8

No Truce With Kings

The history of the Catholic Church is dominated by the struggle of the Faith against competing faiths.  Currently the Church is engaged in a struggle with a relatively new religion that has managed to infect the highest reaches of the Church:  Leftism.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:

There is no compromise with the Left

 
So just stop it.  Stop trying.  Like most of what the West has produced in terms of progressive revolutions, the Left despises the world of the Christian Faith.  It’s like the Terminator.  It can’t be bargained with.  It can’t be reasoned with.  It doesn’t show sanity, decency or charity, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the Christian Faith is dead.

So it should be no surprise that a gay nativity scene is making the rounds at the same time Christmas messages themselves are banned for being offensive.  Go ahead all progressive believers, non-conservatives, post-conservatives, non-traditionalists, hipster faithful and all who are trying to find ways to compromises between the Faith and the modern Left.  Go ahead and try, and measure how far you have pulled the Left back to the Faith, and how far the Left has pulled you from it.

It’s tempting to think that if you throw a clean washcloth into a mud puddle, the mud puddle will become cleaner.  Chances are, however, that the puddle will stay muddy, and your washcloth will become dirty.

Unlike ancient Rome, the Left doesn’t seek to round us up and drag us off to the arena.  Nor does it seek to do what previous leftists regimes did in gulags and killing fields.  Like trying to corrupt an upstanding citizen, it seeks to destroy all the faith believes, to corrupt its dogmas, erode its foundation.  It seeks to encourage believers and their leaders to reject the universe as Christ revealed. 

After all, if it can get the Church and its leaders to admit error in such things as human nature, which is visible and able to be seen and studied, where will people find cause to believe the Church where the invisible God is concerned?

The Faith is under an assault unlike anything it has experienced in its multiple centuries of existence.  To miss this fact, or to see the progressive developments as just some normal course of action in the evolution of human society, is to make one of the most grievous mistakes in the long history of making mistakes.

Go here to comment.  Kipling long ago wrote out my policy in regard to Leftists, those who seek to make the Almighty State our ruler forever and ever amen:

Howso’ great their clamour, whatsoe’er their claim,
Suffer not the old King under any name!

Here is naught unproven—here is naught to learn.
It is written what shall fall if the King return.

He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
Set his guards about us, as in Freedom’s name.

He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware;
He shall change our gold for arms—arms we may not bear.

He shall break his judges if they cross his word;
He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
Watchers ’neath our window, lest we mock the King—

Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
These shall deal our Justice: sell—deny—delay.

We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
For the Land we look to—for the Tongue we use.

We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
While his hired captains jeer us in the street.

Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
Far beyond his borders shall his teachings run.

Sloven, sullen, savage, secret, uncontrolled,
Laying on a new land evil of the old—

Long-forgotten bondage, dwarfing heart and brain—
All our fathers died to loose he shall bind again.

Here is naught at venture, random nor untrue—
Swings the wheel full-circle, brims the cup anew.

Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
Step for step and word for word—so the old Kings did!

Step by step, and word by word: who is ruled may read.
Suffer not the old Kings: for we know the breed—

All the right they promise—all the wrong they bring.
Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King!

12

Mark Shea and the Christianists

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at Mark Shea’s response to the sexual harassment avalanche:

 

Off the rails lunacy

 

Over at Catholic and Enjoying It.  Like many, Mark jumped on the Roy Moore accusations, not just to demand Moore’s head, but to use the scandal to attack Trump, Trump supporters, conservatives and American conservative Christians.  Like many, Mark said it was time to put aside the need for evidence, proof or due process.  When those icky types are accused, it’s enough that they’re icky types, and it’s time to hie to the gallows.

Like the overwhelming majority of modern punditry, both right and left, Mark has also been stunningly silent about the myriad accusations against liberal pundits, politicians, activists, entertainers, and high profile personnel.  Like so many who were quick to link Moore to entire swaths of American conservative culture, Mark has said nothing about these accusations against liberals and what it means about American liberalism.  The most Mark did was link to a rather nondescript article that talked of the rock era tendency to sex after teenage girls.  But nothing about rock and liberalism, liberal culture or the ideological similarities in the laundry list of recent accusations.

And that’s fine.  I’m OK with this.  I think this says something about our culture as a whole.  Both the accusations, and the fact that we have no clear understanding of what is right or wrong behavior on any given day, or a desire to even sort it out before we destroy lives.  All of those, to me, are symptomatic of a nation that long ago put punditry over principle.  So I have no problem if people aren’t saying the list of liberals accused proves X about liberalism.

My problem is that they did just that against conservatives and evangelicals.  Conservatives and liberals alike, never-Trumpers and left wing activists, all were happy to draw a straight line from Roy Moore to anyone and everything Right of center, guilty as accused.

Mark demonstrates this partisanship and, quite frankly, lunacy in spades.  Not only has he avoided anything at all about the multiple accusations post-Moore, including his own folk hero Garrison Keillor, but he has continued to funnel all wrath and hatred at Moore, Trump, Trump supporters, conservatives and American conservative Christians, as if nobody else has been accused. 

Pre-posting update:  Jonah Goldberg, hardly sympathetic to Trump and the gang, nonetheless noticed the same trend.

Go here to comment.  Here is a sample of what Dave was talking about:

A few weeks ago, the Federalist ran an incredible piece by the Lutheran Satire guy which was, alas, not satire.  In it, he tried to argue that the slaughter in Sutherland was an awesome answer to the prayers of the victims and that anybody appalled and outraged by that slaughter loved government and not God.

One could hardly have asked for a more chemically pure expression of Christianism: the false gospel that cloaks the right wing culture of death in Christian imagery to battle for such things as (in that case) arms industry profits over human life.

