Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Why Lothar Lorraine is part of the problem

I don't like liberal Christians. Not exactly shocking to anyone who frequents this blog. I can name a handful of exceptions - Victor Reppert remains a man I hold in high esteem, whatever my disagreements with his politics. Bob Prokop, on a good day, is at least someone I can drop my guard with. But it's a short list, and even the list of 'conservatives' I like is forever getting smaller as I keep having to cross names off the list (see: #Nevertrumpers and their creepy globalist bible.)

Which brings me to Lothar Lorraine.

See, Lothar's a funny case - he was, really, the last left-wing Christian I was talking with (Reppert and Prokop aside) before I hit the brakes and decided that no, there is no possibility for peace and cooperation between our respective sides. Lothar will insist he's always been exceptionally polite to me, and I will admit that he has been. I breathed fire at his blog in the past - I've not been there for ages - and at his commenters. Granted, I was dealing with some shitty individuals, but I know that people like their regulars and don't appreciate it when someone like myself scares them off.

The point is, I won't say that Lothar's mistreated me personally. Which makes me seem rather rude for including him in the list of 'liberal Christians' I hold in contempt, right? Shouldn't I be seeking out common ground and trying to put our differences aside?

Here's half of the problem with Lothar, and with - really - liberal Christians as a rule. Their liberal politics are not opinions that they have. They are, instead, fundamental components of what amounts to religious law in a faith which is all-consuming, which knows no borders or bounds, and which they work to make all ultimately subject to.

So Lothar, despite not being a Catholic, will cheer on and encourage people to undermine my church, openly hoping for the day where the first lesbian bishop blesses a gay wedding for three women, one of whom made sure to get an abortion at the last minute to make sure she fit into her wedding dress. Every movement towards this is met with cheers by Lothar, because - ultimately - his religion demands it, because it is thoroughly a conquering religion, and its points of conquest are wholly political in nature. "Social justice", from shore to shore, regressive and twisted though it may be. Christ, by the way, is quite optional in this scheme. That's not an important component in this aspect of his religion. Atheists, even evangelical atheists, are allies on this scheme.

I am not going to call someone a friend or an acquaintance when they treat me personally, 'face to face', with civility, yet are unceasing in giving aid, comfort and encouragement to people openly trying to rob me of my culture and my faith. What can I say - it's a sticking point.

Now, despite this, I give credit where it's due. Lothar is no drone, and that sets him apart from other liberals. He will question liberal dogma, and many cannot. And for a while I drew encouragement from that. How can I not? It's fascinating.

Until I realized something. The second half of the problem, and the one which stopped me cold.

Lothar will (say) criticize Black Lives Matter. It's true, and that's remarkable. And he will face a torrent of left-wing hate for doing so. He will stand up against it. All good so far.

The problem is that when time comes to defend himself, people like myself turn out to be his shields.

In order to retain his liberal credentials, Lothar turns up the heat against Trump supporters - like yours truly. 'Hey,' he says, 'I'm still on your side! Look how I can condemn Trump supporters as racists who hate blacks and hispanics! He's a nazi! See? See? I'm still a good liberal - look how I take a verbal whip to these people we both hate!'

And then, Lothar will turn on a heel and come to people like me and expect sympathy. He stood up to BLM! He's convinced they're wrong now! Because, in part, of how they treat him. Can you believe they still went for his throat even -after- assuring them all that Trump supporters are motivated by the desire to string up blacks and gas all the latinos and declare white supremacy?

I suppose I should say, bravo for your bravery in trying to face the mob by expressing your contempt and resentment of... me and people like me.

Once again: kind of a sticking point.

