Gate Bridge, Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, Pakistan was part of India, Prohibition was still in effect, and perhaps the most ironic of all, during the first year that a Dingell sat in the House:
- The United States Federal Government outlaws cannabis.
And during the last year of Dingell Jr.'s reign, the US Federal Government has effectively legalized cannabis:
Justice Department Will Allow Washington, Colorado Marijuana Legalization
So, the combined "service" of Dingells senior and junior will have spanned over 80 eventful years.
Where the wacko birds roost
I've grown tired of Leftists (and some Republicans) complaining about "right-wing extremists" and warning about some supposed takeover of the Republican Party by purists who refuse to accept compromise on issues.
Of course, it isn't just the Left who seems convinced that anyone who pushes back against the "Progressive" march of our country to bigger, more intrusive government is a "wacko bird."
All the while, the real monomaniacal, uncompromising purists of extreme positions are pretty solidly from the Left.
The NYT reports that Leftist lobbyists and senators are chaffed at a deal Obama made to get a political crony through the judicial nomination process.
"When Democrats changed Senate rules last year to limit the filibuster against White House nominees, it raised hopes among some liberals that President Obama would use his new power to reshape the federal judiciary. Now, just over three months later, some Democrats and progressive groups are instead trying to stop two of the president’s latest nominees to the federal bench on the grounds that they are too conservative.
Black lawmakers, civil rights advocates and abortion rights groups are challenging two Georgia nominees put forward by the White House under an agreement with the state’s two Republican senators. The two Republicans were given a say in picking candidates for district court in exchange for allowing a stalled nominee to a federal appeals court to advance."
This sort of deal making with senators is as old as the Republic. But, of course, there is no honor among the Progressive thieves infesting Washington today, so the prospect of Democrats reneging on the president's deal is very real; even probable. And the president will object to that even less than he did to the Russian re-conquest of the Ukraine or al Qaeda re-conquest of Fallujah.
The Democratic Party is run part and parcel by true believers who will accept no deviation from the "Progressive" vision they have set before themselves for the country. Look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nearly a majority of Democrats in Congress are members and almost all of the leadership. Then look at their platform. Look at what the caucus leadership has said and the sorts of things they want to inflict on this country. Then tell me that Ted Cruz is an extremist wacko bird.
Of course, it isn't just the Left who seems convinced that anyone who pushes back against the "Progressive" march of our country to bigger, more intrusive government is a "wacko bird."
All the while, the real monomaniacal, uncompromising purists of extreme positions are pretty solidly from the Left.
The NYT reports that Leftist lobbyists and senators are chaffed at a deal Obama made to get a political crony through the judicial nomination process.
"When Democrats changed Senate rules last year to limit the filibuster against White House nominees, it raised hopes among some liberals that President Obama would use his new power to reshape the federal judiciary. Now, just over three months later, some Democrats and progressive groups are instead trying to stop two of the president’s latest nominees to the federal bench on the grounds that they are too conservative.
Black lawmakers, civil rights advocates and abortion rights groups are challenging two Georgia nominees put forward by the White House under an agreement with the state’s two Republican senators. The two Republicans were given a say in picking candidates for district court in exchange for allowing a stalled nominee to a federal appeals court to advance."
This sort of deal making with senators is as old as the Republic. But, of course, there is no honor among the Progressive thieves infesting Washington today, so the prospect of Democrats reneging on the president's deal is very real; even probable. And the president will object to that even less than he did to the Russian re-conquest of the Ukraine or al Qaeda re-conquest of Fallujah.
The Democratic Party is run part and parcel by true believers who will accept no deviation from the "Progressive" vision they have set before themselves for the country. Look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nearly a majority of Democrats in Congress are members and almost all of the leadership. Then look at their platform. Look at what the caucus leadership has said and the sorts of things they want to inflict on this country. Then tell me that Ted Cruz is an extremist wacko bird.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Spinning the CBO
They say statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics. Case in point: President Barack Obama’s top economist, Jason Furman, tried to obfuscate the impact of Obama's, and the Left in general, demand for an increase in the federal minimum wage. While passing over the CBO's projection that doing so would result in 500,000 people losing their jobs, Furman posited that increasing the minimum wage would " lift many [employees] out of poverty". A projection, based on statistical modelling done by the CBO.
