There is a limit to tolerance

This is like the Boston Tea Party for people fed up with silliness. (Here's some context for what happened if you are living in a bubble.)



Well said, Father.

Please Read Bishop Morlino's Letter

Bishop Morlino's letter on the abuse scandal is very good. (H/T RedState) Here are several highlights:

If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin.

The summary is the aphorism "Hate the sin; love the sinner," but the people advocating the second often do it at the expense of the first. It is very difficult to say "It's ok to be gay," and condemn the gay lifestyle as gravely sinful and destructive. But it is, and it needs to be done more especially by those who are called as teachers in the Catholic Church.

There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority.

We've known this, and we have constantly received reflexive disdain for pointing it out. From the Catholic League, 2010: "The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church. Popular as this position is, it is empirically wrong: the data show it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is not ambiguous, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship." But so many others have pointed it out. We're called bigots; we've become used to it. We're realists.

It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest. And the decision to act upon this disordered inclination is a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance, especially when it involves preying upon the young or the vulnerable. Such wickedness should be hated with a perfect hatred. Christian charity itself demands that we should hate wickedness just as we love goodness. But while hating the sin, we must never hate the sinner, who is called to conversion, penance, and renewed communion with Christ and His Church, through His inexhaustible mercy. 

At the same time, however, the love and mercy which we are called to have even for the worst of sinners does not exclude holding them accountable for their actions through a punishment proportionate to the gravity of their offense. In fact, a just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty.

If you get away with sin in this world, there is more likelihood that you end up in Hell. That is common sense applied to spiritual reality.

Obviously I advise everyone to read the entire thing. And when I say everyone I am including myself; I haven't finished it yet.  I need to get back to work now.

Thank you, Bishop Morlino.

Maybe Patheos needs better editors

Mark Shea writes a very early post today in which he accuses "Christianists" of being a number of things: enemies of God, enemies of America and ... 36 comments? Have a look:

Whoopsie!

The core sin of American conservatives–and above all American conservative, “prolife” Christianists–is Pride. They cannot accept the fact that they were simply flat-out wrong. They have told themselves for twenty years that they are the *Real* Christians, the *Real* Americans, the *Real* Heroes. They are better than all their neighbors, better than the Pope, better, above all, than the Most Horrible Human Being in America, Hillary Clinton. And in their blindness, they have become everything they hate: enemies of America, 36 Comments, and enemies of God in their sadistic cruelty to children at the border. They began with delusional fears of persecution over coffee cups and Target employees not wishing them “Merry Christmas”. They have ended as sadistic persecutors jailing babies, causing abortions, celebrating the murder by thirst... 

The "36 comments" link takes anyone who clicks on it to a comment page for another post. This was obviously a mistake, and I can understand how it can be made. He is on the west coast and the article is dated today, so this was done before 6am. He was obviously checking the comments from the other page and accidentally copied that link, or something like that. Then he pasted this in and never read it over. Or maybe he did read it and missed it. This is why, I've been told, editors are needed. You often don't see your own mistakes.

I don't have an editor, so I have to make do with my own proofreading. But I also take pride (my "core sin", I am told) in taking my time at my work and self-editing. Is it possible that Mark Shea rushes into his blogging with armfuls of invectives he needs to hurl at these straw men he calls Christianists and does very little in the way of thinking until he has finished spewing everything which comes to mind? Is it possible that people like me might find him compelling if he toned his writing down from a constant screech? Can a person really be this caustic before 6:00 in the morning?

Mark Shea was banned from Facebook for
three days for being sarcastic.

The answer is yes, of course. Not just caustic, but also sarcastic. When he writes things like "the Most Horrible Human Being in America, Hillary Clinton" it turns out that the robots working for Facebook shut that stuff down. This is why Mark was banned for three days, according to him, during which he made 7,500 words worth of progress on a book he's writing about the Nicene Creed. So that might get chalked up to God using something as imperfect as Facebook algorithms to accomplish His good purpose in the same way he uses something as imperfect as Donald Trump to lower the unemployment rate for working class people.

I know several people who have unfollowed Mark Shea on Facebook in recent times due to his constant table pounding about Christianists, which roughly translates to Christians who voted for Trump. His description of people with whom he disagrees vehemently on politics has become such a caricature that many of the traits are not even recognizable to those of us at which the moniker is obviously aimed. For example, no one I know ever became upset over people not wishing them a Merry Christmas. Many of us were concerned that employers were forbidding the saying of Merry Christmas (can't remember if Target was one—people in Ohio, we say what we feel like saying), but no one considered this to be "persecution". We do not bang our chests and chant "We are real heroes! We are real Americans!" We are not people who generally think ourselves as "better than our neighbors" or "better than the Pope", whatever that even might mean. Accusations that we are sadistic baby-jailers who "celebrate murder by thirst" only make us shake our heads and roll our eyes at this point.

Yes, "murder by thirst". That's what we "celebrate".

