Might the term, "Landmark" also describe a sign reading, “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”?

A lot of digital ink has been spilled since the Supreme Court released the Obergfell decision. This article from National Journal pulled some of the juicier quotes from the 4 dissents. I don't think anyone has done a better job critiquing Justice Kennedy's loopy justification than his four colleagues have.

The majority wrote "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."

Recalling the article that I will post as soon as I overcome a technical error) about the inevitable effects revisions of their cannons by the Anglican Communion to recognize so-called SSM, the USCC has confirmed those predictions.

Justice Thomas’ dissent included this rebuke:
Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

Which was foretold in Solicitor General Verrilli’s response to Justice Alito’s question.

“I don’t deny that, Justice Alito.  It is –it is going to be an issue.”

In a choice between the First Amendment and “a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." The imaginary one will trump the objective one every time with this bunch.

First Thoughts on Laudato Si

18 June 15

Today the much discussed, eagerly (or fearfully) awaited, scandalously leaked encyclical on stewardship of the environment was released.

Up until today, I have intentionally avoided reading commentary about it. It has all been conjecture and spin. Today I tried to access the Vatican web site, but it is timing out. I can only assume that a whole lot of people on the east coast of the United States are trying to get their eyes on it. Hopefully (but doubtfully) for their own good. Probably to advance their own opinions and agendas. Such is it with fallen Man.

I being no less fallen than my brother, will have to check my own prejudices as I read it and try my best to read it with an open and generous heart.

This reminder by Rebecca Hamilton is a useful corrective in that regard. 

“This time in which we live is every bit as much satan’s hour as that night in the garden.

“Satan will use any doorway into us, including what we think of as our faithfulness to Him. One clear sign that we can use to discern that we are on the wrong path is when we begin to base our righteousness on the sins of other people.

“That is the first sin of cafeteria Catholics, of the red and the blue, the left and right. They are forever attacking one another and claiming righteousness for themselves based on the sins of the other.”

When I read the Bible, Church documents, and other reliable spiritual works, I try ask, “WHY does it say that?” rather than “Why does it say THAT?” Seek to understand before seeking a riposte or objection.

Going in, my position is:

1. Yes. The climate changes. Yes, the activity of nearly 7 billion people will affect how it changes. Undoubtedly, human activity can have a direct and adverse impact on the local and perhaps the global environment.
2. Yes, people, organizations, companies, governments should adopt procedures that consider the impact of their activity on the environment and should make every reasonable effort to act in ways that moderate any adverse effects.
3. No. Climate science is not “settled.” It is obvious to me that too many of the efforts and reports in that area of study have been politicized. As a result, prudence demands any pronouncements be looked at closely with a critical eye.
4. No, the earth and its systems are too complex and too interdependent for scientists to have even a superficial understanding of it. As a result, computer models cannot be dispositive, if they can be meaningful at all when they are based upon questionable and insufficient data; designed by scientists with preconceived outcomes, political agendas or financial stakes; and trying to not only describe but PREDICT a system which they do not sufficiently understand.
5. Yes, globally, mismanagement, selfishness, excess by the “have” has exacerbated the impact of environmental changes on the poor. Charity and good stewardship go hand-in-glove.
6. No, global governance will not solve the problem. Concentration of power tends to amplify bad decisions, create greater opportunities for abuse, and crush potential creative solutions in favor of bureaucratically created ‘plans.’

Here’s the AP’s blatantlyanti-Capitalist, anti-growth take. I only read the first couple of lines before I realized I needed to read the source before this stuff totally skewed my opinion. Of course, AP stories are reprinted or rewritten around the country, so this is the sort of thing most Americans will read about the encyclical.

This looks like it might be more balanced and better informed.

This is an interesting take from someone suffering from drought in California.

Apparently, Patriarch Bartholomew hasbeen green for a while.

And no survey would be complete without an angry rant from an anti-Catholic hater.