Which is why, despite the politeness, I talk about how funny it's going to be once swaths of geography in France and Germany (hopefully, the liberal Christian and irreligious regions) no longer have 'mayors' as their heads but Qadis, and their resident feminists find themselves beaten into burqas. That sounds cruel, and it is cruel, but so is aiding and abetting the likes of George Soros and, yes, Obama and Clinton, as they try mightily to hollow out my religion and the religions of my peers and turn them into pagan temples to whatever Social Justice mental illness is all the rage. No, I don't want 'dialogue' over this shit anymore, which always turns out to be treated as the terms of my cultural surrender. No, I don't want to 'agree to disagree' and act friendly when someone openly aids, abets and provide moral encouragement to people who would see me starving to death for my beliefs, and robbed of any church to call my home.

That said, I hold out hope. Because at this rate Lothar is going to - belatedly - find himself turning into a full-blown nationalist and member of the Alt Right. At that point, perhaps, we'll finally be able to truly be within overlapping intellectual circles enough to warrant some sincere courtesy. But for now, I'm afraid I'm all out of the fake stuff.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Regarding globalist corporations and billionaire SJWs...

My attitude is: fuck 'em. Soak 'em too, for all I care.

It's weird that I have to say this, since I've made my nationalist and even protectionist sympathies known for a long time. I also think most arguments against the super-rich, which hinge on their accumulation of wealth, to be fundamentally flawed. In an ideal world, someone who manages to get wealthy via business acumen, hard work, brilliance and more, would have near complete control over their wealth. Of course, in an ideal world, they'd also spend that wealth ideally as well. On any given day, when we're talking principle, I err on the side of at the very least 'letting the wealthy spend their money as they see fit'.

I also do not live in an ideal world. I live in a world with Soros, Gates, and many other sorts whose wealth and their use of it is typically deployed to attack, frustrate, and undermine most things that are good and holy. Not even Churches are outside of their nasty little scope, since they see such things as just one more thing to influence and shape, even if they're on record as irreligious who are openly hostile to those Church's teachings.

This sort of thing invites a dilemma for me. See, despite all things, I try to be fair. I uphold free speech - even speech I find detestable. To give an example of what I mean... hypothetically, let's say Peter Boghossian - PeteBog, a guy I think is a nasty little rat of a man, a real shit by any measure - wanted to give a speech at a public university. And let's say, like Milo Yiannapolous - who I think is fantastic - students and rabble-rousers attempted to block him, rushing the stage, shoving and attacking his supporters in an attempt to try and shut down the event.

My response in both cases is the same: use force to allow them to speak. I will be more explicit: send in police, armored and weaponized, and beat down anyone who would not disperse to the sidelines to peacefully protest. Crack skulls if necessary, and I mean that literally. Call it one of the few more secular values I maintain; speech is sacrosanct in the public. Even people who I despise, I would protect.

But I'm not a universal zealot - I get practical when the topic demands it. The right of billionaires to corrupt and undermine whatever they please, to the point where they fund third party groups that will engage in violence, all while pleading innocence despite advising and directing these groups? To try and undermine borders to try and reshape whole countries, even countries they have no loyalty to? I'm not about to go to the wall for that one. And if tomorrow I wake up to news that a crying, pleading Soros has been snatched up by a foreign government, tossed into prison and his wealth confiscated, I'll laugh a hell of a lot more than I'll cry.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

George Soros attempting to influence the Catholic Church

Now and then one could get the impression that I really dislike liberal Christians.

If you'd like to see an example of why, here you go. Courtesy of Lifesite News.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

NCR Purge?

Now this is interesting. I'm hearing Shea isn't the only one fired from NCR.

Heads-up: I'm more a Breitbart guy, and my lifeline to Catholic news is headlines at New Advent. But this smells funny. Can someone tell me what's up? This seems a bit more like a newfound decision by a Catholic publication that they have been tolerating something that can be tolerated no more.

Someone informed, fill me in.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

The problem with the Seamless Garment

John Zmirak is a name I've heard before, but never followed up on - I kept assuming it was 'Father Z' for some reason. But reading his writings about the Seamless Garment strategy, I'm impressed. He's pointing out, plainly, not just what's wrong with it, but the reasons people have for promoting it.

