The HHS has decided, predictably, to try to force Catholic hospitals to dispense contraceptives, not surprising as it is headed up by "Abortion-bitch" Kathleen Sebelius. This comes upon the heels of Illinois forcing pharmacists to dispense contraceptives, irrespective of their moral beliefs. The blog "Accepting Abundance" has been bombarded by hate for expressing the point of view that it isn't helpful for gays to PDA in public. The most interesting thing about this is the hopes that Catholics die off, rantings about pedophile priests, and general ranting about "intolerance" the blog has engendered. Which brings up a certain question of priorities. In a world in which extra-marital sex has been raised to the level of a sport, is complaining about gays kissing productive? Is homosexuality new? No, I remember my good friend M. Tullius Cicero kicking around the question of whether homosexuals were capable of true love. Plato wrote two dialogues (Symposium and Phaedrus) that positively dripped with homosexuality. That didn't stop Catholic philosophers from reading and making use of Platonism, and its step-child neoplatonism. Obviously, the discomfort people feel at seeing behavior we disapprove of should not be too great. Only an extreme co-dependent feels actual guilt about other people's sins. (Estase knows whereof he speaks.) I don't expect to recieve a similar deluge of combox junk, but if I do, so what? This is America, and if someone wishes to wish for my death because I think homosexuality is wrong, that's their business. Oh, and don't give me the "Hitler didn't like gays" nonsense. The history community knows about that book written by the Austrian art student from before WW I who wrote his memoirs about his gay relationship with the future Fuhrer. Does that form evidence against gays? Of course not, but Hitler didn't oppose homosexuality because of morality, but because he hated himself.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Paulian Creep at Imaginative Conservative
The Imaginative Conservative has given space to some creep I've never heard of before who is a Ron Paul dupe. This Church guy was attacked for his idiocy by Mark Levin, and Church's rebuttal was marked by an attack on Justice Scalia and a reference to the Civil War as (I am not making this up) "the War of Northern Aggression." I am debating whether or not to continue following a site that perpetuates the racism of an M.E. Bradford under the guise of conservatism.
M.E. Bradford reminds me of another bete noire of mine, Russell Kirk. I remember when I was an undergraduate hearing people rave about Kirk. I bought a first-edition of The Conservative Mind at a used book sale. Most of it was unremarkable enough, other than the strange confusion of Kirk's classifying that idolizer of Henry St. John, Benjamin Disraeli, as though he were a typical conservative. The thing that really creeped me out about Russell Kirk was the fact that he said at one point that Lincoln was wrong to have emancipated the slaves, that being a sudden change. Wow, that's horrible, I thought! Why would people think Russell Kirk was a great thinker, when he wrote something like that? My university's conservative student organization had a later edition of the book on hand. I looked for the passage in question, and found it had been expurgated from later editions. And that is why I have never been a Kirk fan.
M.E. Bradford reminds me of another bete noire of mine, Russell Kirk. I remember when I was an undergraduate hearing people rave about Kirk. I bought a first-edition of The Conservative Mind at a used book sale. Most of it was unremarkable enough, other than the strange confusion of Kirk's classifying that idolizer of Henry St. John, Benjamin Disraeli, as though he were a typical conservative. The thing that really creeped me out about Russell Kirk was the fact that he said at one point that Lincoln was wrong to have emancipated the slaves, that being a sudden change. Wow, that's horrible, I thought! Why would people think Russell Kirk was a great thinker, when he wrote something like that? My university's conservative student organization had a later edition of the book on hand. I looked for the passage in question, and found it had been expurgated from later editions. And that is why I have never been a Kirk fan.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Are the Smurfs Members of the Tea Party?
One of the truly typical things about modern life is trying to find political messages in places where they don't exist. I read about a French (ahem) academic who believes that the Smurfs are fascists, based on the fact that they share everything and do what Papa Smurf tells them. This reminds me a lot of the theory Jerry Falwell had about how the Teletubbies were pro-homosexual because Tinky Winky was purple and his antenna is an inverted triangle.
Today I read a similarly befuddling piece detailing a report by sociologists (ahem) that claimed that the Tea Party movement are small-minded, superstitious authoritarians. My question now is, in light of our esteemed sociology friends, do the Smurfs belong to the Tea Party movement?
The thing that makes this so utterly ridiculous is that another theory is that the word "Smurfs," coined by a Frenchman, is an anagram for "Small men under red forces." If the word Smurfs was an anagram for anything, wouldn't it be a phrase in French?
Today I read a similarly befuddling piece detailing a report by sociologists (ahem) that claimed that the Tea Party movement are small-minded, superstitious authoritarians. My question now is, in light of our esteemed sociology friends, do the Smurfs belong to the Tea Party movement?