Yet, not to be outdone, the Federalist again publishes an article oozing great slimy lies to the effect that you should support a child molester (excuse me, “morally questionable” person) like Roy Moore because God can use such people.

What is the urgent thing that Christianists need him for?  Well, given that Planned Parenthood is already fully funded, the Party of Trump can’t really sell the “We’ll be magicking abortion away Real Soon Now” lie, so we have to just face the fact that Moore is important to help fund the Tax Budget Only a Child Molester Could Love.

It is, in essence, the greatest act of theft in American history, robbing the poor and the middle class to engorge the rich, according to the communists at Fortune.

Go here to read the rest.  Besides telling us that Shea has apparently lost the ability to read, judging from his misinterpretations of the two Federalist articles that he references, his use of the term Christianist is deeply revealing.  It is a term of abuse for Christians that Leftists hurl at Christians who have the temerity to disagree with them.  Once upon a time, long, long ago, Mark Shea was a Catholic apologist.  Now he is simply an apologist, and a very angry one, for an increasingly deranged Left.  He has chosen poorly.

3

Lies, Mark Shea and Cardinal Newman

 

 

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts joins Mark Shea’s noble anti-lying crusade:

 

It’s time the Church take a bold stand against illegal immigration.  After all, what is one major way people here illegally are able to carry on in life, have jobs, send their kids to Harvard, and make a living for them and their relatives back home?  Fraudulent documentation.  That is, in other words, fake or false documents – lies you might say.

Mark Shea builds a strong case for why the Church should say enough is enough.  Not that we shouldn’t reform our immigration system.  Something like that should always be reformed, since situations and conditions always change.  But the idea that just because the system is broken, people are free to be fraudulent, lie, present false documentation and any other form of deception.

Lying is a sin, as Mark boldly proclaims.  It’s time for the Church and faithful Catholics to stop justifying, excusing and tolerating a culture of lies that justifies law breaking and fraud, even if it’s one celebrated and advocated by the modern Left.

 

Go here to comment.  Gander, here is some of that goose sauce you have been eyeing.

 

 

In case some of you suspect, gasp, that perhaps Mark might be mangling Church teaching a wee bit, here is Blessed Cardinal Newman on lying and equivocation:

 

This is from Note G of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua.  It is a typical tour de force by Newman where he demonstrates his knowledge of the history, reasoning and practical application of a Church teaching on morality.  Here is the note:

ALMOST all authors, Catholic and Protestant, admit, that when a just cause is present, there is some kind or other of verbal misleading, which is not sin. Even silence is in certain cases virtually such a misleading, according to the Proverb, “Silence gives consent.” Again, silence is absolutely forbidden to a Catholic, as a mortal sin, under certain circumstances, e.g. to keep silence, when it is a duty to make a profession of faith.

Another mode of verbal misleading, and the most direct, is actually saying the thing that is not; and it is defended on the principle that such words are not a lie, when there is a “justa causa,” as killing is not murder in the case of an executioner.

Another ground of certain authors for saying that an untruth is not a lie where there is a just cause, is, that veracity is a kind of justice, and therefore, when we have no duty of justice to tell truth to another, it is no sin not to do so. Hence we may say the thing that is not, to children, to madmen, to men who ask impertinent questions, to those whom we hope to benefit by misleading.

Another ground, taken in defending certain untruths, ex justâ causâ, as if not lies, is, that veracity is for the sake of society, and that, if in no case whatever we might lawfully mislead others, we should actually be doing society great harm.

Another mode of verbal misleading is equivocation or a play upon words; and it is defended on the theory that to lie is to use words in a sense which they will not bear. But an equivocator uses them in a received sense, though there is another received sense, and therefore, according to this definition, he does not lie.

Others say that all equivocations are, after all, a kind of lying,—faint lies or awkward lies, but still lies; and some of these disputants infer, that therefore we must not equivocate, and others that equivocation is but a half-measure, and that it is better to say at once that in certain cases untruths are not lies.

Others will try to distinguish between evasions and equivocations; but though there are evasions which are clearly not equivocations, yet it is very difficult scientifically to draw the line between the one and the other.

To these must be added the unscientific way of dealing with lies,—viz. that on a great or cruel occasion a man cannot help telling a lie, and he would not be a man, did he not tell it, but still it is very wrong, and he ought not to do it, and he must trust that the sin will be forgiven him, though he goes about to commit it ever so deliberately, and is sure to commit it again under similar circumstances. It is a necessary frailty, and had better not be thought about before it is incurred, and not thought of again, after it is well over. This view cannot for a moment be defended, but, I suppose, it is very common.
I think the historical course of thought upon the matter has been this: the Greek Fathers thought that, when there was a justa causa, an untruth need not be a lie. St. Augustine took another view, though with great misgiving; and, whether he is rightly interpreted or not, is the doctor of the great and common view that all untruths are lies, and that there can be no just cause of untruth. In these later times, this doctrine has been found difficult to work, and it has been largely taught that, though all untruths are lies, yet that certain equivocations, when there is a just cause, are not untruths. Continue Reading

10

With Terror and Slaughter Return

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

Rudyard Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings

 

 

 

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts responds to the attack by the ghouls of ISIS on a Sufi Mosque in  the northern Sinai that left 305 worshipers murdered:

 

Horrible.  Animals and savages to be sure.  God grant peace and strength to those impacted by this, whose lives were lost, who remain behind and are left with the hurt and the pain.  God also soften the hearts of those who embrace this senseless slaughter as a means of righteousness.  Help the nations of the world find a way to eliminate this and no longer tolerate an apathy based on accepting this as some new normal. 