More to follow as I read the encyclical for myself and continue to scan the commentary on it.

graduates and their families deserve to sleep through good commencement speeches

Why conservatives give better commencement speeches than liberals

An interesting review of two compilations of commencement speeches; one from the Left and one from a reasonable point of view in that right wing rag, the Washington Post.

“Why conservatives give better commencement speeches than liberals” is because they have better ideas based upon better world views. The first one, “Conservatives speak to you as an individual. Liberal commencement speakers tend to address graduates as members of a group” says it all.

And really, graduates and their families deserve to sleep through good commencement speeches.

Time to Evangelize like we mean it

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4184/Dissident-Groups-Scheme-against-Archbishop-Cordileone-Catholic-Education.aspx

I think it may be past time for Catholics to stop being passive, to give up on wishing to be merely left alone. It is time for the New Evangelization to actively take the field; to express loudly and confidently that Catholic Moral Teaching is right, that the Church is right and that it is truly the path to happiness and fulfillment, not ‘access to contraceptives’ not ‘acceptance of opposing views’ (particularly those that do not accept ours). All that stuff above is bad. Objectively bad. Not just in light of Catholic teaching; although Catholic teaching explains conclusively why they are bad. We have the Good News, dammit! Theirs is the way to wreck and ruin. We need to not only push back, but to push them out – Good Riddance!

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4178/Commencement-Speakers-Can-Exemplify-Colleges%e2%80%99-Catholic-Identity.aspx

Pick your party

Relativism is bad.

Marxism is bad.

Progressivism is bad.

Secularism is bad.

And look where its gotten us.

Because we don’t do this anymore.

My Selfish Genes Made Me Create Frankenstein and Destroy Mankind!

It’s all fun and games until the giant robot AI flying monkeys attack.

Oh, by the way, we have no choice in the matter. Literally. We can’t help ourselves. We have no agency.

This guy, who is a strict Materialist, New Atheist and presumes himself to be a rigorous Determinist seems like the perfect target for ruminations on the weakness of his position. 

The thinness of it. Seems like he’s enjoying the feedback granted him by TNR republishing his blog post about Tsarnaev and the death penalty. 

But, he really isn't enjoying it. It’s just the way his body experiences the various firings of certain neurons in response to external stimulus according to how those neurons have been conditioned by Evolution and his particular experience. Isn't that a joy? 

I wish I’d saved the article that floated downstream on FB about the war between science and religion. Regarding Religion, of course, I am limiting myself to considering the Catholic POV. It is worth looking at who the New Atheists attack as being anti-science. Usually it’s radical Christian Fundamentalists (Young Earthers, Creationist or whatever pejorative the NA’s choose to use). Some braver ones, like the late Christopher Hitchens, also attacked radical Muslims, like ISIS, who truly are anti-science.

My premise is that science per se is completely compatible with Christianity per se as represented in the teachings of the Catholic Church. In a certain way, science could be considered a sub-set of theology. More on this later, perhaps.

However, many members of the Science community are at war with religion in general and often with Catholic doctrine in particular. Often for personal or political reasons. Also often for philosophical reasons. Their Atheism precedes their scientific opinion and restricts it to atheistic conclusions. Religion has had a war on error, ignorance and their particular form in Atheism for a long time. So, it could be said that the Church has been in conflict with these atheistic scientists and their fellow travelers in other disciplines and their cheerleaders in the press for a long time as well. It is those folks who have, undeservedly, assumed the banner of Science in their war on Faith and Reason.

In the end, their arguments come down to this:

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

― Christopher Hitchens

And for people who believe they can believe that they haven’t the power to believe what they choose to believe, like Coyne, those people can’t even claim a right to an opinion.

But they are forced, by the ineluctable rules of biology, I suppose, to foist these particular set of synaptic activity upon young people whose parent’s evolutionary instincts have led them to pay woefully large sums of money to universities.

Does Christianity have a Future?

The Daily Beast asks: Does Christianity have a Future?

Does anything else under the sun?