At War With the Sexes

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017


The advocates of homosexuality and transgenderism, mental illness transformed into political ideology, are ever busy within the Church:


A Catholic priest took a strong stand [date] against a new policy in the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri, that welcomes same-sex “families” into Catholic schools and allows students to identify as “transgender.”

An audio recording of the meeting where diocesan officials introduced the policy to priests includes a rather heated exchange between one priest and the presenters.

The priest accused the presenters of twisting Pope Francis’ words to force gender ideology on the schools.

“You are overturning Christian morality for situation ethics,” he said, “and you are taking way out of context ‘accompaniment.’”

“Pope Francis, the harshest critic of gender ideology, says it’s one thing to have compassion for human weakness and the complexities of life, it’s another thing to accept gender ideology,” he explained. “And you didn’t just open the door a crack. It’s wide open, and you’re accepting this.”

“You’re scandalizing every child in that school and you’re telling us we have to accept gender ideology. That’s what’s happening.”

The diocesan policy was crafted by a committee convened last fall. It included diocesan school and youth ministry officials, a mental health counselor, a former Catholic school teacher, and two priests. Neither of the priests run parishes attached to a school.

Catholics who are opposing the policy have set up a blog titled 30 Pieces of Silver to get it rescinded. The blog links to the recording of the diocese’s presentation to priests.

After the priest said that those on the committee were telling priests and others in the diocese they had to accept gender ideology, one of the presenters objected.

“I will never tell you, you have to do anything,” she said.   

But the priest countered: “You won’t be there to support any of these men [parish priests] when they have a problem of conscience,” he said. “I know it. You will not.”

The presenter repeated what her associate had said at the beginning of the presentation: “We’re not here to deal about the morality.”

The priest immediately emphasized, “It’s a moral issue.”

Continue reading...

9 Responses to At War With the Sexes

  • Not at all surprising..

    People (and Clergy) really do not understand the significance of how the practice of widespread contraception has affected Catholic schools, either by: (1)-a weakening of sexual morality by parents who use contraception as a means to have minimal children, (2)-teachers, parents and even clergy being then riddled with dissent being present the schools, (3)-parents who actually follow what the Church Teaches are more open to Life and have normally if circumstances allow – 3 or 4 or more children, instead of just 1 or 2. The caveat is that then these parents can’t afford to send their children to “catholic” private schools, and with these parents not in the schools opposition to crazy ideas is weakened.

  • Thank you! I am stealing this for my catch-all response to liberals and other morons, “mental illness disguised as fake, political ideology.”

  • The Fan may have stumbled upon it – the quality of Francis’ successor will depend upon whether God deems we have been sufficiently chastised. Francis may not even be the worst of it. 😥

  • Bless the priest for speaking out against this immorality to be foisted on children. Where’s the bishop?

  • David-
    it also rips up communities by making it so “shut up, you think you’re so holy because you have a bunch of kids” an acceptable answer to any question of orthodoxy, and acts as a double knife on the ladies who simply can’t manage to have dearly desired children. (On one hand like people think they’re contracepting and thus good to be drafted into the above type junk, on the other like they can’t make common cause with those who have lots of kids because they’ll be “judged.”)

  • If I say, “I am Napoleon”, I am deemed insane. If I say, “I am Josephine”, I am affirmed.

  • You could look at this two ways:

    1. A more benign way is to suggest that church employees are in our time largely derived from the class of people who populate the philanthropic sector. What they have in common is an allergy to commercial employers, not any adherence to the Church.

    2. The episcopacy in our time is a criminal organization. “It’s like the masons. You don’t rise unless you’ve committed some crime”. This explanation was offered me 13 years ago by a sad traditionalist priest just before he resigned from his last parish and disappeared.

    It’s the sheer gratuitousness that gets you. I had 13 years of primary and secondary schooling at a time when school administrators gave little thought to damaged individuals who fancied they were not the sex they were born to be. We did all right. What is their excuse?

  • (2)-teachers, parents and even clergy being then riddled with dissent being present the schools,

    I have personal knowledge of a young religion teacher at a Catholic high school – not yet 30, graced with an MA from one of the surviving Catholic colleges, married and with a child. I gather from relations he’s pretty demoralized right now. His pupils take their cues from the surrounding culture and he’s pissing into the tide. Haven’t got the skinny yet on the rest of the faculty and the school administration.