Nice to see some sharp Catholics out there.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Mark Shea axed at the NCR

Thanks to Vand83 for pointing this out to me. If rumors are to be believed, Mark Shea apparently has been ousted as a paid editorialist for NCR. I haven't kept my eye on him in a while, but apparently he's recently been playing front-man for the latest left-wing con game on Catholics: the short version is, 'The pro-life movement only cares about dead infants. What nerve. We should redefine pro-life to mean things like supporting massive illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and every Democrat social policy in town, because Jesus demands that.' Apparently Shea, ever the hothead, got into it in a nasty way on some other blog I'm unaware of - but it was apparently bad enough that NCR decided they'd better part ways with him now.

Interesting stuff.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Comic misfires of the weekend

Let's see, what happened this weekend.

In New York we had an imam and another get shot. Immediately the local muslim community started screaming "Trump! Trump did this! Trump with his Islamophobia! Trump murdered this man!" I'm imagining that's going to go away now that police have released a sketch of the perp, and he looks... well, they call him 'south american' but I'm pretty sure that's a catch-all for 'a bit dark-skinned and probably another muslim' here. Oh well.

Not to be outdone, the black community in Milwaukee heard that a black guy got shot, and not only rioted and looted (for justice!) but also made sure to get caught on tape chasing down white people to beat. Also yammering about how rich people don't give enough money to black people so that's why they're rioting. But this is what happens when a black unarmed man is shot by a white cop, by which I mean this is what happens when a black armed man with a ton of ammo is shot by a black cop. Because that's what actually happened.

Trump's apparently planning a visit to the site of the riot this Tuesday, so that'll be interesting.

What's Wrong With the Victory

Welcome to the world of 'victory' in 2016 for conservative Christians in America.

Victory here means 'By bowing and scraping before the government, Christian colleges won the the right for their students to continue to receive state assistance with tuition, at the small cost of having to report each and every one of their Title IX exemptions the state. Which totally won't be used against them in any way, shape or form.'

The worst part is watching David French crow about how this just goes to show that Christians can still totally win victories if they just put up a good fight. Sure, he and Lydia suggest, maybe this isn't the -perfect- resolution, but progress is progress! This is the sort of idiot who talks about how great the Middle East is for Christians right now, because it allows them to witness to Christ, ie, get their heads cut off by screeching saracens.

So great. At the mere cost of bowing and scraping, Christians can be humiliated further by the state, but at least funding remains on for now. There's no small amount of irony here in watching a turbo-libertarian and Christian cheerleader celebrating what amounts to 'not quite as bad of an asskicking as this could have been', because it still allows for Christian colleges to receive public money.

Pardon me if my view's a bit more negative.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Rotten white people

While I have stopped giving a shit about 99% of 'racist' comments, the idea of white supremacy is as far from my mind as it ever was. And I have a reason that can easily knock down racial supremacy arguments across the board.

SJWism is propagated by whites, was largely the creation of whites, and a lot of whites subscribe to it.

Whites are no master race, and there is no master race. Tell me genetics of caucasians play a particular role, even an important one, in the founding and maintaining of various western nations and I'll hear you out. But I'll note that whatever sickness has been plaguing the west came in advance of 'diversity' and, as Vox Day calls them, the vibrants.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Agreeing to disagree

Agreeing to disagree doesn't work in a lot of contexts. If I believe Christ is Risen and you don't, we can agree to disagree as citizens of the same country. Not as members of the same Christian church. In that case, agreeing to disagree isn't enough - you need to leave.

You also need to leave if you think same-sex marriage is moral, women should become priests, abortion is acceptable, and more. No, we don't need a dialogue to discuss our differences. Your ass needs to find another church.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Selective forgiveness

Tell me that we need mercy and understanding for sinners - with an eye on anti-white BLM thugs, LGBT activists and abortionists - and I'll follow suit. But I'll do so, first, to the racists, the sexists, and the porn consumers. Once I've confirmed that mercy, forgiveness and understanding is meant to be applied to all sinners in this Step 1, I'll proceed to the Step 2, of applying it to the thugs, activists and abortionists.