Note to people who didn't vote for Trump: when we Trump voters give each other that look and say or think those five words, we do not consider that a celebration. A celebration is when we sit down with family and friends, have food, fun, drinks and laughs and do not even think or talk about politics for the next three hours. We know how to do that. And by the way, we know how to shut up the loud mouth fan-boys on the right in these instances, and we do it instinctively, all. The. Time.

I titled this piece Maybe Patheos needs better editors. It is highly likely; they definitely need some better bloggers. This stuff is so tiresome.

Oh, yeah. What are "those five words", you were wondering?

"This is why Trump won."

The Right Brothers on the #WalkAway Movement

Worth checking out, not too long.

Favorite quote: "The #WalkAway movement is a repudiation of overt groupthink."

Intelligent Man Destroys Concept of "White Privilege"

A courageous man.



It's just honesty. He admits that black people have access to services that white people do not. I do not begrudge him personally for any of this, though, because he is courageously promoting truth-telling.

LOL... "I'm handsome."

"ISIS is Islamic." Not bigoted, just honest.

I received a birthday present today from Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming via the Catholic League. Here it is in its entirety:

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made this week by Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming:

In 2009, when Aaqil Ahmed was appointed the first Muslim to direct religious programming at the BBC, he was looked upon with some suspicion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, wasn’t happy that the “Christian voice is being sidelined.” Now others are looking askance at Ahmed; his remarks made this week at a London gathering of journalists are raising some eyebrows.

Ahmed, who is a professor at Middlesex University, was asked about the phrase “so-called Islamic State.” His answer was enlightening: “I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam—of course it has.

They are not preaching Judaism. It might be wrong but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine.” He added that the Islamic nature of ISIS is “a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things.”

Those who work at the State Department have an ethical responsibility to discuss Ahmed’s position. The same is true for those who teach multiculturalism on American college campuses.

Clear-minded persons know that ISIS is rooted in an interpretation of Islam that is widely shared in Muslim communities, even if it is not embraced by most Muslims. This isn’t being bigoted—it’s being honest.

President Obama bears much of the blame for closing down an honest discussion on the religious roots of ISIS; his constant denial of any relationship between the teachings of Muhammad and terrorist acts conducted in his name is absurd. We can’t make progress in any area without robust freedom of speech, untainted by political considerations.

Professor Ahmed has done us a service. It is up to others to grab this opportunity.

And grab it we will. With both hands. "Of course ISIS has something to do with Islam." Just like the Orangemen have something to do with Protestant Christianity, although most Protestants aren't Orangemen, nor do they condone their actions.

Clarity is so refreshing, and this has to be listened to because this man is both trusted on the subject matter and a public figure. And now he has proven himself to be a courageous one.

If anyone needs more proof that Islam is a violent religion, here you go.

I agree with the man: it should be about ideas

I advise everyone to sign up for Speaker Paul Ryan's updates. He is one of the most sensible people in the top levels of government in our country right now. It is very refreshing to read the things he communicates each day.



Reminds me of a quote: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." True. Often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, this proverb is probably much older.

Mark Steyn: "If you say we're crazy and violent, we'll go nuts and kill you."

George W. Bush to Mark Steyn on Muslims' lack of proportion: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons."



Mark Steyn. An International Treasure.

Better ideas than the Benedict Option

Here we have a better "self-interview" than Keith's, if I may make so bold, about what the so-called Benedict Option most likely is, and why it probably is only good to help someone sell books, and is a nonstarter as a long term solution for religious people currently inhabiting planet Earth. Excerpt:

And Dreher wants Christians to drop our involvement in pro-life and pro-family politics and get busy doing . . . whatever it is. Except that when you confront him about how suicidally crazy that idea is, he pivots on his heel and insists he never meant that at all. All he meant was that we can’t save our souls and bring our children to God by voting Republican. When you ask him who ever said that we could, he never gives an answer. Because no one since AD 33 has ever made such a claim.

This is obligatory for anyone to point out because it is constantly being brought up by the Dreherites and paleocons, over and over.

Q: OK, so maybe we shouldn’t trust the messenger, but what’s wrong with taking St. Benedict as our inspiration? 

A: St. Benedict himself would find the idea puzzling. That mystical ex-hermit never tried to organize laymen, but monks—men who could live and work together only because they took vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience. Benedict drafted his famous Rule to teach monks how better to obey these particular, difficult vows. Married people make very different promises. They don’t obey an abbot but are subject to each other. They’re called to be fertile, not celibate; thrifty and prudent, not poor. The proper bourgeois virtues of responsible Christian parents are almost the diametrical opposite of monastic communalism. Most historical attempts to found such communities among married couples have ended in farce or disaster.

Emphasis mine. This is another thing to constantly point out. We shouldn't have to, but we do for the same reason that young lovers need to be told that someday they will be just like their parents. I.e., immaturity, laziness and reluctance to face the Truth.

Today Christians face something that behaves much more like Islam. It is a rising empire of aggressive secularism, with a deep historical grudge against our faith. Gay activists, New Atheists, radical feminists, population controllers, multiculturalists, and other powerful interest groups see orthodox Christianity as their enemy. We once wielded power throughout the culture as they lived on the margins, and now they are looking for payback. They will know where to find us. Subjecting faithful Christian churches to a crushing, punitive tax is just the beginning. Think of it as the jizya.