  • “We’re going to tell you what to think…’” which is exactly what the Diocese has begun doing since Bishop McElroy was placed in charge. Please, pray for us in San Diego.

How the Steamroller Will Hit the Church

Monday, July 13, AD 2015

Homosexual Flag

There have been a lot of suggestions going around that in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage nationally, the Catholic Church in the US should announce that priests will no longer perform civil marriages.In order to be treated as married under the law in the United States, you need to file a witnessed marriage license in your state. The way it worked for us in California was: you go down to your city hall or other government building to pick the license up. The city clerk fills it out but then leaves the final signatures blank. You take the form with you and give it to the priest who is performing your marriage. After the ceremony, the priest signs the form, asserting that he has performed a marriage ceremony for you. It’s then signed by husband, wife, and two witnesses and filed with the state. At that point, the man and woman are considered married in the eyes of the law. Obviously, it’s not just priests that can process a marriage license for the state. Any kind of religious minister (Christian or non) can, as can “non denominational” ministers of their own religion. You can also have a strictly civil ceremony performed by a city official.

Continue reading...

36 Responses to How the Steamroller Will Hit the Church

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • I think it will happen much sooner and the infrastructure for despotic action exists in, among other things, the income tax. The IRS can unilaterally and without restraint challenge tax status of a religious institutions as it did against Bob Jones University. Your contributions to Church and Church related organizations will not be deductible leading to Catholics and others paying a recusant tax for their beliefs. But note the IRS won’t challenge the tax status of associations similar to CAIR…..the enemy is the Church.

    It will also happen through the despotic administrative regulatory state. All federal monies have now a requirement that in taking money your group does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity and homosexual conduct. The repercussions of this will be almost immediate.

    You will also see the “shaming” from the public square but now with the full support and backing of federal, state and local governments. Where applicable, churches will lose property tax exemptions.

    And finally, when a bishop dare speak up forcefully, he will be summoned before a subcommittee where he will be embarrassed by people like Pelosi for a host of “sims” against the state.

  • We brought it on ourselves.

    The American Catholic bishops refused for decades to stand up to abortionist politicians. Perhaps, a few or more of these bishops, and their priests, agreed with these so-called Catholic abortionist politicians. Many of the most vocal abortion supporters – the Cuomos, the Kennedys, Durbin, Sebelius, Milkuski, et al, were NEVER confronted by their bishops.

    The priest sex abuse scandal trashed the good name of the American Catholic bishops, or what was left of it. Wrongly labeled pedophiles, these abusers craved pubescent teenage boys and should not have been allowed in seminaries in the first place – let alone ordained as priests.

    The American Catholic bishops’ fealty for the welfare state – and its continued expansion – led in part to Obumblercare. They want to import every poor Latino into the US – never mind we don’t have enough jobs and every state government is stretched to balance its budget and the federal government has drowned the future with red ink.

    We almost never hear about sin. The evils of abortion, artificial birth control, fornication, and pornography are never mentioned. Personal piety is a thing of the past. Pope St. John Paul II emphasized that the home should be the domestic church. How often is it if the man of the house is annoyed with Mass and rarely attends? How many Catholic families look at Mass as something to be squeezed in or skipped but there is always time for entertainment? The entertainment industry HATES the Catholic Church.

    I am by no means the best Catholic who writes or posts here. I point no fingers at you who participate. I like my entertainment – usually documentaries, or shows about cars, or sports. Regular TV programming and movies are wretched and I avoid them.

    I can’t even get my wife to go to Mass with me. this is the residue of being educated by Latin American Jesuits. She prefers sleeping on Sunday mornings so I take my seven year old son with me to the Tridentine Mass and to catechism afterwards – alone. Either I give in to my wife and go to a mediocre Mass with bad music, bad rubrics, etc. and repeat the mistakes of my parents or I do right by my sons – and I choose the latter.

    I have no patience for willing weakness and this is what I have seen in the Church in my lifetime. Homosexuals have rolled over us because we let it happen. Enough is enough.