The thing that makes this so utterly ridiculous is that another theory is that the word "Smurfs," coined by a Frenchman, is an anagram for "Small men under red forces." If the word Smurfs was an anagram for anything, wouldn't it be a phrase in French?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Father Farrell on Genesis
Estase remembered, in light of the creationist tendencies of Governor Perry, this passage from Vol. 1 of Father Farrell's Companion to the Summa:
The rejection of the fact of creation is a violation of the reason of man; it is unreasonable in the sense of being mad. The rejection, on scientific grounds, of the Scriptural account of the distinction and adornment of the world has a petty meanness about it for it is definitely unfair. The purpose of Moses in writing the account given in Genesis was to instruct an unlettered people in the fundamental truths of the religious and moral order. He wrote that they might know the obligation of adoration and gratitude to Jehovah, the author, governor, and conserver of all things; that he might preserve his people from idolatry in recalling to them that every creature has its reason of existance in a superior cause, that every creature is destined to serve man, the crown and masterpiece of creation, and not to be served by man.
Thus, Genesis is true in a sense which is not necessarily the sense of physical science. If Governor Perry wants to believe in creationism, that is his own business, but that may disqualify himself from being the Republican candidate. One can be a believer without disbelieving scientific facts. Liberals love to pretend they are more scientific, and a creationist like Perry would be grist for their mill.
The rejection of the fact of creation is a violation of the reason of man; it is unreasonable in the sense of being mad. The rejection, on scientific grounds, of the Scriptural account of the distinction and adornment of the world has a petty meanness about it for it is definitely unfair. The purpose of Moses in writing the account given in Genesis was to instruct an unlettered people in the fundamental truths of the religious and moral order. He wrote that they might know the obligation of adoration and gratitude to Jehovah, the author, governor, and conserver of all things; that he might preserve his people from idolatry in recalling to them that every creature has its reason of existance in a superior cause, that every creature is destined to serve man, the crown and masterpiece of creation, and not to be served by man.
Thus, Genesis is true in a sense which is not necessarily the sense of physical science. If Governor Perry wants to believe in creationism, that is his own business, but that may disqualify himself from being the Republican candidate. One can be a believer without disbelieving scientific facts. Liberals love to pretend they are more scientific, and a creationist like Perry would be grist for their mill.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Perry, Whether You Like It Or Not!
It seems to be the trend right now to impose a false dichotomy on Republican voters. Liberal Romney or Rick Perry. Neither, please? It seems rather unbelievable, but the almighty Fox network seems to have put a hit out on Michele Bachmann. Last night, their ticker told us that the Congresswoman mistakenly referred to Russia as the Soviet Union. That's your idea of a big mistake, when the present POTUS doesn't know how many states there are, nor does he know how to pronounce "corpsman?" Also, what about Herman Cain? Surely he is more responsible in his economic claims than Gov. Perry, who said that Bernacke was a traitor? Mr. Cain has actually run a successful business, which trumps any other Republican. Rick Perry does not have pro-life chops like Rick Santorum, either. Make Perry the nominee and that will be the wet dream of every liberal activist, because they already like to pretend that Republicans are all southerners with a race issue anyway.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Lesbian Crack-Addict Religious Women At It Again!
LCWR gives award to Sister Carol Keegan (you know, the Pennsylvania nun who backed Obamacare knowing it would drive her hospitals out of business by reducing Medicaid reimbursements), presumably for sabotage. Stickin' it to the pro-lifers--the LCWR way. Hat tip to Father Zuhlsdorf.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Return of the Mohocks
Last night PM Cameron said that the riots caused by angry British leftists will cause the insurance industry to pay out around 200 million pounds in claims. It is much like the Tory Mohocks of the eighteenth century, whom Defoe suggested dealing with through the "Protestant Flail". Closer to our own time, it is also like the 1926 General Strike, which is a sometimes-forgotten class war, also started by the left.
The YouCat, created for young Catholics has some detractors: see www.recallyoucat.com. On a similar note, Estase's decision to stop following Improperium Christi, the blog of slime artist Ron Conte has been solidified by a long tirade he published against New Theological Movement where he hypocritically claims Father Erlenbush insulted him, this after Conte tried to get him in trouble with his bishop, and routinely described him as a heretic. I do not remember Father Erlenbush saying anything about Mr. Conte until after he started to out his true identity. (He had, as I do, published under a pen name. I have absolutely no objection to this. In the real world, people have some right to their opinion without worrying about the professional implications of their opinions. I think outing a blogger is pretty contemptible--about as bad as gay rights weirdos outing closeted homosexuals.) Conte has some pretty heavy baggage to begin with, as he still regards as significant the Medjugorie apparitions that the local bishop declared heretical. The final straw is his use of the term "extreme-right" to describe conservative Catholics. Estase nominates Ron Conte as an honorary Mohock.