Speaking of Islam, the Muslims are not going to help us with our religious freedom struggles one bit. Attacks on Judeo-Christian morality of the west are good for them since they have a moral code with very little overlap.

As we always suggest about good articles, read the whole thing. The author links to a really funny but serious article which he wrote with Jason Jones a few weeks back. Basically it is plea for young people to get a real job and quit self-impoverishing by bad major choices.

I sense a pattern here...

I posted this two years ago today. It was in the midst of the famous Topix flare-up. It may be a good idea for anyone new to the Benedict Option discussion to review this. Or anyone wishing to meditate further on the Platonic ideal of chickenness.

Especially note Jonah Goldberg's remarks on the archived link from that post. I believe they apply to the Benedict Option just as well as they describe Crunchy Conservatism.

I don't believe Crunchy Conservatism exists. I think it is Rod's invention. I don't think there is any body of thought, serious or otherwise, that is "crunchy conservative." I think Rod points to things he agrees with or likes and calls it crunchy and conservative when often they are one or the other. I think Rod's taxonomy is entirely artificial. And I think the word "crunchy" and the props used to support it are not only superficial, but they smack of precisely the kind of branding and marketing outlook Rod decries. Yes, yes, yes: There are people out there worried about the ravages of the free market and modernity who are conservative. Some of them dig organic food and open-toed-shoes. Some of them do not. I do not see what is to be gained by dividing people who agree on important things by concentrating on unimportant things.

Try it out, unless you fear that you may become a dreaded Benedict Option Denialist if you read it. But it is a good question to ask. Is the Benedict Option proposal "dividing people who agree on important things by concentrating on unimportant things"?

John Z Posts Article 3 on so-called Benedict Option

I don't know which event came first, Rod Dreher ranting about how we're not to discuss so-called Benedict Option anymore, or John Zmirak penning his third article on the so-called Benedict Option, which he has obviously been warming up for. Someone else can figure that out if they wish. Here's the lead-off teaser:

Rod Dreher's meme has become The Blob, engorging all it encounters, never assuming a shape you can nail down and consider rationally.

It's funny to me how the Catholics I've encountered who support the so-called Benedict Option all do claim to know what it is already. People like Diane's Facebook friend, for example, always explains that it's homeschooling, plus going to a parish with a respectful liturgy (no balloons, kangaroos or jellos, for example), plus generally keeping your kids protected from bad influences. They are so confident they know what it is in fact that they fully support it 100% and there is no way they need to buy and read a book about it.

But really—what about the BO isn't funny? Here's Zmirak's lead paragraph:

I wrote last week on the “Benedict Option,” a nebulous cultural strategy which its popularizer, Rod Dreher, describes as an “inchoate phenomenon in which Christians adopt a more consciously countercultural stance towards our post-Christian mainstream culture.” It’s named after St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism, but Dreher isn’t recommending monasticism, or anything else that’s easy to pin down and examine. The concept’s nebulousness, I’ve come to realize, is not a bug but a feature. It allows Dreher an almost infinite freedom to imply whatever he wishes, without committing himself to a single logical or testable assertion from which he cannot backtrack when it’s contested. Nice work if you can get it.

It's also a more serious matter that Dreher has become a go-to guy for the liberal media on the topic of Christians in the public square:

Does Dreher counsel retreat from the public square, from civic life? It’s an urgent question because our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is under sustained attack from the highest levels of government, the media and even many corporations. The clear-sighted, principled conservative Bruce Frohnen and I each took Dreher to task for waving the white flag in Time magazine just days after the Supreme Court’s same-sex ‘marriage’ decision. Dreher’s piece began with the boldface text: “Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.”

So is dumping the “failed” strategy of voting Republican part of the Benedict Option? Time’s editors thought that this was what Dreher meant, which is why they used that headline — the author’s own words, excerpted from inside the piece. In fact, that call for surrender is surely why Time ran his column in the first place, in the same week that the magazine published an impassioned call for stripping churches of their tax exemptions. Time is not Christianity Today; it shows little interest in offering helpful essays for Christians in living out the gospel.

Then Zmirak embarks on an examination of just which conservatives it could possibly be who believe that all we need to do is vote Republican and Yay! we're saved!

Who is he talking about? Nominal Christians who rarely ever attend church and live as pagans? But half of them don’t vote; more than half of the remaining half don’t vote Republican; and the half of the half who do almost certainly aren’t doing it to save Christendom. So who are his invisible villains?

Dreher certainly cannot mean the Rev. James Robison, the founder of The Stream, who speaks about politics in defense of religious and economic liberty, marriage and the sanctity of life. Robison also runs a ministry that has led hundreds of thousands of people to Christ while his organization’s unflagging work has helped missionaries dig thousands of wells for poor people across the developing world.

Dreher also can’t be talking about the Catholic Church, which lavishes millions yearly on educating non-Catholic poor children in schools across the country, runs non-profit hospitals that refuse to perform abortions, and sends medical missionaries across the world.