 

Go here to comment.  My fear is that our elites want us to accept this as the new normal.  Tut tutting about it by all the usual suspects and then nothing effective is done.  Repeat for the next one, ad infinitum.  Neo pacifism is strong among elites, our Pope being a typical example.  The murderers of ISIS give the lie to such pacifism.  They will not stop until they are stopped permanently by superior fire power.  The prophet Rudyard Kipling predicted this long ago:

 

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

Later in the same poem he details where the policies of the fools who currently lead the West are headed:

 

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

 

23

The Golden Thread

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us Mark Shea’s predictable take on the Roy Moore controversy:

 

 

 

Both in and out of the courts.  A case study, by Mark Shea. 

Knowing Mark’s own political loyalties, is wasn’t difficult to believe that Mark would do what he did, and that’s join with all of Roy Moore’s political opponents and adversaries on both sides of the aisle and demand Moore be removed from his senate race.  Most, like Mark, made this call long before more women were produced from the same part of the town where Moore was living forty years ago, and before Moore made some of his own questionable statements.  Many, like Mark, did it within a day of the WP piece that initially broke the story.

Mark, like Steven Greydanus, has made it clear that Moore’s guilt is all but obvious.  There is no room for debate.  If you don’t immediately condemn Moore and want him punished, then you support child molesters.  Sort of like what people used to say about the Catholic Church, but I’m sure that’s different.  After all, Mark asks why women would make false accusations for no reason?

Which brings us to this little tidbit that came my way.  In it, we have a cry for justice against a vile women who has made an innocent man’s life a nightmare with endless false accusations and stalkings.  And who is that man?  It would be Mark Shea’s nephew

Personally, I have no more vested interest in the case against Mark’s nephew than I do the case against Roy Moore.  My thing would be to wait to demand punishment until the cases were heard in an official capacity.  Was Mark’s nephew lying to protect himself, or was the woman lying?   I might have my own opinions, but I certainly wouldn’t want anyone punished until official inquiries and investigations were conducted that included examining the evidence.

Same with Moore.  But yet, whereas Mark found it easy to accuse a woman who had falsely accused his own nephew, Mark finds it just as easy now to believe every woman accusing Moore and immediately call for Moore, the child molester per Mark, to be punished, no physical evidence or corroborating documentation needed.

And that, kiddies, is why we have the rule of law.  It’s to protect us from people who can’t quite see the fact that they appear to be playing fast and loose with consistent application of standards, and who seem to be guided more by emotionalism and raw personal bias and prejudice, than an actual quest for truth and justice.

 

Go here to comment.  When I am tempted to rush to judgment I try to recall the golden thread that runs through American law, the presumption of innocence.  Rumpole of the Bailey stated it well:

 

 

When factual allegations are made, I try to remind myself that the burden of proof is on the accuser, inside or outside of the courtroom.

3

A Century of Blood

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

George Orwell, 1984

 

 

 

In the Julian Calendar which the Russians used in 1917 the Russian Revolution, more accurately the Russian Coup, by the Bolsheviks occurred on October 25, hence the October Revolution.  (On the Gregorian Calendar the date was November 7, 1917.)  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts reminds us that Communism is still a favored murderous mass movement among all to many intellectuals of the West.

 

Dr. Samuel Gregg examines the 100th Anniversary of Russia’s October Revolution.  This should be bigger than it is, though the Left has always been shy about focusing too much on the horrors of Communism. 

Growing up, all the hip shows and movies cast a sympathetic glance over at the legacy of Communism and its prevailing states, whether it be MASH or Reds, you couldn’t help but get the feeling that underlying the approach was a secret ‘they’re better than us’ message in it all.

In college, it was the same.  Communism, though not without its flaws, was never as bad as – can I say it – the Capitalism of America’s industrial war machines.  More than one professor took great delight in pointing out that the Communists were often just trying to help, unlike our own government that never seemed to have a pure motive in its history.

The same for Catholics, at least those more hostile to America and the Western tradition.  More than once I’ve been informed that if you take the Trail of Tears, twist and turn the numbers just right, it’s clear the US is the most murderous nation state in history, far worse than any Communist state of the 20th century.  And that doesn’t count the millions of slaves that were murdered, the billions of Native Americans killed, and the tens of millions killed by our military during our endless imperial grabs for power.

Nonetheless, outside of that weird universe of Marxist driven leftist ideology, in what we call the real world, Communism remains perhaps the most evil, murderous, and destructive ideology in the history of the human race.  That so many on the Left either try to downplay, or outright deny, this makes you wonder just how passionate the Left is about opposing things like mass slaughter, tyranny, destruction and endless terror. 

Nonetheless, this is the big 100th anniversary.  We’ll see how much it’s covered.  Kudos to The Catholic World Report for stepping out early and getting a jump on the future reflections. 

Go here to comment.  Ironically, considering how infested with Marxism the Catholic left is, the main attraction of this superstition for intellectuals is largely the atheism that is at the core of Marxism.  There is no God, merely an inevitable historical path laid out by Marx. Traditional morality was done away with:  cooperating with the inevitable historical process, the ultimate triumph of Marxism, was moral, and anything that opposed it was immoral.  Thus morality becomes a mere matter of political labels.  How convenient that this allowed movements dedicated to Marxism to commit any crime, no matter how vile, in the scramble for supreme power.  That Marxism has never been anything but a transparent fraud, with no more intellectual validity than a tale from The Arabian Nights, is a damning indictment of the human capacity to embrace any fable if it gives an excuse to engage in wretched conduct with an ostensibly clean conscience. One hundred million corpses later it is depressing to see how popular this murderous nonsense is in the West.