    Big entertainment, big education and big government have been infested with the Smoke of Satan.
    It will take people with the backbone and inner strength to fight them. My dad didn’t care and my mother still bitches about the nasty old priest who celebrated at my parents’ wedding.

    I may fail,at a lot of things but the abortionist/homosexulaist/socialist thugs aren’t getting my sons. No way.

  • Hmm, I am thinking the same argument* might work for divorced/want to get married without getting a Declaration of Nullity crowd. Maybe even demanding being admitted to Holy Communion? Isn’t that a “service” of the Church?
    (*edited) The church is a public accommodation providing marriage services to its members. There are few members of the parish more active than Divorcee 1 and Divorcee 2. . . The only thing preventing St. Wishy Washy from performing the same service for Divorce 1 and Divorce 2 which it provides for any other couple that shows up wanting the same ceremony and the same reception in the hall is divorce prejudice.
    I wonder if those wanting polygamy could sue that argument? A lot of respected Biblical personalities were polygamous after all.

  • Incidentally, here is a good article on why the Church should never, ever accept tax payer dollars. It happened once before. The results were not good.
    . “Public Money for Private Charity”
    “When President Bush’s controversial “faith-based initiative” was announced last February, it brought to mind something I learned years ago from readings on ancient Roman history.

    After years of being shunned and even persecuted, Christians suddenly enjoyed the official blessing of the Roman state when Emperor Constantine came to power in 324 A.D. For the first time, imperial funds were used to subsidize priests and churches. Christians emerged from hiding in Rome’s catacombs to partake of the state’s largess. . . ”
    (Lawrence W. Reed, author)

  • The difference would be that roughly half of states currently ban discrimination due to sexual orientation, and in all probability there will be a national ban in the not distant future. Thus, people can sue on the basis of being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

    Divorced people and polygamists are not protected classes.

  • “We brought it on ourselves.
    The American Catholic bishops refused for decades to stand up to abortionist politicians. ”
    Penguins fan: I think it goes even deeper than that. Even before abortion supporting politicians, the bishops and priests, refused to stand up to those who wanted to use contraception, who did NOT want to abstain from the marital embrace when a baby was “not wanted” (or possibly not wise to have, maybe due to illness or poor finances, etc)
    We will never know what those priests heard in the confessional, how many of them heard the little whispers of doubt inside their own heads: “You aren’t married. You aren’t a parent! You don’t know what it is like to have 4 children under 5 years old!!” I suspect a lot of them buckled, not knowing how to give good counsel or what to say.
    Or perhaps God is simply giving us our freedom to abuse, as He did Adam and Eve, and did not prevent bad people from getting into the seminaries. Would a good and holy priest say “Contraception? Yeah, whatever. Follow your conscience.” Or would a priest who isn’t following the rules himself (because he has girl or boy friend on the side) say that.

  • DJH—you raise an insight into the steamroller effect. The USCCB domestic policy and peace and justice groups are heavily subsidized by the federalis. A visit to its website to review the legislative agenda is like reading the democratic party platform. It operates as a tool of government and so you can expect collaboration through silence.

  • Here’s how I think it will go down: The test case will come at St. Wishy-Washy parish, in a state which has a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. There’s that nice, older, same sex couple that everyone basically knows about, but no one ever says anything rude about — except that nasty rules-obsessed fellow who objects when Father amends the creed to make it more gender inclusive. Pat is a Eucharistic minister. Sam leads the choir at the 5:30 mass and leads the inquiry sessions at RCIA. They’re always there to help out in every big parish activity and everyone likes them. One day, they file paperwork for marriage prep and ask to reserve the church for their wedding and the hall for the reception. Maybe that new secretary accidentally books it and takes a deposit check before realizing. Maybe it’s just believable at first that Fr. Trendy would celebrate the ceremony on his own authority. But of course, it’s not worth the poor man’s retirement to have the bishop find out about this one. He tell them he can’t do it and he returns Pat and Sam’s check to them.
    That’s when the lawsuit gets filed. Nothing against Fr. Trendy, of course. They know that he probably would agree with them if he was free to speak his mind. But Christ’s message of love will be held captive by the institutional hierarchy until they’re attacked the only place they understand: their wallets.