And he’s not referring to the Southern Baptist Convention, which pours millions into disaster relief around the planet, helping Christians in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans and Buddhists in places like Nepal.

"Who is he talking about?" Thank you, Mr. Zmirak. I've long asked that question and the answer is brought to mind immediately: straw men. This question along with my oft-made statement that I don't know what he's talking about stands in contrast with those aforementioned Catholics who swear they already know what the BO is. And it is hilarious to me that his staunchest defenders are the least likely to be interested in a book about what they are already doing.

Maybe I'm beating this point to hard, or maybe you're just confused. In either case, it's possible that this literary reference will help (Courtesy of Keith).

He concludes by basically echoing my sentiments here. I'm hoping that we haven't heard the last from John Zmirak on the so-called Benedict Option. It really takes a constant pounding of logic and clear-thinking to talk some people down from ledges which they were lured onto by sweet-sounding words penned by crafty wordsmiths.

Leah Mickens makes a good point about The Benedict Option

It's obvious from her about page that I don't have a lot in common philosophically with Leah Mickens, but she says something I generally agree with in this piece:

While it’s true that monasteries helped drain swamps, preserve those works that were considered worthy of being saved, and maintained a culture of literacy, it’s unclear how much the average peasant or serf would have benefited from their efforts. Monasteries, especially those in the early Middle Ages, were essentially closed communities, and monks weren’t supposed to have much contact with the masses, because that could lead to too much worldiness. Most people living in classical antiquity, the medieval period, and beyond would not have shared in the cultural inheritance of their society, because they weren’t literate.... Presumably, everyone in Dreher’s Benedict community would be literate, but that in and of itself, is a modern innovation that he doesn’t seem to understand.

I think the monasteries in Benedict's time were probably a benefit to the world, but not in the way the mendicant orders were. They encountered the world in more of a direct way which is, frankly, what I think we need now.

The mendicant friars were bound by a vow of absolute poverty and dedication to an ascetic way of life. They lived as Christ did, renouncing property and traveling the world to preach. Their survival was dependent upon the good will of their listeners. It was this way of life that gave them their name, "mendicant," derived from the Latin mendicare, meaning "to beg." Unlike monks of the Cistercian or Benedictine orders, mendicants spread God's word in the cities. They were active in community life, teaching, healing, and helping the sick, poor, and destitute. Their personal maxim was: sibi soli vivere sed et aliis proficere ("not to live for themselves only but to serve others").

Nota bene: If you decide to become a Dominican or Franciscan Friar, please don't call it the Mendicant Option or the Friar Option. Just go do it.

For example, Saint Angela Merici was a member of the Third Order of St. Francis and founded the Ursulines who actually started schools for girls so they wouldn't end up in prostitution. That's an example of the true and correct type of feminism which Pope JPII called for.

Speaking of just go do it, I heartily agree with Mickens's point that all kinds of cultural, religious and literary stuff is available to us now that wasn't in the past. All we have to do is tap it in our domestic churches.

Commenter Kate on the Benedict Option

Here's what a commenter named Kate has to say on Father Longenecker's NCR piece on the Benedict Option.

Posted by Kate on Friday, May 29, 2015 3:33 PM (EDT):

Instead of Catholics frantically planning moves to rumored Benedict-type communities, I would suggest doing what you can where you are first. Ironically for this discussion, one of the principles of Benedictine life is “stability” - in addition to the standard three religious vows, Benedictines take a fourth vow to basically commit themselves to a physical place for life (for better or worse), a very foreign and counterculture concept in our modern age. I think Catholics should stay where they are unless God makes it obviously clear (such as a job loss and necessary relocation) that He wants one to move and become part of another community. My family was considering moving to a better parish and community and praying that God would show us where to go. You know what He did? Instead of sending us a neat, easy message with a map and real estate listings, He made it clear that He wanted us to stay where we were and do the work of creating a richer Catholic life! Dang! Didn’t He hear me?! He opened up a surprising opportunity at our parish, sent a pastor we could work with, and removed a lot of obstacles. It’s required a lot of time and energy; it’s been much harder than packing our bags and moving to a ready made ideal, community. However, I do at least know (as inconvenient as it is) we’re following God’s will and not my own easy way. Reminds me of what St. Teresa of Avila said about the way God treats his friends....

There are a lot of good comments to the article. It's sort of weird — you have to go to the page then click on the View Comments link.

Anyway this is the way I've seen it for years. It's amazing to me that someone can spend the time necessary to convert to the Catholic faith and then be shocked to find (often gross) imperfections. At least this is how I feel when I consider my own conversion experience which took place over several years time. During this time, I was present at a Mass in which, not only did the liberal priest make up his own Eucharistic prayer, he failed to include the words of consecration. (Later I found that he had tried to chat up my friend's wife. Then I also found out he was removed from the ministry; meanwhile he had been scandalizing and ill-forming the faithful for years....)