 

26

Mark Shea, the Angelic Doctor, Francis Bacon and Truth

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at Mark Shea’s ongoing debate with strawmen:

 

 

I must admit, one reason I left Patheos was so that I could keep better track of Mark Shea.  When I came on board Patheos, our editor asked me to leave Mark alone and cease and desist arguments with him.  I more or less behaved myself, usually confining any references to Mark to the praise and ‘well done’ category.

That didn’t stop Mark, however, from visiting my blog a few times and throwing out his usual preemptive accusations, and then leaving.  Since Mark banned me from his own sites, I couldn’t respond, and he never returned to dialogue with me.

That became frustrating to be sure.  I tried to behave on my part, and yet felt I was coming out on the short end.  Therefore one of many reasons to leave Patheos was so I could speak more openly about Mark’s descent into the deepest levels of the modern Left.

This post is a grand example.  First of all, there is nothing wrong with the substance of what Mark says about Church teaching.  The Church condemns racism.  If you only oppose immigration because you are a racist, then that is bad.  Likewise, our salvation does not rest in blood or soil or nation.  The Church is not America, nor is it Western Civilization.

But that’s not the problem. First, Mark used a rather poor example to illustrate the opposing side of the debate.  Assuming this all came to Mark as he indicates – and knowing how Mark falsely accused me of saying things about him, I must wonder – it is obviously a poorly written, poorly thought out piece.  There are other, better pieces explaining the problems with open borders and post-national Christianity.  The biggest problem is that whatever negative results occur, it won’t be us who pay the price.  It will be future generations.  A sort of martyrdom by proxy: By the degree to which future generations pay for our opinions have we declared our righteousness.

Mark doesn’t address those.  He takes something written by what could pass as a high school Facebook rant.  And he uses it to subtly suggest this is par for the course for those who don’t agree with the Church’s current approach to the subject.

He then does the really, super duper bad thing.  He ascribes only the most vile and evil motives to those who oppose open border immigration.  And then, to add salt to the wound, he takes it to the next level:

“…is (like all these Alt Right guys) obsessed with his sperm.  That’s why he bizarrely speaks of “cuckolds” as he insults celibate “Catholic leaders”.  It’s all about the weird fear these guys have that darkskins will inseminate “their” white women.  The sexual insecurity of these wretched bully boys just leaps off the page every time they write.”

Go here to read the rest.  Saint Thomas Aquinas would take arguments he rejected, make them stronger than their adherents did, and only then subject the arguments to his powerful analysis.  Of course the Angelic Doctor didn’t post on the internet and his goal was not to get hits from red meat fans.  His whole purpose was to arrive at the truth of any subject he wrote about, as best as he could.  Unfortunately the attitude of  most internet posters to truth is summed up in the beginning of Francis Bacon’s essay Of Truth:

“What is truth?” said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

We can do better than that, and not just Mark Shea.  This is a duty especially for those of us who follow Truth Incarnate.

 

10

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts Finds That Telling Truth Out of Season can be an Unpopular Avocation

So Deacon Steven Greydanus has banned me from his Facebook page.

We’ve had some good discussions he and I.  We haven’t always agreed, but generally we’ve debated well, and I’ve certainly learned some things.

But this time the topic of immigration came up.  He posted an editorial about immigration (this was posted on Mark Shea’s webpage, since I can’t access Deacon’s FB page at this point), what it is, America’s rights and immigrants and all.  We’ve heard it a thousand, million times. 

I responded by something that’s been buzzing around my head for a couple days.  When Trump said he would do away with DACA, you had the obvious outcry: But the babies!   While this was being done, the MSM ran out and found case after case of people who would be hurt by this.

While doing this, some news outlets also went a different direction.  I believe they were trying to say ‘Look how unfair this is!  People who have lived their lives, and are now firmly set in a path toward contributing to society, will be uprooted and thrown out!’  To that end, they interviewed various business leaders, tech giants and even Ivy League universities about all those undocumented individuals who will be hurt by this.  Undocumented workers who have good jobs, are attending college, going to Harvard, and on and on.

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  Isn’t it possible that sympathy for people who have spent their lives breaking the law, who are now attending Harvard, might go down hard for Americans who are struggling to pay bills, can barely feed their own families, and have no hope for their own children affording college?  I mean, I’m not hearing much from the Church about that.  Oh, the Church talks its usual concern for the poor and injustice at home.  But how does it square supporting people who have broken the law, spent their lives breaking the law, and our now reaping great rewards while their surrounding citizens are watching their fortunes diminish?

Isn’t it possible that sympathy for that Harvard grad who never became a citizen might not be easy to extract from that struggling American family who can barely afford cloths and a decent car for their family? Continue Reading

9

Gettysburg the Film

 

At Daffey Thoughts Dave Griffey celebrates the film Gettysburg, the only film that  my bride and I ever hired a babysitter for in order to see, all the way back in 1993, which is now almost a quarter of a century ago, unbelievably enough to me.  Time does run in a rapid stream:

 

An annual viewing tradition around July 4th.  From a time before the dark days of Multiculturalism taught us to ignore the myriad sins of the world while refusing to forgive the sins of the West.

Adapted from Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels, it marked that last point where the Civil War was popularly understood as driven by the issue of slavery, but also about many complex issues, as history always is.

But that was then.  Today history,  like so many things, has been whittled down to a soundbite.  Hence the end of the Confederate memorials; hence raising new bigotries and racisms to replace the old.  Those hellbent on ignoring the past are, after all, doomed to repeat it.  Or – good news for the post-war generations – our posterity will be doomed to repeat it.