    I think you give Father Trendy and Mrs. Ditzy too much credit in your scenario, in the sense that I doubt they’ll be unwitting participants in the events leading up to the lawsuit getting filed. Father Trendy seems particularly culpable for allowing Pat and Sam to perform such public, ministerial roles in the parish.

    I guess that makes me the nasty rules-obsessed fellow.

  • In Scotland, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, provides that marriages between persons of the same sex can be solemnised only by a district registrar or assistant registrar (these are Crown appointments).

    A “religious or belief body”(RBB) may request permission from the Scottish Ministers to celebrate SSMs and nominate the persons to be authorised to celebrate them. Section 12 provides that not only is no RBB obliged to request permission to solemnise SSMs or to nominate a celebrant but that “nothing in the Act… imposes a duty on any person who is an approved celebrant in relation to marriages between persons of the same sex to solemnise such marriages.”

    In short (1) no RBB can solemnise an SSM unless it obtains permission from the Scottish Ministers to do so (2) it is under no duty to seek permission or to nominate celebrants and (3) even if it does, no individual minister, even though authorised to do so, is legally obliged to perform one. This is known as the “triple lock.”

  • It’s time to separate Sacramental Marriage from a civil marriage – theer has to be a difference in the eyes of God.

  • This is much like debating which path Christ will be forced to follow to Golgotha, rather than why he was betrayed. The damage and agenda for all this was established many years ago–and sadly–it was hardly covertly accomplished.

    It is our culture of license and privilege being abused systematically in every institution since at least the great revolution against all moral authority of the sixties. Those “Catholic” politicians, priests and bishop were allowed to get softened up by the Church which rushed to open its doors to the world instead of doubling down on that sacred trust which is the only way that could have provided a means of resisting the secularism that was unleashed by the powers and principalities.

    Better to be disliked, but untainted and strong of faith until the end, than to share in our own destruction by turning away from the Church’s God-given mission of salvation just to play footsie with the Godless world for the diabolically distorted mission of “social justice.

    No small wonder we now have church leaders embracing worldly hammer and sickle crucifixes.

  • “Divorced people and polygamists are not protected classes.”

    You do not have to be in a protected class to bring an equal protection claim. (One could of course argue that the whole concept of protected classes is an equal protection violation, at least as to how the concept has played out in practice.)

  • Don L.

    Agreed. Seems the tasteless salt is being propagated.

    If men can be tested in the crucible, like gold in the fire, why not the Holy Catholic Church?
    That might be what’s going on.
    The impurities must “rise first” before being obliterated in the furnace.

    Just wondering.

  • Don’t blame me. I never voted for a democrat.

    It’s bat-crap crazy out there. Get used to it. Or else, what are you prepared to do?

    Of course, the same-pervert couple can walk across the street and find an Episkie priestess, or whatever from the thousands of US cults, to “marry” them . . . [BARF]
    What we will experience are gay gestapo attacks or Church raids viciously demanding that priests perform for them marriage rites. The priests may need to do it.

    Here is a modest proposal. The bishop should be present. He steps forward and intones the Rite of Excommunication *(Bell, Book and Candle) over the public sinners. Americans (only) have the right to worship! Liberal air-heads exploding . . .

  • I’m waiting to see which of the liberal priests will first sanction and preside over a same-sex marital contract ceremony (what we call matrimony).

  • I think you’re overly optimistic about 10 years.

    I’ll bet you it happens within 2.

  • (T. Shaw Here is a modest proposal. The bishop should be present. He steps forward and intones the Rite of Excommunication *(Bell, Book and Candle) over the public sinners. Americans (only) have the right to worship! Liberal air-heads exploding . . .)

    The problem might be in finding someone to do that to the many bishops that also need purification…

  • An answer?

    Cardinal Burke resurrected The Holy League, , and our parish recently climbed on board. May was our first meeting.
    Just over forty men joined in. We meet every month. Guest speakers, dinner, then adoration with confessional’s ( two ) operational.

    This is a great start!

    Please check it out.
    Our future is bright… we’re just in the storm at the moment.