Furman is also the man tasked with spinning the CBO's dire predictions about the effects of Obamacare on opportunity in this country. The CBO projected that "Obamacare would decrease labor participation by the equivalent of 2 million jobs by 2017". “This is not businesses cutting back on jobs,” Furman said during the conference call, in an attempt to put a favorable spin the CBO-provided numbers. “This is people having new choices.”
I would like to know if the people who might have been "lifted out of poverty" by the increase in the minimum wage are the same people who then face Furman's Choice: reduce their work hours and income to maintain their insurance subsidy or accept the increased income and the reduction in take-home pay that comes with it. That is a Hobson's Choice created by government policies which ultimately results in trapping low-income employees in poverty and limiting their upward mobility. Another tragic consequence of the law of good intentions.
Furman is also the man tasked with spinning the CBO's dire predictions about the effects of Obamacare on opportunity in this country. The CBO projected that "Obamacare would decrease labor participation by the equivalent of 2 million jobs by 2017". “This is not businesses cutting back on jobs,” Furman said during the conference call, in an attempt to put a favorable spin the CBO-provided numbers. “This is people having new choices.”
I would like to know if the people who might have been "lifted out of poverty" by the increase in the minimum wage are the same people who then face Furman's Choice: reduce their work hours and income to maintain their insurance subsidy or accept the increased income and the reduction in take-home pay that comes with it. That is a Hobson's Choice created by government policies which ultimately results in trapping low-income employees in poverty and limiting their upward mobility. Another tragic consequence of the law of good intentions.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Bittersweet
1bit·ter·sweet n \ˈbi-tÉ™r-ËŒswÄ“t\
1. Reading a critical review by Florence King of a book by P.J. O'Rourke that derides my age group as"fish living in a sea of hooey."
1. Reading a critical review by Florence King of a book by P.J. O'Rourke that derides my age group as"fish living in a sea of hooey."
More on Religious Accomodation
According to news reports, the Military will soon allow service members to sport turbans, beards, tattoos and piercings as part of an expanded accommodation of their religious or non-religious expression.
The Hill reports, "A new Pentagon policy states that military departments will accommodate religious requests from individual service members unless a request would interfere with military readiness, a mission, unit cohesion, or good order and discipline.
This would include religious clothing, facial hair, religious tattoos and piercings."
The article concludes by quoting a Pentagon spokesman, "The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and the rights of others to their own religious beliefs," "including the right to hold no beliefs,"
The revised DoD Instruction R 1300.17 is available here. On my first reading, I found some revisions that seem to weaken the requirements of the Services to accommodate religious practice. Perhaps more on that later.
I suspect the Church of Body Modification will soon grow in membership.
But still no slack for the Little Sisters of the Poor...
The Hill reports, "A new Pentagon policy states that military departments will accommodate religious requests from individual service members unless a request would interfere with military readiness, a mission, unit cohesion, or good order and discipline.
This would include religious clothing, facial hair, religious tattoos and piercings."
The article concludes by quoting a Pentagon spokesman, "The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the military services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and the rights of others to their own religious beliefs," "including the right to hold no beliefs,"
The revised DoD Instruction R 1300.17 is available here. On my first reading, I found some revisions that seem to weaken the requirements of the Services to accommodate religious practice. Perhaps more on that later.
I suspect the Church of Body Modification will soon grow in membership.
But still no slack for the Little Sisters of the Poor...
In the battle between Charity and Indulgence, Indulgence has won
Am I alone in my suspicion that the Obama Administration likes these "sisters"
more than these sisters:
Because, of course, this work:
is so much more beneficial to society
than this work:
Nah. What could give me that idea?
It might be that the Administration has issued at least 729 waivers to Obamacare mandates to unions, municipalities and corporations but is fighting the Little Sisters and over 300 other plaintiffs all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce the mandate that they violate their religious believes and allow free birth control and abortifacients to be provided through their health insurance plans.
If it wins, the Administration will have the power to fine the Little Sisters out of their ministry to the indigent elderly people. Like it already has forced Catholic Charities out of providing adoption services.
Meanwhile, back at the DOJ: "Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government will recognize so-called “marriages” performed in Utah between persons of the same sex that even Utah itself does not recognize as marriage."
While "IRS/White House Collusion in the War on Religion"
And the list of people with faith being subject to compulsion to act contrary to the tenets of their faith continues to grow: "The Huguenins, who run Elane Photography, have no right to choose not to take on a same-sex wedding, according to the court.... A florist in Washington has been sued for declining to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony. A family-operated inn in Vermont was sued for supposedly declining to host a same-sex wedding reception on its premises. Cake makers in Oregon and Colorado have been sued for declining to create cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies. A promotional printer in Kentucky has been sued for declining to print shirts for a local gay-pride festival."