The YouCat, created for young Catholics has some detractors: see www.recallyoucat.com. On a similar note, Estase's decision to stop following Improperium Christi, the blog of slime artist Ron Conte has been solidified by a long tirade he published against New Theological Movement where he hypocritically claims Father Erlenbush insulted him, this after Conte tried to get him in trouble with his bishop, and routinely described him as a heretic. I do not remember Father Erlenbush saying anything about Mr. Conte until after he started to out his true identity. (He had, as I do, published under a pen name. I have absolutely no objection to this. In the real world, people have some right to their opinion without worrying about the professional implications of their opinions. I think outing a blogger is pretty contemptible--about as bad as gay rights weirdos outing closeted homosexuals.) Conte has some pretty heavy baggage to begin with, as he still regards as significant the Medjugorie apparitions that the local bishop declared heretical. The final straw is his use of the term "extreme-right" to describe conservative Catholics. Estase nominates Ron Conte as an honorary Mohock.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Is Abortion a Tenth or Fourteenth Amendment Issue?
Lisa Graas blogs today about Rick Santorum being better than Rick Perry, which she is right about, although the constitutional argument she uses may not be right.
Lisa says that Rick Perry says that states have the right to make abortion legal or illegal, whereas she says that the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the Tenth Amendment. But if everyone agreed that unborn children were covered under the Fourteenth Amendment, there never would have been a Roe v. Wade or legalized abortion in the first place. Is abortion killing? Of course it is. But the reason why abortion is a Tenth Amendment issue is because you will never get states like New York, Illinois, or California to sign on to the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the unborn. This idea, the idea of a constitutional amendment that will protect the unborn, is a political impossibility. It can never happen.
Wouldn't it be much better for the future of the pro-life movement, if the Supreme Court were to respect Luther v. Borden, and invoke the political questions doctrine (which is what it should have done instead of Roe v. Wade), and let at least the most conservative states (Montana, the Dakotas, Tennessee) make abortion illegal? That way, it would at least be in the public mind that not everybody condoned legal abortion, some states deigning to outlaw it, and no one could any longer use the fallacious argument of "If abortion were really immoral, it wouldn't be legal in all 50 states?" I don't think Lisa Graas is more pro-life than I am; what Estase says is that if it is all or nothing--nothing is what you will get.
Lisa says that Rick Perry says that states have the right to make abortion legal or illegal, whereas she says that the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the Tenth Amendment. But if everyone agreed that unborn children were covered under the Fourteenth Amendment, there never would have been a Roe v. Wade or legalized abortion in the first place. Is abortion killing? Of course it is. But the reason why abortion is a Tenth Amendment issue is because you will never get states like New York, Illinois, or California to sign on to the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the unborn. This idea, the idea of a constitutional amendment that will protect the unborn, is a political impossibility. It can never happen.
Wouldn't it be much better for the future of the pro-life movement, if the Supreme Court were to respect Luther v. Borden, and invoke the political questions doctrine (which is what it should have done instead of Roe v. Wade), and let at least the most conservative states (Montana, the Dakotas, Tennessee) make abortion illegal? That way, it would at least be in the public mind that not everybody condoned legal abortion, some states deigning to outlaw it, and no one could any longer use the fallacious argument of "If abortion were really immoral, it wouldn't be legal in all 50 states?" I don't think Lisa Graas is more pro-life than I am; what Estase says is that if it is all or nothing--nothing is what you will get.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Michigan Bishops Endorse Anchor Babies
Hat tip to Kresta In the Afternoon
The Catholic Bishops of Michigan have opposed immigration reform, apparently such as that created in Arizona. Significantly, they say that no children of illegal immigrants should be deported, an apparent endorsement of illegals who intentionally have children in America so that their children will be American citizens, and thus they cannot be deported.
It would be very interesting to see what Protestants and Jews think of Catholic bishops who place the health of their sect over the economic well-being of their community. I predict there will be, if there is not already, a backlash against the selfishness of the institutional Catholic Church in the United States.
The Catholic Bishops of Michigan have opposed immigration reform, apparently such as that created in Arizona. Significantly, they say that no children of illegal immigrants should be deported, an apparent endorsement of illegals who intentionally have children in America so that their children will be American citizens, and thus they cannot be deported.
It would be very interesting to see what Protestants and Jews think of Catholic bishops who place the health of their sect over the economic well-being of their community. I predict there will be, if there is not already, a backlash against the selfishness of the institutional Catholic Church in the United States.
BBC Endorses Comic Who Calls Palin's Kid "Retard"
Hat tip to Biased BBC.
The BBC recommended a film clip of a Doug Stanhope (Who apparently isn't as cool as James Stanhope, the eighteenth century Whig), who refers to Sarah Palin's vagina as a "retard-launcher," which obviously means that the BBC endorses abortion, as that's the only way Trig wouldn't have been born with Down's Syndrome. It is good to know where the BBC stands.
The BBC recommended a film clip of a Doug Stanhope (Who apparently isn't as cool as James Stanhope, the eighteenth century Whig), who refers to Sarah Palin's vagina as a "retard-launcher," which obviously means that the BBC endorses abortion, as that's the only way Trig wouldn't have been born with Down's Syndrome. It is good to know where the BBC stands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)