So far, Step 1 has yet to go off without a hitch. It turns out that understand, forgiveness and tolerance is to be applied extraordinarily selectively. Imagine that.

SSPX's Disputed Vatican II documents are non-doctrinal

So sayeth the gents at 1 Peter 5 anyway.

Have I gone on record yet saying I like the SSPX's attitude? Because I do.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Evidence for atheism

When theists are asked to give evidence for their view, they point to hundreds of books featuring philosophical and metaphysical arguments, reports of miracles, and more.

When atheists are asked to give evidence for their view, they point to dozens of books explaining why they think it's completely unfair to ask them to give evidence for their view.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Hoping for a Hillary Win?

Just to make my line in the sand clear.

I regard anyone who hopes for a Hillary win to be as about as Catholic or Christian as Richard Dawkins.

Some may wrinkle their noses at this, even Trump supporters. You know - 'Leave politics out of religion, we can agree to disagree.'

Well, no. We cannot. No one really abides by this rule, and perhaps no one should. But at this point, Hillary embodies something that really, no sincere Christian can celebrate. Both her and her party don't merely want to legalize abortion - they want it normalized, to the point where it's a cultural good to be celebrated. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

To look forward to her presidency highlights someone who is either ignorant beyond belief, or whose Christianity is purely in name only, having given way to another religion altogether. It's like talking about a Christian who really totally believes in Jesus you guys, but just so happens to believe that human sacrifice is kind of acceptable, I mean it's a cultural relativity thing, also isn't the Eucharist basically the same thing?

No thank you. I don't recognize your religion - it is not mine.

When blind faith is encouraged

I've never had blind faith in God or the Church. When I was younger, I believed for the same reason I believed most other things - I accepted the words of my authority figures. As I became older, I questioned. I had my doubts on all kinds of things; some held. Others gave way to rejection. God, it turned out, has a lot more intellectually going than many other things. Sure, certainty wasn't in the cards, but realizing that I couldn't achieve complete certainty about the existence of the past put that in perspective.

Of course, during that whole time, there was forever the condemnations of blind faith on the part of the religious. Belief without evidence was and remains a grave charge, and a lack of doubt is condemned as zealotry. In response, many Christians have not only stressed the role of evidence in religious belief, but also the existence of doubt. Doubting God - in some capacity - is taken as a kind of given for religious people, and Christians even have biblical examples of that. Questioning is welcomed, even by the more zealous, as part of the process.

What I've noticed is that the celebrating of doubt, of questioning, of exploring one's doubts, is more and more seeming uniquely Christian.

I've never seen a feminist encourage people to question the existence of the patriarchy. I do not see people who say 'Go, see for yourself whether Black Lives Matter's claims are legitimate'. I do not even see people who say 'Yes, evolution is a big complicated theory, it makes sense to doubt it. Look into it on your own and make up your mind!'

There, dissent and questioning is treated as a grave character flaw.

Blind faith, is turns out, is only bad in select situations. Otherwise, it's practically compulsory.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Fast thoughts 8/8/16

* I'm ambivalent about the rise of Erdogan and the whiff of the death of Turkey as the Great Muslim Example for the west. On the one hand, I've got no great love of Islam. On the other, I have no great love of secularism either - especially not what I take to be Ataturk-style utter worship of secular ideals. The alt-right involves a lot of disdain for Islam, but equal disdain for SJWs and cucks. But SJWs and cucks are more dire threats to the West than Islam is - and they are secular, even irreligious, through and through. I don't care what Erdogan does, for the most part, so long as he does it inside of his borders. The guy certainly seems popular enough.