I was also present at many daily masses celebrated by a holocaust survivor. It was like witnessing the Mass celebrated by Christ Himself in Eternity ("...He descended into hell...He ascended into Heaven...") And, of course, I was present at many Masses celebrated by men between these two extremes in character.

The Catholic Church consists of the best and the worst. "Here comes everybody." But it continues to produce sanctity. And saints.

Carson Holloway on the Benedict Option

Catholics are practical people, even though we have some strange beliefs and practices. Carson Holloway provides practical advice about the Benedict Option and how the special snowflakes who live in the Benedict Option compounds will have to be protected from the wolves in our society even as the Hobbits in Tolkien's Shire were protected by his Dúnedain. Excerpt:

At the same time, I don’t see how, realistically, the Benedict option can be an option that excludes political activism for American Catholics. That activism will have to continue, for a couple of reasons.

First, Catholics will have to do what they can to help the larger society as long as they seem to have any chance of success. To take the most obvious example, Catholics cannot responsibly withdraw from politics while there is still some chance of effecting change with regard to abortion. If abortion kills innocent human beings, then Catholic cannot just shrug it off and walk away from the grubby business of politics. They will have to stay involved.

Second, I suspect that political activism will be necessary in defense of the Benedict option. Successfully living the Benedict option requires that the larger culture will leave you alone to do so. There are fairly powerful forces in the culture that would be happy to leave Catholics alone to do so. But there are also fairly powerful forces–forces of fanaticism–that won’t want to leave Catholics alone to live their lives according to their own standards. So the freedom to live the Benedict option is attainable but also in danger.

Accordingly, the Catholic enclaves will have to be defended by Catholic lawyers and political activists.

This all stands to reason for anyone who understands the history or the world and the nature of evil, which are of course inexorably linked. Some Catholics will have to opt to be sheep dogs to use Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's analogy, an analogy recently popularized by the American Sniper book and movie. These people will not have the luxury of Benedict Option-ing.

I am planning to write more extensively on just how closely the Grossman/Kyle sheepdog analogy matches Tolkien's view of goodness, evil and just warfare in his Middle Earth, mainly because it is amazing to me how many Catholics who claim to know Tolkien's philosophy on these matters utterly misunderstand it. This was evidenced in spades during the Facebook conversation I recently mentioned. But I just want to conclude now by pointing out that if things are bad enough to describe them in apocalyptic language, then how can the planned withdrawal to little enclaves and platoons be anything which can be described as strategic when you are basically broadcasting this intention where your enemy can hear you loud and clear? Or, well, maybe I'm not being invited to all the clandestine planning meetings where they discuss secret tunnel entrances, etc. That's probably it.

Thank you, Ed Gillespie!

Thank you, Ed Gillespie, you win the prize which I have been saving for the person who brings up what my father always brings up whenever we get on the health care topic.

My plan begins by addressing an anachronistic aspect of the tax code that’s rooted in World War II wage and price controls. Those who get health insurance through their employer get a tax break, but those who purchase it on their own generally do not.

Most people don't know that this whole practice of paying for employees insurance came about as the result of employers not being allowed to pay people above a certain amount. No, we're not making this up.

The Emergency Stabilization Act was passed in October 1942, which placed wages and agricultural prices under control. There were immediate wage restrictions, and in order to attract labor, the employers offered a range of such fringe benefits as pensions, medical insurance, paid holidays, and vacations. Because the foregoing were not paid out in cash, they did not violate the wage ceiling. Controlling output proved easier than controlling wages.

And I can't say I dislike the tax credit numbers. My family would save $7,500.00 per year which would bring us down to pre-Obamacare premiums. Imagine that. Back to Eddie G., the man of the moment:

Obviously, enacting legislation along these lines will require a Republican president. That will be more likely if over the next two years the Republican majorities in Congress pave the intellectual way through hearings and committee reports for a positive Obamacare alternative that the Republican presidential nominee can take to the electorate.

Yes. Let's hope.

Pew Surveys Show Increasing Awareness of Islam's Violent Nature

This is encouraging. Christianity Today posted an encouraging chart in September showing three recent surveys by Pew. The first one was conducted in February of 2014, the second in July and the more recent one in September.

The question in the survey is this: "Compared with other religions, is the Islamic religion more likely to encourage violence among its believers?"

The most striking feature of the chart is that in every demographic slice listed in the 3 surveys the amount of "yes" votes have increased over time. There are a few dips, but in general everyone has become more ready to admit that Islam is violent between February and September of this year. Catholics are up 12% TO 53%, Protestants are up 16% to 59%.

The headline on the image is very misleading. "Most Older Adults Say Islam Encourages Violence More Than Other Religions." This describes one line of the results of the 3 surveys. Do people who slap headlines on articles and other pieces of information bother to read them first? The headline should merely be "Surveys Show More Seeing Islam As Encouraging Violence".

Here is a link to the full Pew study on the matter.

This is good news that people realize the danger of Islam and how violence is part of its true nature. Yes, there are other features of Islam which are good, and many good Muslims. But that is not what the survey is about, nor do those facts really matter in the face of the violent totalitarian ideology of the political Islamism against which we are fighting a war. Those are just the common red herrings which people drag across the path toward the truth about Islam and toward combating the evils which pervade Islamic teachings and actions.