Sometimes I think the reason we spend so much time focused on the sins of the past is because, deep down, we can’t help but think they were better than we are (exceptions noted).  As a generation, our greatest accomplishment is watching the civilization we inherited crumble under our feet.  And in the end, that’s not much to endear us to future memory.  A generation that has concluded “we can climb higher by kicking down the ladder by which we have come thus far” has shown why the”progressive habit of thinking we can make the world better for our children by murdering the memory of our grandparents is folly.”

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Just some whimsy on this Independence Day celebration.  Now off to the fireworks!

 

Continue Reading

10

Caesar Signals Thumbs Down on Charlie Gard

 

 

For deluded Catholics who believe that Moses carried down an eleventh commandment stating “Caesar picks up the tab for Healthcare!”, Dave Griffey gives some food for thought at Daffey Thoughts:

 

God bless these parents and this beautiful child.  Already facing a fatal genetic condition, the child has struggled to live during his short life.  The parents had hoped to bring the child to the US to try an experimental procedure in a last hope of saving the baby.

In a turn of events that explains the general hesitation about turning such matters over to the State, the UK courts have said the parents can’t do this.  The hospital will remove the child from life support.  The parents appealed and took the matter to the European court.  But the court refused to overturn the lower court decision.  The child will die.

Not because the child was left to die, or because the child was removed from life support.  But because the parents were forbidden to bring their child to the US for the experimental treatment.  Therefore, after hearing the case brought by the hospital and the parents as prescribed by UK law, the courts and the state have dictated that the child will die.  Perhaps he would have died anyway.  But it doesn’t take much to see why people are bothered by the fact that it was the courts, and not the parents, that had the final say.

I can’t imagine what those parents are feeling right now, and that precious child who knows nothing of this.  God grant peace and strength to all involved in the coming weeks, and bless young Charlie Gard with all your love. Continue Reading

16

History and Leftist Inconoclasm

He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression; and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy and a man without guile. He was a Caesar without his ambition; Frederick without his tyranny; Napoleon without his selfishness; and Washington without his reward.

Benjamin Hill on Robert E. Lee

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes that Mark Shea has embraced the leftist crusade of purging the nation of all things Confederate:

 

 

Why should we have a monument in our capital named for a hypocritical racist slave owner?  Or for that matter, why should our capital be named for one?  Mark Shea explains.  Mark isn’t advocating the eradication of Washington’s name from his home state, or the destruction of the Jefferson Memorial, or the closing down of Independence Hall, or moving the presidential residency from a building built on the backs of slaves.

Nothing in his post, however, could be used to condemn such actions.  In fact, the post could be used to defend such actions.   As a Believer, I’m a little bothered by the sudden emergence of the ‘erase the Confederacy and everyone in it’ movement that has gained steam since the Charleston Shooting.  Mark himself decried the sudden removal of Confederate symbols from museums and other historic locations.

Nonetheless, he seems fine with the removal of monuments for even such luminaries as Robert E. Lee, who often was compared to Erwin Rommel, a brave and noble man on the wrong side of the debate.   Sure, you could argue there is a dearth of high schools or statues celebrating Rommel, but that is because for the longest time, people actually believed that the American South, if not America, and Nazi Germany were different animals.  Now, of course, those differences are eroding.  Since there is typically good and bad in most people, places, and things, deciding to weigh all equally on the Nazi Comparison scale seems a dangerous trend.

In fact some could argue, as Mark appears to, that there was little moral difference between the North and South.  Perhaps the rest of the US was every bit as bad.  And if so, then why keep anything honoring it or those who fought for it?  No more God bless America?  Just God damn America?  Perhaps.  Given that in my lifetime I watched a concerted effort to stop seeing such historical luminaries as Attila the Hun, or such civilizations as the Vikings or the Mongols in purely negative ways, I have a hard time seeing the reverse trend when it comes to America.

Continue Reading

5

Just in Time for Easter

 

 

 

Like clockwork Copts are slaughtered by Jihadists as we approach Easter.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts prays for the victims:

 

As I’ve discovered, for some Christians in Islamic countries, Palm Sunday is the main celebration day.  That’s because of generations of regulations aimed at restricting their primary holy day of Easter.  I don’t know if that’s the case with Coptic Christians.  But it’s a reminder that as horrible as this is, it’s not unique, nor is it new.

I had the pleasure of speaking to several Syrian immigrants today.  Apparently they’ve not been able to tell their side of the story because they told it all to me.  Not sure what to do with their accounts, which included request for prayers for churches they attended that are gone, loved ones and friends who died horribly, or simply the ages and ages that their communities have lived under the specter of similar periods of oppression and persecution.

All I can say is that my thoughts and prayers go out to them.  In all due respect to Walt Disney, it’s actually a large world after all.  And nothing they told me today sounded at all like what I hear in our media or from our pols or designated ‘experts.’  I fear someday we Americans are going to be in for a rude awakening.    In the meantime, we can at least pray for and remember those whose celebrations were marred by death, and pray that today, those killed will be with Christ in paradise. Continue Reading

20

Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

 

 

Vice President Mike Pence has a talent for bringing out the crazy, admittedly never far beneath the surface, on the left in this nation.  They are trying to make hay out of Pence’s statement in 2002 that he never dines alone with a non-related woman not his wife.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:

Who in the world would have a problem with this? Apparently a few hellbent on looking stupid.  This is Washington, and this is Pence, a man who tries to live by his faith and thus his reputation will be target number one for those who wish to destroy him. That’s the common sense in politics part.

On the common sense in life part, neither do I. I know of few if any married men who do go out to dinner with other women one on one. Business or otherwise.  Not a single man I’ve worked for, and not a single woman I’ve worked with for that matter, does that I’m aware of.   At least ones in good marriages. That’s just common freaking sense marriage 101. It’s not really a ‘Billy Graham rule.’  Graham made it famous for pastors back in the day when clergy held a certain star status, but he didn’t pioneer the advice.  It goes back long before Graham, and generally has been followed by most men and women I know who had happy marriages.