* I notice the embers of Nevertrump still burn. To be expected, sure. What surprises me are the Christians who are particularly incensed against him, and it typically comes down heavily to 'He's not nearly as excited about foreign wars as we like' and 'He's not NEARLY reliable on free trade as we like'. That they tend to express this with a surprisingly left-wing focus - 'Trump's so racist! He's so sexist! Building a wall is racist! Deportation is racist!' - says a lot. At this point I wonder if we're not witnessing a re-alignment of our political parties, along the lines of the Democrats becoming abortion-fanatical, sexual-monstrosity-obsessed SJWs with a big love of corporations. More proof that God has a sense of humor.

* Asians who try mightily to be considered as a 'People of Color' victim class always stand out like a sore thumb, and they always will. From the worldwide success of asian cultures to the success of asians in the US, they're - across ethnicities - the embarrassing race, the exception that doesn't prove the rule, but destroys it. Watching them try to complain about their treatment - 'white people think we're so smart and responsible and well-mannered, it's oppressive!' - comes across more like a Monty Python sketch lampooning the very idea. The one legitimate negative stereotype asians have - "Small dicks" - also happens to be the last thing any of them want to ever discuss. Not exactly the sort of thing you want on the banner under your image on CNN.

* Lauren Southern is a frightening woman. I mean that in a positive way. Cute, slender female running around throwing herself into the thick of liberal protests and visiting crazy immigrant enclaves while being some right-wing scion? She's one of a handful of women who actually kind of confound me because they're just too aggressive. (Hillary Clinton doesn't make this list, and frankly I'll be impressed if she finishes this election without shitting her pantsuit on camera. She's just a puppet.)

* I would love to see a poll conducted where they found out how many men and women would admit to being sexually aroused by and welcoming of things that various people regard as blatant sexual assault. 'Do you like being woken up being fondled by your spouse or SO?' I suspect the numbers are higher than anyone wants to admit.

* I don't mean to shit on anyone's parade, but isn't the very idea of masturbating to pornography kind of... fucked up? Put the sensible religious aspect aside, and even the straightforward Thomist views. 'Masturbating while watching other people have sex'? I can see why people once upon a time thought of this as mental illness to be nipped in the bud. Conversely, while Japan's lost all interest in sex, I notice they have -not- lost an interest in porn. There's a conversation no one wants to talk about. Still, I imagine it's not going to be long before feminist thinkers start openly talking about how masturbating while thinking about a woman is idealization of rape. We'll see how well that ship sails.

* It turns out that 'How Hillary Clinton is like your abuela' thing could have potentially been accurate. 'She has alzheimers and she can't even walk upstairs on her own' would have nailed it.

* Isn't Bernie Sanders just the most pathetic figure in this entire election? I mean Jeb! was hard to top, but holy shit, that guy. I don't even have additional commentary, I'm just amazed at what a loser he was from start to finish, which is made all the more amazing by how close he came to winning the nomination.

Racism as fault vs Racism as the worst sin

I dislike racism. Racial supremacy talk? I think it's idiotic and impossible to meaningfully sustain, and I strongly question attempts to make genetics a pivotal factor in arguments about cultural supremacy. For various definitions of racism, you don't have to work too hard to convince me that it's wrong, immoral, etc.

But things get complicated. Tell me that a person's dislike of rap music is itself racist and condemnation-worthy, and my skepticism kicks in. Tell me that a person's dislike of black culture - framed properly - is racist, and that skepticism goes into overdrive. I think many people agree with at least this much, increasingly forbidden as it may be to say.

Let's put that aside, however, and talk about more basic, straightforward acts of racism. Calling a black person a nigger or a coon. Making a racist joke. (Why can't Stevie Wonder read? Because he's black.) Very rude, I grant you. Racist? Sure, under some typical definition of the term. In general I think criticizing someone for an aspect of themselves they have no control over is often a bridge too far, though honestly that picture of the one atheist philosopher with the lazy eye has gotten a cheap laugh out of me before. Still, I can generally get onboard with the sentiment that a guy calling some black man a nigger is doing something wrong, and I'm going to think he's being at the very least a moron.