(Note: I should point out that the CT article makes a number of assertions and quotes people making assertions which I in no way endorse. Most of these are attempts to excuse Islamic violence in some way, simply put.)

Speaking of Libertarians

Since we are on the topic of libertarians (small 'l', if you please) I should point out an excellent piece on American Thinker by Doug Thorburn about why libertarians should vote for Republicans. Thorburn presents the case well, first highlighting the difficulties he has had with Republicans over the years, but then getting practical and results-oriented about it in the two concluding paragraphs:

Voting for Libertarian Party candidates today serves only to divide the vote between those who would slow (Republicans) or reverse (libertarians) the trend towards increasing statism. Splitting the vote allows those who would accelerate that trend to win by default. We need to support -- dare I say it? -- the lesser of the evils. While most votes require me to hold my nose, I get lucky now and then and truly support a candidate. I would love the opportunity to vote for a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, a Marco Rubio -- and suspect I will soon have such an opportunity. But we need to ensure Republicans -- even those we would never vote for in a sane world – win the Senate so that we can hold the line in the interim. We can’t afford to give another seat on the Supreme Court to a pseudo-liberal. The reign of Harry Reid, one of the most despicable statists ever to hold elected office, must end.

My pocketbook is walking the walk today. I am supporting, via monetary donations, libertarian-leaning Republicans and even non-libertarian Republicans in close races against statists/Democrats. This includes those running for Senate in Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina and New Hampshire and, for governor, in Wisconsin. (I sent a bit to Mia Love in Utah even though she’s winning handily in her congressional race, only because she should be the face of the Republican Party.) I’m considering sending financial support to Republican senators running in Louisiana and Georgia, but waiting until the expected runoffs. I implore other libertarians to vote for and monetarily support Republicans. If there is any chance to salvage some semblance of constitutional limited government, it must be tried. After 40+ years, it’s obvious the Libertarian Party, while serving as an educational platform, cannot win a major political office. The Republican Party is, faults and all, our only hope.

I wouldn't say the "lesser of the evils", but I know that's a coined phrase. I prefer to say "the better of the imperfect candidates" if I'm talking about, for example, voting for John Kasich rather than Ed FitzGerald. I mean, come on, FitzGerald isn't evil, just horribly misguided in his ideology and displaying awful judgment in his personal life. And I'd say the same about Obama and Sherrod Brown, for that matter.

Politics really is the art of the possible, Moreover primary season is the time to knock out GOP "company men" if you think they need to step aside for more dedicated conservatives or libertarians. No one would have thought to themselves a few years ago "Hey, I'll bet a libertarian-leaning no-name candidate could knock out Eric Cantor in a primary." But that's what happened. Hopefully small-l-libertarian Dave Brat will win the general, but there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, also. (Big 'L' -- for loser.) Hopefully people voting in that race will take Thorburn's advice and vote for someone with a chance to win.

My "Plan B"

Over at the Midwest Conservative Journal, Bill looks at the whole LGBTXYZ mess and admits he needs to buy a vowel, especially with regard to the construct of "transgender". I very much agree with his assessment that the "average person" needs to take stock and step up to fight the insanity. Excerpt:

We hear all the time that insufficient precautions are taken to prevent harassment against women, and it stands to reason that allowing someone with male sexual organs access to naked girls is tantamount to an invitation to sexual assault. But if denying that same individual free expression of their [1 of 56] sexuality, isn’t that discrimination – at least to the LGBTxyz movement?

If Nick and Justin, a “married” couple with a 15 year old daughter Stacy (by artificial insemination/surrogate mother) are faced with their daughter coming home in tears from school one day and telling them about how she was made to feel trashy by this big, hulking man getting naked in front of her in the locker room and then watching her every move – what do they say to her? Does she have no rights? And, if not, what would it take for her to “get” some rights?

This is all very complex. I’m not trying to brush it off, or dismiss it casually. But the explosion of references to “Transgender” has caught my attention, and I think it’s about time the “average person” took stock of what’s going on around them.

Yes, I quite agree that we must engage this "transgender" issue and do so seriously. Snide ridicule seems to be in order and has worked for some time, but I'm afraid it will no longer. The cultural left has built up enough critical mass using their brainwashed drones on this topic. Face it; if people are willing to let a person break your skull to support a politically correct view of gender, then we have left the path where a simple call to common sense will suffice to correct the disorder.

The goal of "getting some rights" for the real victims like Stacy in the illustration is the problem if you see rights as "positive", entitlements people should be given, as most people on the left do. The concept of rights as negative and protective in nature comports better with the old-fashioned, tried-and-true, "Male and female He created them" method of bathroom assignment. Under the entitlement model, everyone is entitled to pick the bathroom which most matches their boutique sexual orientation. Under the rights as protection/negative rights model, everyone has a right to privacy from the opposite sex when they enter the bathroom.