They each face a variety of civil damages, fines and potential jail sentences. In each case, they face closing their businesses - and losing their livelihoods if they refuse to participate in events that they consider morally wrong.
Perhaps this is the sort of progress Obama had in mind in his Presidential Proclamation for LGBT Month, "This year, we celebrate LGBT Pride Month at a moment of great hope and progress, recognizing that more needs to be done."
I shudder to think what more he hopes for on this front, which the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and the Obama Administration seem to consider a sacred rite.
more than these sisters:
Because, of course, this work:
is so much more beneficial to society
than this work:
Nah. What could give me that idea?
It might be that the Administration has issued at least 729 waivers to Obamacare mandates to unions, municipalities and corporations but is fighting the Little Sisters and over 300 other plaintiffs all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce the mandate that they violate their religious believes and allow free birth control and abortifacients to be provided through their health insurance plans.
If it wins, the Administration will have the power to fine the Little Sisters out of their ministry to the indigent elderly people. Like it already has forced Catholic Charities out of providing adoption services.
Meanwhile, back at the DOJ: "Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government will recognize so-called “marriages” performed in Utah between persons of the same sex that even Utah itself does not recognize as marriage."
While "IRS/White House Collusion in the War on Religion"
And the list of people with faith being subject to compulsion to act contrary to the tenets of their faith continues to grow: "The Huguenins, who run Elane Photography, have no right to choose not to take on a same-sex wedding, according to the court.... A florist in Washington has been sued for declining to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony. A family-operated inn in Vermont was sued for supposedly declining to host a same-sex wedding reception on its premises. Cake makers in Oregon and Colorado have been sued for declining to create cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies. A promotional printer in Kentucky has been sued for declining to print shirts for a local gay-pride festival."
They each face a variety of civil damages, fines and potential jail sentences. In each case, they face closing their businesses - and losing their livelihoods if they refuse to participate in events that they consider morally wrong.
Perhaps this is the sort of progress Obama had in mind in his Presidential Proclamation for LGBT Month, "This year, we celebrate LGBT Pride Month at a moment of great hope and progress, recognizing that more needs to be done."
I shudder to think what more he hopes for on this front, which the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and the Obama Administration seem to consider a sacred rite.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Imago Dei
Time reports on a campaign among Evangelicals that seeks to refocus their engagement with the culture and also to present their beliefs in a more positive light.
Time quotes the campaign's statement of purpose, "The Imago Dei, or Image of God, pledge is simple: “I recognize that every human being, in and out of the womb, carries the image of God; without exception. Therefore, I will treat everyone with love and respect.”""
Now, as a Catholic, this really seems like a big so-what? Of course a Christian recognizes the inherent dignity of every human being from conception to natural death and recognizes his responsibility to God and to his fellow creature to treat him with love and respect. We often fail, but we ought never forget our responsibility exists.
During this week of the March for Life, I would expect Time to notice the explicit reference to "in and out of the womb."
Nah. Like clockwork, Time buried the Pro-Life lede two days before the March for Life.
TIME's headline is funny, really - but not in a good way:
The Imago Dei Campaign: Evangelical Groups Say Gays Made in God’s Image
Like it's breaking news, or something.
Because, of course, Evangelicals have always thought that every human being - except gays - were created in God's image. I'm trying to recall when Ken Ham or Jerry Falwell said, "Man was created on the 6th Day of Creation, out of mud, 10,000 years ago; except Gays. Gays evolved from monkeys in West Africa."
Apparently Time heard them say that somewhere. Maybe in a dream.
Seems like the Imago Dei Campaign recognizes the work cut out for it exemplified by Time's ignorant and biased vision of Evangelicals. Its list of objectives includes:
Enrich and redeem the narrative of American Evangelicalism by replacing the perceived image of an angry homogenous evangelical demographic that opposes everything to a convicted yet compassionate multi-ethnic kingdom culture community committed to sharing truth with love.
People are having similar difficulties with Pope Francis' efforts to evangelize folks like Time, its readers and Elizabeth Dias, the author. So called 'liberal Catholics' and those ignorant of the teachings of the Church (like Time, et.al.) leapt at some of his comments as hints that he was open to changing Church doctrine on homosexual acts, divorce, birth control, etc. and figured he misspoke or was throwing a bone to B16-philes when he said, "of course I'm a son of the Church" and that he affirms everything the Church teaches on those issues.