Here's where things get tricky.

People do wrong things all the time as near as I can tell. Obama chiding people for being critical of Islam because 'the crusades' is wrong. People screaming about the evils of 'white males' is wrong. Lampooning Christians - yes, even creationists - as morons or hicks is wrong. Every day I read the news or I watch TV or I just walk down the street and I am absolutely swimming in Stuff That is Wrong. And, when pressed, a lot of people will admit that either the things I'm talking about are wrong, or at the least, one can understandably be critical of such a thing.

But when it comes to racism, 'wrong' is insufficient. Stupid utterances, even private utterances, are held as so foul and vile and wicked that the offending party must be attacked, villified, fired, sued, hurt in every way possible until they humiliate themselves in grovelling apology, upon which they will STILL be destroyed because it's important to make an example of them. Suggesting that maybe this is going a bit too far is taken as evidence that one is a klansman. Demands for consistency on this topic are ignored as well.

Pardon me, I think that's fucking nuts and I want no part of it. Wanting no part of it doesn't mean I have to join the klan - it means I'm not onboard with the great holy purge. I'll settle for something a bit closer to 'tsk tsk' like we do for most other crimes of verbal offense. I think that's appropriate enough, partly because of the inconsistency with how crimes of racial offense are treated. Partly because I truly believe it's not much of a concern anyway, especially at the level of jokes and casual talk. Partly because I think policing for racial offense does a great job of policing for cultural coverups. Better for all of us that these taboos be the cultural equivalent of decriminalized.

A note about Olympics commentary at this blog

There's not going to be any, unless something funny happens. Like Anderson Cooper being on camera when a sewer pipe bursts, leading to him being sprayed with liquid filth on live tv, leading him to break his concentration and just have a very campy gay freakout.

Friday, August 5, 2016

NeverTrump and NeverHillary

Is it just me, or are the 'conservative' guys who insist that they're both NeverTrump and NeverHillary awfully prone to knocking Trump and Trump's supporters, but don't have much to say about Hillary?

I mean, far be it from me to suggest that their supposed 'equal distaste for both' is a tremendous load, but what can I say, I'm suggesting exactly that.

Next time doesn't always come

It's quite a sight, watching conservatives play the nobler-than-thou game, announcing that they refuse to support Trump because they cannot suffer his brash character. No, they're holding out for a Constitutionalist, and a genteel Christian soul at that. Despite settling for a wishy-washy mormon and the abomination that is John McCain, they cannot abide a candidate who behaves so rudely.

I wonder if they realize that, in some ways, they are fighting for their very survival at this point. They are one mass amnesty away from their Constitutionalist fantasies being dashed for good, and one selection of SCOTUS justices away from a whole lot worse. I suspect, if Trump fails to win, that in 4 years we're not going to see these guys getting their choice of a more satisfying conservative to pin their hopes on. Instead they're going to start bitterly talking about how 2016 was actually their last chance for a vote to matter, and how angry they are that Trump was so -rude- that he obscured their ability to realize it.

Of course, when faced with this possibility, a chunk of them start waxing poetic - imaging how noble they're going to be, going down in defeat while clinging to their principles. The big problem there is that mental image is very Plato, or cinematic - it's an ideal, not the reality. In their heads, they lift their chins and look off into the distance, solid in their hope that while their generation may have fallen, they shall yet set the stage for someone else to rediscover what they tried and failed to protect, perhaps in 100, 200 years. End scene, cue credits. The following decades - the potentially very messy, very violent decades - are not dwelled upon.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Principled Conservative has priorities!



Watching 'conservatives' explain how they're so principled that they just can't bear to vote for Trump or support Trump - he can be so crude! - reminds me of this.

The stakes change - this just isn't about linden trees - but the importance of never, ever saying things that upset the reigning culture? That's the same.