Of course I've already spoken my mind on what I believe should be the priority on identity in general—including bathrooms—and that is gender. All traditional Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims, I expect) see things this way as well. Orientation can either come first or second in the mind of the pro-LGBT crowd in the way of priority. So a homosexual who is transgendered sees himself as a woman and wants to use the ladies room, whereas a non-transgendered gay man wants to use the men's room. In order to respect their right, they must be allowed to use whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. It doesn't matter if the current occupants of the bathroom are comfortable. Man, that makes as much sense as the "traveling public" remarks on getting Ebola on the bus.

Twenty years ago, a previous co-worker of mine used to joke that men didn't speak to each other in the men's room due to what he called natural homophobia (he was a really funny, insightful guy for a liberal) but now that any sort of homophobia has become one of the only deadly sins a person can commit, it's possible that we'll all be expected to begin chatting about NFL scores or hairstyles as soon as we enter, mixing business with pleasure to show acceptance of all the "56 genders".

I admit I haven't visited that that "56 gender" link. Part of me keeps telling me that even going there is sort of like giving in on the argument. So I'm going to leave that for another time; right now I feel like going on the offensive with something I call my Plan B. The letter B stands for bisexual, and I think that the concept of bisexuals being among the other alternative lifestyles represented in LGBT is a key to showing open-minded people how the whole project is simply an attack on traditional values and traditional notions of rights rather than any type of civil-rights effort to stop bullying.

The method I have used in the past generally involves questions. For example: How do I know I'm not a bisexual? I'm attracted to women and I've only ever had sexual relationships with women, but is it possible that I just never met the right gay man? After all, they're only 1.6 percent of the population. How often do you have to fluctuate between relationships to be officially bisexual? Once a month for women bisexuals, once a week for men? Is Anne Heche, for example, bisexual? and does that explain why she only had one lesbian relationship (albeit a very public one with Ellen DeGeneres) and all the rest of her relationships have been with men? One of the reasons I bring up Heche, who I realize is a very troubled person who was possibly abused as a child, is because many members of the LGBT community were upset that she "went straight" and started dating a guy after breaking up with DeGeneres. Well, what if she didn't go straight—what if she went bi when she went bye-bye?

Bisexual is basically a non-orientation, and this fact can be expressed by asking all these questions along with the big one, "What constitutes being bisexual over and above changing your mind a lot?"

Here are some more: Would a long term, committed relationship for a bisexual require at least three people in a marriage? Would polygamy be required? Or should it be admitted that bisexuals don't really do long term, committed relationships as bisexuals? Is bisexual just a transitional phase that future committed gays go through? Why do some of them appear to end up straight? And how can you explain that orientation is innate if some people are born with a fluctuating orientation?

I'm telling you, the B doesn't really belong in LGBT. It can be used as a sort of symbolic Trojan Horse to expose the sheer chaos inherent in the LGBT agenda and argue for a return to traditional sexual roles and morals. The conundrum for the pro-LGBT folks is that to take it out at this point would be non-inclusive, and they wouldn't want to exclude anybody, would they? Well, other than straight people, I mean.

All of these questions—which I think are great "gotchas" since people don't reason things through very well when their gonads are doing the thinking—ignore a pretty big indoor elephant: what can bisexual possibly mean if there are 56 sexes? Doesn't the concept of a non-orientation orientation, open the doors pretty wide for the need for more letters? Maybe they should look into the Zhonghua Zihai.

I'm sure someone on the traditional side of things has brought this whole thing up before, and I know it is discussed as a problem in gay and lesbian circles due to a recent anecdote I heard. And not being someone who wants to immerse myself in gay press and literature, I have no idea if they have standard responses to my "Plan B" (other than to call be a horrible bigot), only that their responses will not answer my questions satisfactorily. Here's the recent anecdote; my friend's cousin told him that the lesbian community she was part of had arguments about whether bisexuals should be part of the community. She was on the side of being less inclusive because, "well, they really aren't gay", she told him. Ironically, my friend related, she is now in a relationship with a man, and pretty much left the whole LGBT thing behind. So she is now straight. Or maybe bi? Jury's out....

A Resource on the Inherent Violence of Islam

I found a good list of violent verses from the Qur'an the other day which is well to study. I decided to post the list on a page here. It is a good resource to use when making the case that Islam contains enough inherently violent teachings to fuel the radical Muslims or Islamic extremists—however you wish to name them—with religious authority on which to base their violent acts.

Addressed also within these verses are the moderate Muslims or non-violent Muslims as we might call them, the ones who will not engage in Jihad or Holy War. The Qur'an anticipates their existence, and it doesn't speak very highly of them. At best, they are "not equal" to the Jihahis, and as the last verse here shows, they will receive a "grievous penalty" in the afterlife.

Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons...."

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Thinking people should all admit that there is something very violent about Islam as it acts in the world which sets itself apart from all other religious belief systems. But to those infected with political correctness this admission doesn't seem fair. Haven't there been examples of adherents of other religions using their beliefs to justify violence? Yes, but much fewer cases and their actions are always disavowed easily by coreligionists using the true tenets of their religion. Quantity is itself a quality, and this should never be forgotten in the argument.