If people do go out together with others one on one, when they’re otherwise married, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t judge one way or another.  But to make this basic common sense advice, since forever, into some scandal? I thought it was an Onion piece or SNL skit when I first heard about it. I’ll count this as almost the most stupid thing I’ve heard in a year. An actual year of stupid, and this is near the top.  And reading what the “critics” were actually saying made it worse.

Kudos to Slate for the most ‘out the arse asinine stupid’ take on this non-story.    Because the only place I can learn how much a woman has to offer is alone at dinner, not in any other setting at all.

And the “Make Walter Sobchak seem like Einstein”award goes to Philip Sherburn for comparing this principle to Sharia Law in his tweet about Pence’s choice.

I mean, the dumb has taken over the extreme left on this day in March, 2017.  Mourn or apologize or rejoice as you see fit. Continue Reading

16

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes the hostility that much of the contemporary left has to freedom of speech for those who have the temerity to disagree with them:

 

Is illustrated here:

Yep.  My older boys have already run into this.  The idea that ‘you don’t have a right to offend me.’  Uh, yes I do.  That’s freedom of speech.  Or let’s just whittle it down to mere ‘freedom.’  Sure, I can not listen, disagree, argue the point, or even show you to the door if I deem you rude or obnoxious.  But violence or, worse, calling for officials and institutions to punish wrong speak?

Growing up, Voltaire’s famous quip was the John 3:16 of American liberalism:

I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

If I heard that once, I heard that a billion times. It might be worth digging it back up and using it again.  Or more of us you might end up getting caught up in the storm, as professor Allison Stranger discovered all too well.

Continue Reading

2

Daffey Thoughts on 2016

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts has some observations about 2016, the year in which the improbable frequently became probable:

 

 

  • Never, ever underestimate Donald Trump
  • Arrogance is a bad strategy
  • Insulting millions of registered voters is not the best response to a candidate who insults millions of non-voters
  • Bipartisanship is not accomplished by blaming everyone else
  • There is a fine line between journalism and propaganda
  • Pretending that problems don’t exist won’t convince those who are suffering as a result of those problems
  • If you pop champagne corks because experts assure you that no matter what, your side will win by the Electoral College, then don’t cry about how unfair it is when your side loses by the Electoral College. It’s unbecoming.
  • Surrounding yourself with yes-men doesn’t help
  • A nation has a right to demand higher standards from its president, it has no right to demand different standards
  • If the latest scientific conclusions are always what I want to hear, someone’s doing something wrong
  • ‘Do unto others as long as you don’t do unto me’ is not the Golden Rule
  • Expediency does not lend itself to moral outrage
  • Truth is not based on a majority
  • Working with people involves working with people, not saying you’re working with people
  • When everything is going for you, it’s still not wise to overplay your hand
  • If you cry wolf too many times for too many years, people won’t listen even when they admit they see a wolf
  • People don’t always align with partisan assumptions
  • People pay attention, even when you don’t want them to
  • If education is just a means to an end, it’s probably not the best education
  • The problem with saying ‘That idiot’s mean because he called me stupid’ should be obvious
  • It’s pointless to ignore the past in the Internet age

Continue Reading

4

The Good Old Days

“People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”

Edmund Burke

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts muses as to how conservatives and leftists view the past and the present:

 

Or not, depending on your point of view.  A basic difference between a more progressive spin on America and a more traditional spin is that progressives tend to believe America can be a great nation despite the evils of its past, while traditionalists tend to believe that America has been a great nation despite the evils in its past. Likewise, those who swing to the Left tend to see the changes happening as positive, while those who are more conservative will obviously see many changes as negative, especially if they’ve changed important characteristics of their society.  That Americans are divided along political lines over wanting America the way it used to be or not shouldn’t be surprising.  Nor should we assume that when people say they want the past, that they necessarily want the evils of the past.  An interesting, but hardly surprising, survey. Continue Reading

9

Prepare to Be Assimilated

 

Dave Griffey at Daffy Thoughts views the Clinton campaign e-mails about the Church as not anti-Catholic, but rather a demonstration of the Borg quality of contemporary liberalism:

 

There’s quite a buzz about some of the emails dumped from Hillary’s camp.  Admittedly you have to sift through the news hours to find mention of these.  It isn’t necessarily 24/7 coverage.  Don’t know why, but except for FOX, nobody is really talking about this.  In any event, allow me to point out that these emails are not anti-Catholic.  They’re basic, modern progressive 101.   They’re not trashing Catholics or Catholicism.  They’re trashing that which isn’t liberal.  They’re not saying the Catholic Church sucks.  They’re saying the Catholic Church that doesn’t conform to liberalism sucks.  They’re not saying Catholics are stupid or wicked.  They’re saying Catholics who don’t convert to the liberal gospel are stupid and wicked.  There’s a difference.

The strength of liberalism is that it invites all people into its fold.  Everyone, from all walks of life, all beliefs, all backgrounds.  It merely insists that certain non-negotiables be accepted.   Do that, and you’re accepted.  Steven Colbert is a fine example.  No Catholic is more lauded in our popular culture for his Catholic faith than Colbert.  That’s because everyone assumes he is also quite liberal, and accepts liberalism on the key, important issues.