    PS. This is men only fellowship.
    Strong Men!

  • Wrong. The will come from within, not outside, the Church. It is already gaining steam.

  • The real diagnosis implicitly acknowledged by this article is that the Catholic Church has lost its faith. The majority of the institutions and even churches and parishes which call themselves Catholic are nothing but — I’m sorry to say — rotting corpses. Scenarios like the one described above could never happen in a SSPX parish. Essentially an SSPX parish is nothing but what a normal Catholic parish once was, before Vatican II. We are facing a catastrophe because we have let the enemy in. The biggest problem is not the neo-fascist gay movement, it is the completely accepted laxity in faith and morals in the Church, to the point that propagandists of sexual immorality are not only not expelled but actually protected by the hierarchy, the Pope himself included. This will not change, unless a “gang” of determined “warriors” arise who are prepared to use “rough” and unconvential methodes to rid the Church from this despicable sissies and pleasers.

  • R. Sevenster.

    The gang of rough warriors to rid the Freemason’s out of Holy Church is going to likely be a divine assault. A cleansing that comes from above. Two lightning strikes that followed the announcement of Pope Emeritus retirement was not coincidentally timed. Not in my opinion. It was a reminder of the one Who Is, Was and Is to come again. He will clean house when ready.

  • It seems to me that we may need to get used to foregoing taxpayer money to run our charitable programs. But that is just a start. Perhaps we can make the assets of the Church “un-get-at-able” by our rogue government. I believe that morally, this would be the same as hiding our assets, as the deacon Saint Lawrence did when he hid the golden chalices and patens that the early Christians were using for the celebrations of the Eucharist, together with the coin which had been raised to assist the poor. When Caesar’s henchmen demanded that Lawrence turn over the treasures of the Church, Lawrence pretended to acquiesce. Instead of presenting the golden vessels and the money, however, Saint Lawrence gathered together some of the destitute old and sick and presented these persons to the henchmen. “These,” Lawrence proclaimed, “are the treasures of the Church.” Which may be said to be true in a very highly spiritualized sort of sense, but Saint Lawrence knew perfectly well that these were not even close to what the henchmen were looking for, and the henchmen knew he knew.

    And so Lawrence ended up being roasted alive on a grill.

    Those of us who would be willing to be roasted to death as Saint Lawrence was rather than to see the presence of the Church disappear from our neighborhood streets and from our cities, might support a method that draws its inspiration from Saint Lawrence. (The disappearance, as we all know, would be caused by being driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits from the Dark Side as well as fines from the Dark Side using the powers of the government.) One solution would be to get together very clever lawyers and accountants, and to put the Church property in the name of some series of shell corporations (ABC Holdings Corp. dba DEF Corp. a wholly owned subsidiary of GHI Corp. JKL Corp. holds overall ownership, etc. etc.) And let the corporate owners listed be the mothers of U.S. priests, but the mothers are citizens and residents of Belgium or Costa Rica or the Philippines. Off-shore: can’t get at ’em. The same with the houses, and vehicles, and lawn-mowing equipment, and computers, and desk and chairs for the school – titled off-shore. Can’t get at ’em. And the cash goes into the vaults of a financial institution on the Canary Islands, or Saint Kitts, or the Hebrides, or wherever has a good financial system, but doesn’t allow agents of the Dark Side using the power of the U.S. government to seize customer assets.

    Off-shore, off-shore, off-shore. I say put all the paperwork and the paper money off-shore now. And let the accountants and the lawyers be the sharpest and cleverest and the most experienced we can afford because agents of the Dark Side will be coming after us hard sooner or later. And as we also know, the master of the Dark Side is very clever.

  • I’m looking forward to how the church is going to respond pastorally to her own. Mother Church does not neglect her own.

  • In other countries like France, couples go to the local magestrate and obtain a civil marriage. then the couple comes back to the Church for a “con- validation.Maybe this could work in the United States.