Perhaps this pictorial essay in The Week may help Time readers to understand how we can recognize a person as created in the image of God while he or she is attempting to obscure the Imago Dei.
God sees us as He created us, kind of like the picture on the left (Gen 1:27 So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them....31 And God saw all that he had made, and found it very good.)
Our own accretions to ourselves, when they diverge from God's design for us, may be colorful, entertaining, 'edgy', or whatever. We may think they are authentic expressions of who we think we really are. We may think they make us more happy.
But God sees us as we really are, as He created us. And He sees that all He has made is very good. The things we do to ourselves to alter that creation are not really improvements. They aren't beautiful, true and good.
Christianity demands that I recognize, love and respect the human person created in God's image beneath the caricature of a person as she represents herself in the picture on the right. I needn't love or respect the rib cage corset or skull headpiece. In fact, I ought, in a loving way, share with her that she would be more comfortable, more authentic and more truly happy being as God created her to be.
Nor does loving a person Imago Dei require me to love or respect his disfigurement of his sexuality, his responsibilities to the poor or to the defenseless. That is how I do my duty to my fellow man, created in God's image, and to God, Who created him.
ADDENDUM: Here is another example of the Imago Dei exposed and concealed.
Of course, Our Father sees us in our hearts, as we really are. I pray he doesn't see a made-up clown when He looks at me.
Time quotes the campaign's statement of purpose, "The Imago Dei, or Image of God, pledge is simple: “I recognize that every human being, in and out of the womb, carries the image of God; without exception. Therefore, I will treat everyone with love and respect.”""
Now, as a Catholic, this really seems like a big so-what? Of course a Christian recognizes the inherent dignity of every human being from conception to natural death and recognizes his responsibility to God and to his fellow creature to treat him with love and respect. We often fail, but we ought never forget our responsibility exists.
During this week of the March for Life, I would expect Time to notice the explicit reference to "in and out of the womb."
Nah. Like clockwork, Time buried the Pro-Life lede two days before the March for Life.
TIME's headline is funny, really - but not in a good way:
The Imago Dei Campaign: Evangelical Groups Say Gays Made in God’s Image
Like it's breaking news, or something.
Because, of course, Evangelicals have always thought that every human being - except gays - were created in God's image. I'm trying to recall when Ken Ham or Jerry Falwell said, "Man was created on the 6th Day of Creation, out of mud, 10,000 years ago; except Gays. Gays evolved from monkeys in West Africa."
Apparently Time heard them say that somewhere. Maybe in a dream.
Seems like the Imago Dei Campaign recognizes the work cut out for it exemplified by Time's ignorant and biased vision of Evangelicals. Its list of objectives includes:
Enrich and redeem the narrative of American Evangelicalism by replacing the perceived image of an angry homogenous evangelical demographic that opposes everything to a convicted yet compassionate multi-ethnic kingdom culture community committed to sharing truth with love.
People are having similar difficulties with Pope Francis' efforts to evangelize folks like Time, its readers and Elizabeth Dias, the author. So called 'liberal Catholics' and those ignorant of the teachings of the Church (like Time, et.al.) leapt at some of his comments as hints that he was open to changing Church doctrine on homosexual acts, divorce, birth control, etc. and figured he misspoke or was throwing a bone to B16-philes when he said, "of course I'm a son of the Church" and that he affirms everything the Church teaches on those issues.
Perhaps this pictorial essay in The Week may help Time readers to understand how we can recognize a person as created in the image of God while he or she is attempting to obscure the Imago Dei.
God sees us as He created us, kind of like the picture on the left (Gen 1:27 So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them....31 And God saw all that he had made, and found it very good.)
Our own accretions to ourselves, when they diverge from God's design for us, may be colorful, entertaining, 'edgy', or whatever. We may think they are authentic expressions of who we think we really are. We may think they make us more happy.
But God sees us as we really are, as He created us. And He sees that all He has made is very good. The things we do to ourselves to alter that creation are not really improvements. They aren't beautiful, true and good.
Christianity demands that I recognize, love and respect the human person created in God's image beneath the caricature of a person as she represents herself in the picture on the right. I needn't love or respect the rib cage corset or skull headpiece. In fact, I ought, in a loving way, share with her that she would be more comfortable, more authentic and more truly happy being as God created her to be.