The atheist demand for evidence: a timeline

Before I start this, a joke to the 4 people who have come here from The Credulous Zone:

What's the difference between a doberman and a male feminist?

No woman wants to fuck a male feminist.

With that said, on to the original post:

In my experience.

10 years ago:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Well, here's this philosophical argument. In fact, here's a lot. Here's this ID concern. Here's this probablistic argument, here's more.
Atheist: None of those count!

5 years ago:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Alright. What qualifies as evidence?
Atheist: An 800 foot Jesus or some miracle I can't explain!
Theist: So, a God of the gaps.
Atheist: Shit.

Now:

Atheist: I demand evidence for God's existence!
Theist: Alright. What qualifies as evidence?
Atheist: I don't want to answer that. Can we go back to the decade ago version and pretend you don't know why I want that?

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Where usury isn't enough

In the aftermath of some minor dust-kicking at Zippy's, I'm still trying to better express where I think usury goes off the rails as a harbinger of ills to come, or a source of the Church's problems in the world.

A key difference between usury and modern sins is that usurers don't particularly care what you think of them, so long as you get out of their way. They'll jump through some hoops - they'll morally justify what they do, they'll rail against 'bad' usurers. They'll say they aren't involved in usury but something else via a technicality. So long as they make their money, so long as their business prospers, they'll deal with a lot of bullshit. Cost of doing business and all.

That doesn't really 'work' for modern liberal sins. Tell me about how you'll have Catholic priests turning a blind eye towards sodomy, refusing to talk about gay marriage at all, even serving communion to the gay couple in the church because Who Am I to Judge and for all we know they're a celibate couple of close friends who every now and then slip up and wham, anal sex. In theory, it's possible.

In practice, it's not, because these groups are not after second-class citizen status. The usurers don't care - Team LGBT cares very much indeed. They won't let your teaching merely go quiet. They will not accept being tolerated, even tolerated to an absurd degree. They want complete parity and condemnation of the unequal past. Hell, they want beyond parity if they can swing it, complete with talk about how (if only in some ways) the same-sex couple is -superior-. Same with the feminists. Same with most of the modern social justice warriors.

Let me put that another way: if the most LGBT proponents could ever hope to achieve in the Church was usury-status, it would be defeat. If the most feminists could ever achieve was some fake sweet-n-low 'near enough' version of the priesthood - "Hey look, women can dress up like priests and do some things but they're not REAL priests" - it would be defeat. At least in their eyes. And they are not groups who will settle for 'the best we can do'.

These are people who burn their own organizations to the ground rather than capitulate. They will not settle for a generous tolerance, as obnoxious as that would be.

#Nevertrump sheds some blood in Kansas

Oh well.

Maybe Ryan's head will be on the wall next.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Almost positive papal news

At first I was going to post an article about Pope Francis denouncing 'gender theory' talk, saying it's poisonous to teach children that there's more than two genders, or their sex is optional, etc.

Then I read closer and noticed that this was 'leaked from the Polish bishops conference, which was private'. Even if it's true, I don't care. I do not trade in positive talk that only comes in the form of whispers, rumors and leaks.

Edit: I stand corrected. Released transcript is something else.

It's all been downhill since the Battle of Avarayr

If you asked me why I think the West is in the current state it's in - why the Church is in the current state it's in - I'd float some answers. A change in the popular metaphysics of intellectuals, as Feser describes. Advances in technology and unforeseen impacts on society that resulted. This movement, that movement. Humanity is complicated, and I admit, I tend to pay most attention to problems for which I see a possible solution. Possible solution meaning 'things I and others can do to help encourage a change for the better', not 'bemoaning it all'.

You can convince me with a bit of evidence to believe that X was a factor, or Y wasn't much of a factor. Give me the evidence, talk to me, I'll change my mind. But I am skeptical when someone distills the problems and ills down to a particular, singular act or change in mentality from which - almost entirely - several dozen problems have sprung. Outside of the Fall or the Resurrection, anyway.