  • Somewhat OT but I spent a lovely day with 6 ladies at a flea market on Saturday. One of them I’ve known all my life, 2 I just met that day, the other 4 I know to varying degrees. We had a wonderful day – talking, laughing & shopping and we ended up 8 hours later at a delightful restaurant for dinner. Unfortunately, the talk turned to the Supreme Court SSM ruling. I wasn’t surprised that it got heated but even the cynic in me was taken aback that 4 of these ‘nice’ women stated without irony that the Roman Catholic faith was going to have to change to accommodate SSM! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

  • I like Phillip’s solution and
    I also think a solution is embedded in Penguins Fan’s “we brought it on ourselves comment:
    ” bad music, bad rubrics, etc. It would help if we turn around – and get back to worshipping God in a manner befitting Him.

  • This is confusing, because the Church recognizes civil and non-Catholic marriages as valid, but Catholic couples who marry outside the church are not recognized by the Church, and there is a special ceremony called Convalidation. Would they be forced to convalidate same sex couples?

  • Would they be forced to convalidate same sex couples?

    Hard to say what Justice Kennedy’s muse will tell him. Historically, for the most part, government is constrained from telling you what to believe, but you are constrained in the ways you can act on your beliefs (egregious e.g., if you’re an Aztec, no human sacrificing for you, but feel to believe the gods demand it or no more sunshine; less egregious e.g., you can believe that the OT legitimates plural wives, but polygamy is still against the law –for now). Increasingly, however, government is moving away from telling you what you can’t do to telling you what you must do. Thus far the coercion is hidden behind a sort of Hobson’s Choice (you don’t have to buy this ridiculously expensive health insurance plan, you’re free to choose to pay the obscenely expensive fee/penalty/tax), so how much longer before certain wrong beliefs/symbols are no longer protected because they’re implicated by beliefs about other wrong beliefs/symbols?
    We’d have to ask the Sons of Confederate Veterans I think.

    (Full Disclosure, I’m going off of what I remember of Con Law from the Political Science half of my double major from 20 years ago. For the most part I’m a historian by training, so grain of salt and all that.)

  • Bit confused by the last paragraph; in France e.g., and Italy I think also, you must have a civil marriage and (if a Catholic) a separate Church marriage. Seems to me that though not perfect from Church’s point of view it solves the problem unless, of course, the State were to become pro-active and outlaw any form of sacramental (addition) or act that looked like a marriage.

  • This might also bring a second exodus of homosexual priests and nuns to leave the Church since Vatican II in order to get married.

  • After Obergerfell v. Hodges, how long will it be before we see Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice v. Hodges? How long after that will we see Fido v. Hodges? P.E.T.A. will pick up the attorney fees, of course.

  • Deacon Mike Chesley and Skypilot
    France has had mandatory civil marriage (le mariage civil obligatoire)since 9 November 1791. It is illegal for a minister of religion “habitually” to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple not already legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21) “Habitually” provides an exception for death-bed marriages and “marriages of conscience.”
    For Catholics, the chief importance of the civil marriage is the registration of the marriage settlement, in which the parties elect one of the matrimonial régimes provided under the Code Civil – community of property, community of acquisitions only, separation of property, conjunct usufructs &c and also the settlement of property on the issue. Remember that French law knows nothing of trusts.
    Wedding invitations usually refer to the two ceremonies as « le mariage » and « La bénédiction nuptiale » the marriage and the nuptial blessing. Not a few Canonists have argued over the years that the Church should revert to the pre-Tridentate law and recognise the civil marriage as sufficient for validity, but “solemnisation in the face of the Church” as a grave religious obligation – the position before 1563. Tametsi was aimed at “clandestine marriages,” but the Civil Register now provides a public and accessible record, which adequately addresses that problem.

  • A little more than a year ago 100,000 conservative French people marched through Paris on behalf of traditional marriage and family. I think conservatism is on the rise.

  • “authentic reform must be grounded in organic development” .

    I think that’s a quote from B16 but it applies to our Western Culture, and to our American politics too.
    Conservatives evangelize the culture when we don’t form circular firing squads. Also we have to pay attention to the signs of hope around us (even if they seem rare ) and build on them

The Judas Tradition

Wednesday, March 26, AD 2014

The Judas Tradition


It is a long and dishonorable tradition in Christianity, I call it the Judas Tradition, to place at the helm of ostensibly Christian organizations people who end up eager to transform the organization into an adversary of Christianity.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, gives us the latest example:

Another “Christian” ministry surrenders to the Zeitgeist:

World Vision’s American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.

Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America’s largest Christian charities.

Stearns asserts that the “very narrow policy change” should be viewed by others as “symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity.” He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.

Oh, sweet mother of…

“Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues,” he said. “It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”

Face?  Palm?  You know the drill.

“It’s easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there,” he said. “This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support.”

“We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us,” said Stearns. “This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We’re an operational arm of the global church, we’re not a theological arm of the church.”

Give me a break, Stearnsie.  Quick question.  If you weren’t under some kind of pressure, if some group or other wasn’t threatening to sue you, then WHY MAKE THE POLICY CHANGE AT ALL?!!

While we’re on the subject of slippery slopes there, Stearnsie, what are you going to tell a potential employee who wants a job with World Vision but tells you that he’s a devout Christian who’s living with and currently banging three women on a regular basis?  After all, “the global church” hasn’t definitively weighed on that topic yet, has it?

Prominent Christian thinkers aren’t buying what you’re selling, Stearnsie.  Russell Moore:

At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.

John Piper:

This is a tragic development for the cause of Christ, because it trivializes perdition — and therefore, the cross — and because it sets a trajectory for the demise of true compassion for the poor.

When J.I. Packer walked out of the 2002 synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, he was protesting its decision to “bless same-sex unions.” His rationale is relevant for the developments at World Vision.

First, his words about unity expose the crass alignment of homosexual intercourse and baptism as comparable markers for biblical faithfulness. Packer wrote, “It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.”

When World Vision says, “We cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue,” here is the side they do, in fact, jump onto: We forbid fornication and adultery as acceptable lifestyles among our employees (which they do), but we will not forbid the regular practice of homosexual intercourse. To presume that this position is not “jumping into the fight on one side or the other” is fanciful.

But worse than fancy, removing homosexual intercourse from its biblical alignment with fornication and adultery (and greed and theft and drunkenness) trivializes its correlation with perdition.

Mark Marshall:

The explanation given by World Vision President Richard Stearns is fatuous.  He claims World Vision is remaining neutral on the issue of same-sex “marriage”.  No, World Vision’s policy for employees was celibacy for singles and monogamy for the married.  By deciding that gay sex inside of same-sex “marriage” meets that requirement for employees, World Vision is most definitely taking sides.

This is a cover for partnership with apostate denominations and letting them call the shots.  The United Church of Christ holds to the faith of the creeds?  Really?  As long as libchurchers can cross their fingers and mouth a creed, Stearns is just fine with partnering with them and letting them set, nay, abolish Christian moral standards for employees.  And that in the name of a unity which really destroys genuine Christian unity.

Franklin Graham:

I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin.

Check the stats, World Vision; Episcopalianization is not the wave of the future.  So I have no idea who you think that this move is going to impress.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to The Judas Tradition

  • I suspect over time these organizations draw their staff from the same pool as the county welfare department. Social work is a pseudo-profession that would not exist bar for state licensing boards and welfare department hiring practices. Little doubt there are analogues to this Stearns fool all up and down the apparat of every philanthropy you would care to name.

  • “someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ ”
    The devil is a believer in Jesus Christ. Doing the will of God in heaven as Jesus did on earth is called Catholicism and Christianity.

  • False charity is running amuck in “(c)atholic circles as well as secular ones.
    I suppose it’s always been that way. Since Judas’ fall to Obamacare. The idea that the ends justify the means is alive and well.

    Prayers…endless prayers for our neighbors, especially our enemies.

  • 2 Timothy 4:3-4

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

    Luke 18:7-8

    And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?

  • Wait, so the guy is ignoring that people DO help the orphans, and complains that they ALSO try to prevent the situations that caused them to be orphaned? *headdesk*

    Nevermind the mangling of scripture.

  • They say they made a mistake and I am glad they recognize that… but they also need to recognize the sinfulness of the public pro gay lifestyle position they were taking. All sins are mistakes, not all mistakes are sins. This was a sin. Thank God they can repent and turn around. They have asked forgiveness of their supporters and hopefully the forgiveness of the Lord.