Nor does loving a person Imago Dei require me to love or respect his disfigurement of his sexuality, his responsibilities to the poor or to the defenseless. That is how I do my duty to my fellow man, created in God's image, and to God, Who created him.
ADDENDUM: Here is another example of the Imago Dei exposed and concealed.
Of course, Our Father sees us in our hearts, as we really are. I pray he doesn't see a made-up clown when He looks at me.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Death by a Thousand Cuts by Hanlon's Razor
This is the most confounding administration I have ever seen. Every indication leads to the conclusion that it's intentionally committed to the destruction of the remnants of Constitutional order that still flutter like tattered shreds from the bent and corroded flag pole of our body politic.
It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that nothing this administration has done has been to the benefit of the country, while nearly everything it has done has been to its detriment. Granted, some interest group, grievance mob or financial concern has benefited greatly from this or that particular policy. But it is clear that the General Welfare has suffered and continues to do so.
Such a perfect record of perfidy cannot be unintentional, can it?
But can we be sure that the administration is guilty of deceitfulness; untrustworthiness.
I feel like we can.
But, is it possible that this is The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight on a gargantuan, whole-of-government level?
Before we leap on the crazy train of conspiracy theory, we should at least try to eliminate any more likely possibilities.
My first inclination is to assign the mal-government of the current regime to a gargantuan case of Groupthink among the Progressive/Liberal/Leftist "elite" operating in this country.
According to the Oregon State University web site on the subject, it appears so:
Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals.
The symptoms are familiar to anyone following the antics of the current administration and its fellow travelers:
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
Type II: Closed-mindedness
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
And the outcomes also seem to fit Professor Irving Janis' observations:
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking
That's my working hypothesis. But there is another possibility: Stupidity.
Hanlon's Razor posits: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Are we experiencing massive stupidity at a cost of $1.1T per year in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs? But isn't the Administration filled with Distinguished Harvard graduates and high ranking government officials?
Yeah, so what? Not like a Harvard education equips them to identify the capital of Canada, or anything like that. The list of Harvard graduates also includes, Enron crook Jeffrey Skilling, a geneticist and child molester named W. French Anderson, and Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who was raided by the FBI in August and found to have $90,000 hidden in his freezer and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, Class of 1962.
No, I'm afraid we have to seriously consider near universal stupidity within the Obama administration and among Progressive/Liberal/Leftists in general before we can leap to any conspiracy theories.
After all, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that nothing this administration has done has been to the benefit of the country, while nearly everything it has done has been to its detriment. Granted, some interest group, grievance mob or financial concern has benefited greatly from this or that particular policy. But it is clear that the General Welfare has suffered and continues to do so.
Such a perfect record of perfidy cannot be unintentional, can it?
But can we be sure that the administration is guilty of deceitfulness; untrustworthiness.
| synonyms: | treachery, duplicity, deceit, deceitfulness, disloyalty, infidelity,faithlessness, unfaithfulness, betrayal, treason, double-dealing,untrustworthiness, breach of trust; |
I feel like we can.
But, is it possible that this is The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight on a gargantuan, whole-of-government level?
Before we leap on the crazy train of conspiracy theory, we should at least try to eliminate any more likely possibilities.
My first inclination is to assign the mal-government of the current regime to a gargantuan case of Groupthink among the Progressive/Liberal/Leftist "elite" operating in this country.
According to the Oregon State University web site on the subject, it appears so:
Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals.
The symptoms are familiar to anyone following the antics of the current administration and its fellow travelers:
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
- Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
- Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
- Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
- Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
- Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
- Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
And the outcomes also seem to fit Professor Irving Janis' observations:
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking
- Incomplete survey of alternatives
- Incomplete survey of objectives
- Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
- Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
- Poor information search
- Selection bias in collecting information
- Failure to work out contingency plans.
That's my working hypothesis. But there is another possibility: Stupidity.
Hanlon's Razor posits: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Are we experiencing massive stupidity at a cost of $1.1T per year in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs? But isn't the Administration filled with Distinguished Harvard graduates and high ranking government officials?
Yeah, so what? Not like a Harvard education equips them to identify the capital of Canada, or anything like that. The list of Harvard graduates also includes, Enron crook Jeffrey Skilling, a geneticist and child molester named W. French Anderson, and Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who was raided by the FBI in August and found to have $90,000 hidden in his freezer and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, Class of 1962.
No, I'm afraid we have to seriously consider near universal stupidity within the Obama administration and among Progressive/Liberal/Leftists in general before we can leap to any conspiracy theories.
After all, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)