I realize the double standard.  I get that if this email said the same things about Muslims and was passed along between GOP workers, then this would be 24/7 outrage.  It would be the Fluke Revolution all over again.   I get that.  It is what it is.  If you don’t realize where most of the press is at this point, then there’s not much sense discussing anything else.  But keep the outrage in perspective and keep it accurate.  In the end, it’s all about that progressive model of reality.  These emails are not trashing Catholicism.  They are reminding us of the Romification of liberalism.  Just as Rome said all you needed to do was pay your taxes, keep the peace and bow to Caesar, and then you can keep what gods you want, so the modern Left says the same.  And based on the number of Christians beginning to see the progressive light, I’d say it’s turned out to be an effective bargain.

 

Go here to read the comments.  Perhaps the Borg is not the proper reference.  I am sure that Geek liberals think of themselves as building a benevolent, all encompassing Federation that will take all of humanity and place them at the service of noble leftist causes.  To them, my response will ever be that of Commander Eddington:

3

Fall the Wonderful

 

I heartily concur with Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts celebration of our current season:

 

Anyone who has followed my blog for more than a year or so knows one thing for sure: I love the Fall.  I enjoy Spring and there’s still enough kid in me to enjoy Winter, especially leading up to Christmas.  Summer is my hibernation time.  But Fall?  It’s to me what Spring is supposed to be to most people.

Today is a day off.  The boys are off of school, owing to a local holiday that can only happen in small town America.  And with it, I have the day off as well.  Don’t know what we’ll do today.  Maybe nothing, though I always hate to let a day go by without something to do.   I often start reading The Lord of the Rings in September, but thought this year I’d try something different.  This year I’m going to read through the Appendices.  Truth be told, I’ve glanced at them over the years, but never read through them.  As for the other fun parts of Fall, those are just beginning.

Here are some links to previous posts over the years in which I muse over, in my own amateurish way, just why I love this season.   Enjoy.  TTFN Continue Reading

2

A Pope For The Lavender Mafia

 

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts ponders the Pope’s call for Catholics to apologize to gays.

 

And it is us.  Not that there is anything wrong with the occasional sermon that looks out on the congregation and proclaims ‘thou art the man!’  You can’t spend your life pointing out the window and condemning all those sinners out there.  The problem is, again, you have Pope Francis echoing that modern Catholic tendency of wanting to embrace almost everything to do with the modern, post-Christian secular progressive world view … but with Jesus.

The idea that Christians are the mischief when it comes to homosexuals is well known, and almost universally embraced, by the modern Left.  Just look at Orlando and who our popular culture ended up blaming.  And once again, Pope Francis steps in and echoes that same narrative, despite the fact that ten years after becoming Catholic, I have yet to hear a homily that even mentioned homosexuality.  He doesn’t seem to differentiate.  He simply says we Catholics must apologize.

True, he doesn’t condone homosexuality.  He already has made it clear that technically the Church still teaches that homosexuality is at least not compatible with God’s vision for marriage.  But apart from that, his take on the subject and the take I hear from Dr. Drew are about the same.  It’s certainly nothing I won’t hear on MSNBC, CNN, or the Huffington Post; several of which were cheering and celebrating the Pope’s words this morning.  I also understand that he included other groups in there as well.  But let’s face it, what will the modern world focus on, thanks to his choice of words? 

I realize that Jesus reached out to prostitutes and sinners.  I realize that he went after the Pharisees and Scribes.  I get that.  I understand that Christians are never perfect and can do with the occasional kick in the pants.  But Pope Francis is not Jesus.  The Catholic Church is not the Sanhedrin and Catholics are not just a bunch of Scribes and Pharisees.  And the forces arrayed against the Church today, using all powers and abilities to assault the Church, lead astray its followers, and assail the fundamental truths of the Gospel, are not the woman caught in adultery.  

If Jesus praised the Roman Centurion’s faith, at no point did he stand alongside the Roman legions, look out among his imperfect disciples, and say to the Romans, “Let’s get’em!”  Perhaps the reason was that to do so might have given the Romans a flawed understanding of the Kingdom.  It might have presented an idea that, as long as I’m not like those sinful Jew disciples over there, I must be pretty awesome where I stand, in the pagan empire, venerating Caesar, indulging in the Roman lust for conquest.  I don’t know.  Just speculation on my part.  I simply know there’s something off kilter about Pope Francis’ continued railing against the Church in a manner almost in lockstep with perhaps the greatest heresy to challenge the Faith since Arianism, even if technically there’s nothing wrong with what he’s saying.

As an aside.  My boys asked, when they heard this, if Pope Francis was calling on Gays to forgive Catholics.  I don’t know.  I’ve not heard.  Perhaps he has.  If so, the press hasn’t reported it.  If not, then I wonder why.  

Continue Reading

25

Daffey Thoughts: Granite State

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us his take on New Hampshire:

 

While for some inexplicable reason Conservatives and Christians still support Trump, much of his support comes from moderate to non-Republican primary voters.  Not enough.  But his appeal to the non-conservative, non-religious vote is noteworthy. Despite that, he continues to wobble around the 1/3 mark in the GOP.  It’s unlikely he will get much higher.  Most Republicans and Conservatives, desperate for change and honesty and promises kept aren’t willing to drop that low.  Just the fact that he picked as his national spokesperson an outspoken hater of Conservatives and Christians should speak volumes.  That’s not counting his stances on various issues that are supposed to be near and dear to conservative hearts.

As a disclaimer, I very much like John Kasich.  I’m not sold on the idea of him being presidential material, but I like and respect the man very much.  He would be a formidable obstacle for Democrats and liberals in a general election.  Kasich was one of the Republicans in the 90s that liberals trotted out against the Gingrich Republicans to say ‘Why can’t you be awesome like Mr. Kasich?’.  That alone is tough to overcome if you’re a Democrat.