The thing is, I can easily be convinced that the singular act was an influence. Tell me that the Great Schism caused some problems and sure, I'll grant it. Henry VIII? Yep. Ockham? You got it. Introduction of the car? Sure, to a degree. But once you tell me that it was some singular change of mind, some particular intellectual event - it was the Battle of Avarayr! It was Vatican II! - then my skepticism rises up. It's rarely that simple. Worse, it's rarely helpful to frame things as if they were that simple.

But this kind of thing is a little common. Why are black americans in, collectively at least, a sorry state? Racism! Has to be. Why has Japan apparently lost almost all interest in sex? Pornography! No wait - nukes! Wait - patriarchy!

It reminds me of an old Dilbert comic strip, with a punchline paraphrased as: 'The only possible solution to the problem is, coincidentally, the only solution you know.' Cue 10 people all sitting around with wildly different but just as certain solutions to the problem, complete with the beaver saying 'We must chop down trees and dam their rivers! It's the only way!'

And, of course, if you're skeptical of the totality of the explanation, you're part of the problem. Good luck finding a feminist who's even willing to concede that, aside from patriarchy and maybe racism, there are other reasons for the historical limitations they see with women. Good luck finding the person at the Black Lives Matter march who thinks that racism is even just one of a number of problems besetting blacks ('and chinese!' says the very, very desperate chinese person, clawing for People of Color cred.)

What can I say: I think things are more complicated. I do not think it all comes down to the Battle of Avarayr. I may be wrong, but I'll need more to convince me than huffing and passive aggression.

Pope brings unity to France with his merciful, gentle comments about Islam!

In particular, he's managed to get the equivalent of  #NotMyPope trending in France.

I recently said elsewhere that perhaps what this Pope needs is someone standing up and booing him. I didn't think I'd get it quite that fast.

Monday, August 1, 2016

The conservative worship of the armed forces

Not a bit of worship I take part in.

Don't misunderstand me: I have tremendous respect for the military, for members of the military. I consider them patriots by default, doing work that is essential for the nation, in ways more fundamental than most. I think, at least until recently, it tended to instill some great character in its members.

But I don't get behind this weird, self-effacing, 'If a veteran says something you better listen and hold your tongue, you're in the presence of a hero!' schtick. No, not even for the wounded. And certainly not for family members of the dead. You don't become a hero by proxy.

I'll be even more blunt: I have vastly more respect for veterans who share my values and my worldview, or are in the neighborhood enough. That may sound chilling, but people forget that the whole point of the reverence of the soldier was that they were supposed to be the defenders of our shared values, putting their lives on the line to do exactly that. Remove those values and remove the automatic reverence. At that point you're just dealing with, at best, daredevils - I saw a few in the Turkish coup footage (not even from soldiers!) - and at worst, enforces of monstrous will.

Once upon a time, it was possible even for people of different political parties to largely be on the same page with some common values. That time is passed. Insofar as Khizr Khan treats his son's death as license to attack and belittle anyone who rejects muslim culture and massive muslim immigration, he deserves a 'fuck you' and little else. And make no mistake: his supporters have the same attitude for every soldier or grieving family member who stands against them.

Catholic teaching on sin

You know, I'm not certain, but I'm reasonably sure it's Catholic teaching that one doesn't have to be Catholic to sin. In fact, one doesn't even need to be Christian to sin.

Right?

Seems remarkably easy to forget that at times. In fact, I'm pretty sure that non-Christians can be rather adept at the practice. Including muslims.

Somehow it seems like the only ones engaging in any sins worth talking about are Catholics themselves, as far as the Vatican is concerned. Everyone else? Pshaw. Hardly! Atheists? They try to follow their consciences! Islam? It's a religion of peace!

Christians? Now THEY have some apologizing to do. Did you know they said mean things about LGBT people? To think they had the nerve to suggest that many have anal sex. Jesus weeps, etc.