It should also be remembered that those people taking a politically-correct view of Islam like Ben Affleck are themselves victims of Islam's strategy of deceit. Mohammed's famous quote "War is deceit" cannot be denied in the context of carrying out Jihad, and it is not hard to find sources to confirm this, for example: How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War, and this link about Islam's general teachings on lying. So we should attempt to patiently correct these victims so they will see the true nature of Islam as deceitful and violent.

Why would celibate gay men cohabit?

Maclin Horton reflects on Eve Tushnet's commentary and opines. Excerpt:

I admit that I really don't see a good resolution for that problem. One thought the question provokes, though, is that her vision of some sort of place for "celibate partnership" (there's a link to further discussion of that idea in her piece) is something that I can see more easily workable for lesbians than for gay men. Despite the abundant evidence, most women don't really understand just how commanding and obsessive the male sex drive is. They may understand it as an observed datum, but since they don't experience it, they still tend to underestimate its power.

Well put.

A problem that I have seen growing for some time within the whole "purpose of sexuality debate" is the downplaying of the difference between male and female and the accenting of the differences in orientations. I don't care if same-sex attraction is completely innate—a position of which I am highly skeptical—the gender of a person is always more determinative of behavior. And behavior, as all men and women know, is what lands you in trouble as far as your relationship with God goes, whether or not there is a risk of pregnancy.

The old cynical line is that men use relationships to get sex and women use sex to get relationships. And although we as Christians want to rise above the wrongful use of others for whatever purpose and enter into a covenant of mutual self-giving, we can't deny the truth of the difference between the genders with regard to sexual urges.

There is a mistaken belief out having to do with gay men, that they can most easily be compared to women. Unfortunately this seems to lead people to forget that their bodies are still male and they have the same fundamental hormones that heterosexuals do.

Perhaps on the surface gay men exhibit feminine traits to attract other men. But having had some experience being around them, they remind me more of men who have not learned to control their male urges, and maybe they would rather not learn. Hence they form sexual relationships with other men so they don't have to.

I'm sure this observation is very offensive to some homosexuals, but the same observation about sexual immaturity and irresponsibility can be made about other men in general. Sports teams, for example; remember the Duke LaCrosse team? In my hometown, the few gang-rape scandals had to do with drunk girls and the HS football team.

But going back to male effeminacy—are gay men really more like women, or are they simulating secondary characteristics? Can we all acknowledge that they are not trying to be more like women in the sex drive department? For example, one gay guy I knew in Pittsburgh wanted to fix me up with his female cousin whom, he assured me, had enormous breasts. I seriously never heard any other human talk about his own relative this way. But it cannot be doubted that this is men's locker room talk, not women's.

Andy Warhol made close study of men who worked extremely hard to look like women consciously, i.e., drag queens. He made these astute observations in his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. Excerpt:

Among other things, drag queens are living testimony to the way women used to want to be, the way some people still want them to be, and the way some women still actually want to be. Drags are ambulatory archives of ideal moviestar womanhood. They perform a documentary service, usually consecrating their lives to keeping the glittering alternative alive and available for (not-too-close) inspection.

To get a private room in a hospital you used to have to be very rich but now you can get one if you're a drag queen. If you're a drag queen they want to isolate you from the other patients, but maybe they have enough for a ward now.

I'm fascinated by boys who spend their lives trying to be complete girls, because they have to work so hard—double-time—getting rid of all the tell-tale male signs and drawing in all the female signs. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying it's not self-defeating and self-destructive, and I'm not saying it's not possibly the single most absurd thing a man can do with his life. What I'm saying is, it is very hard work. You can't take that away from them. It's hard work to look like the complete opposite of what nature made you and then to be an imitation woman of what was only a fantasy woman in the first place. When they took the movie stars and stuck them in the kitchen, they weren't stars any more—they were just like you and me.

Emphasis mine. In other words, picturing a woman in a non-sexual place like a kitchen and the fetish dissolves with the fantasy. Only for the length of a Hollywood flick can a woman remain raring for hot romance. Whereas a man is ready jump into bed 24 hours, 7 days a week.

This is why I would suggest that "celibate partnership" is probably not possible for most healthy, young (under 85) homosexual men if they plan on being in close quarters together at all. Maybe a gay man should consider having a "celibate partnership" with a lesbian if he is really not attracted to women and he is serious about celibacy? I have a friend who owns an apartment which he rents to such a couple. He is gay and is a cook at a restaurant. She is a lesbian and works in a very physical construction job and appreciates coming home to good meals. Who knows; maybe they'll fall in love, or maybe they already have a very deep fraternal love for one another.

But just to conclude before I ramble much longer. When Maclin describes the male sex drive as "commanding and obsessive" he is spot on, and this is true for guys who are trying not to let themselves run off on a feeding frenzy. The idea that there is any less drive on the part of men because they are gay isn't supported by any evidence. And I think we need to stress that the reality of male and female is in mankind's immovable roots while this concept of orientation is out in the branches where there is far more fluttering and flexing.