Rubio is a good man, and I think down the road presidential material.  But I’m a little gun-shy about electing a young senator with no real executive experience.  Look what happened last time we did that.  Sure, that’s a tough attack for the Democrats, who would have to concede that things didn’t work too well under Obama.  But it is a valid complaint.

Cruz, as I said here, is that guy who seems able to piss everyone off for all the wrong reasons.   He’s abrasive.  He’s that guy who starts a war with our own allies because of the way he is.  Unless he can change on a dime, he is far from the type of person we need in our divided and struggling nation.  He would be divisive in a way that shames Obama.  And just because he might be divisive for issues I care about, doesn’t mean it would end up any better.  In fact, it would likely set up a 2020 Democrat who would then have sympathy for any causes Cruz was against.

Bush?  I’ve never seen a man who seems less interested in running for President than Bush.  I’m still not sure what he stands for except to make it clear he would be better for the pro-choice crowd than staunch anti-abortion Marco Rubio.  I don’t even know if he wants to be there.  I think of that scene in Citizen Kane where Susan pleads with Kane to let her quit singing.  She’s no good, and she knows it.  But Kane has the billions, and he’s able to build whatever opera house she needs to perform in, no matter what the critics say and how much they laugh.  Despite her pleading, he forces her to go on.  I see Bush in a back room with his establishment, billionaire donors doing the same thing.

The rest of the GOP is done and should drop out ASAP.  Christie did the right thing and dropped out, but mainly because of his dismal showing in New Hampshire, where the press had treated him like a major contender.  He torpedoed Rubio fine and good, but pretty much shot himself in the process; a political murder suicide.  And that’s Christie, the bully who holds low income earners to a standard he tries to avoid himself, who supports Obama when convenient, and is willing to jump on board with the radical left at his choosing.  He couldn’t have left the race fast enough.   All that’s left now that Christie and Fiorina have dropped out is the good Dr. Carson. 

The two Democrats aren’t worth discussing.  I certainly would consider a Blue Dog (that’s socially conservative, pro-life) if that person was capable and not off the scale loony.  But I will not vote for candidates who enthusiastically support abortion unfettered and look to Dying socialist, secular, culture-of-death, heretical Europe as their end goal.  If it came to nothing better than that, I wouldn’t vote. 

So there you go.  My disclaimer and opinions.  We’ll wait and see what happens.

 

Continue Reading

21

When a Mass Shooting is Politically Inconvenient

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts predicts the reaction of the usual suspects to the jihadist attack in San Bernardino:
Of course, it looks like terrorism.  But since 9/11, we’ve learned that terrorism is tough to pin in America.  When Muslims attacked Paris it was terrorism.  It was also thoughts and prayers.  But here, where Liberalism is fighting on  the front lines of global domination, there can be no such niceties or common sense appraisals.  
Now, I’m no soothsayer or prophet.  But here’s a guess.  The liberal advocates will do any or all of the following in the days to come:
  • Focus on gun control
  • Focus on Islamaphobia
  • Focus on parsing terrorism. Remember when any terrorism that wasn’t Al Qaeda wasn’t considered a big deal and we couldn’t focus on that since it wasn’t connected to 9/11?  Expect the same now with Isis.  
  • Focus on the fact that the shooters were not Syrian refugees
  • Appeal to rambling interviews in which we ask things like ‘does it even matter why it happened?’ (as opposed to things like the Charleston shooting or the Tuscon shooting), or just rambled about saying incoherent things about stuff and things
  • And in all things, blame conservatives.  
  • But if it can’t be used to advance the gospel of the Left, expect the whole story to be gone within a week or so.  If it lasts that long.
That’s just a hunch,. 
BTW, it’s two days and counting over at CAEI.  No prayer post or request for prayers.  No mention.  Nothing.  I can’t begin to fathom why.  Perhaps he just wants to focus on the positives of what the Faith teaches.  I just hope the first post addressing it isn’t about the evils of the NRA, conservatives, gun nuts, or racist America.  In short, I hope conservative blogger Mark doesn’t once again echo with almost stunning efficiency the biases and perspectives of the worst elements of the Left. 

Continue Reading

41

Ideas and Words Have Consequences

WeinsteinRant

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at the prompt denial by some atheists of hatred of Christians as possibly being a factor in the murderer at Umpqua College singling out Christians:

 

 

So after over a decade of the radical anti-religious New Atheists spouting rhetoric against religion that would make a party in the 1930s Reichstag look Kosher by comparison, atheists are dealing with the ugly notion that evidence suggests the killer of nine people at Umpqua College purposefully targeted Christians.  Of course for most atheists, like most liberals and secularists, Christianity is the prime enemy.  So most contempt, disgust, hatred, spite, demagoguery and lies are aimed at Christians and Christianity.  And of course we know that such rhetoric is always behind things like racist hate crimes, and anti-gay hate crimes, and anti-Muslim hate crimes.  

But as Western Liberalism tends to do, once again we have a case where the zealousness of its righteous crusaders turns on itself and seems to expose the movement’s hypocrisy and agendas.  So Lauren Nelson, penning for the always ironically titled Friendly Atheist, steps in to say ‘not so fast, it may not have anything to do with it after all!’  
That, of course, is a favorite tactic of the leftist propaganda machine.  If a person kills blacks or gays or another minority group adopted by the Left, then hatred is the only motive.  The only focus.  If someone breaks from that, or a member of the approved minority community commits the crime, or a victim is from a non-accepted group, then it’s all about anything but the hatred.  Once again, reminding us that we are dealing with a movement that hates us; one that likely doesn’t care for the various groups it claims to support, but one that certainly hates certain groups – like Christians.  

Continue Reading