  • “Humbly ask for forgiveness” nonsense “humbly hope to keep a fat paycheck” would be more honest.these folks should be fired.

  • Christianity Today has a good write-up of the reversal, including more reaction from Evangelicals. Also it includes clarification that the initial policy was made by the U.S. branch only, and not the international affiliates (which may have been obvious to some from the context, but I had wondered).
    Thought this was a good statement by World Vision U.S., but unlikely to shield them from charges of bigotry: “We strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.”
    On twitter and various blogs Unitarians and liberal Christians were quick to support the policy shift, but I’ve stayed away from their reaction on the reversal. (Just don’t have it in me today.)

  • The quoted statement is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching, and that has not shielded the Church charges of bigotry, which charges are usually animated by actual bigotry.

  • Ah, they acted just the way Jesus did when he modified his teachings at the peoples’ request….


Monday, March 24, AD 2014




Bill Donohue of The Catholic League has provided a sterling example of the hypocrisy of gay groups attempting to crash Saint Patrick Day parades:



Bill Donohue comments on his exchange with officials from New York’s Heritage of Pride parade:

For the past few days I have been engaged in an e-mail conversation with officials from the Heritage of Pride parade, New York’s annual gay event; the dialogue has been cordial. I asked to join the parade under a banner that would read, “Straight is Great.” The purpose of my request was to see just how far they would go without forcing me to abide by their rules. It didn’t take long before they did.

Today, I informed Heritage of Pride officials that I objected to their rule requiring me to attend gay training sessions, or what they call “information” sessions. “I don’t agree with your rule,” I said. They responded by saying that attendance was “mandatory.”

The St. Patrick’s Day parade has mandatory rules, too. It bars groups representing their own cause from marching, which is why pro-life Catholics—not just gays—are barred from participating under their own banner. But only gays complain: they refuse to abide by the rules. Indeed, they went into federal court seeking to force a rule change. They lost. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that private parades have a First Amendment right to determine their own rules.

It is hypocritical for gay activists to complain about having to abide by the mandatory rules of the St. Patrick’s Day parade, and then inform me that I cannot march in their parade unless I respect their mandatory rules, rules that I reject.

Good luck to the Heritage of Pride participants. I may be watching it from afar, but I sure won’t be downing a Guinness afterwards.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Hypocrisy

  • I don’t see the analogy.

    Parades are public celebrations and declarations of a group’s shared principles. Those shared principles may or may not be inclusive and tolerant (either expressly or by virtue of the core principles that shape the group) of dissenting views.

    Any group that purports to be thus inclusive and tolerant of dissenting views, and thereafter excludes the dissenters from in its parade, is being hypocritical.

    Any group that does not purport to be inclusive and tolerant of dissenting views can exclude dissenters from promulgating their dissent in its parade without hypocrisy.

    So, let’s ask ourselves: are the St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers on an equal footing in this respect with the Heritage of Pride organizers? I suspect that the answer is NO, because the level of “restriction” differs. The St. Paddy’s folks have an ironclad rule saying to gays, right-to-lifers and perhaps others “Thou shalt not march with us under thy banner.” The Heritage folks say “Let us vet thee, and if thee show us that we have thy respect, ye shall be allowed to respectfully promulgate thy dissent in our parade.”

  • “So, let’s ask ourselves: are the St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers on an equal footing in this respect with the Heritage of Pride organizers? I suspect that the answer is NO, because the level of “restriction” differs.”

    Ah, but the whole argument of gay rights activists is that they are entitled to participate on the grounds of tolerance in the Saint Patrick’s Day parade and that it is intolerant for them to be denied to carry a banner, even though this restriction is applied to other participants. However, where they are in control mandatory brainwashing classes are the order of the day. Tolerance is either a two way street or it is a mere political slogan, to be abandoned quickly whenever one has power.

  • Disingenuous Frank. Each group “owns” their own parade and sets the participation rules. Pride wants to force Pats to break their own rules for the sake of advancing tolerance. The pretext disappears when Pride will not tolerate Pats request for a rule change from Pride.
    The goal for Pride is Not equal footing, but a position of dominance.
    We have , as a historically Christian society hoped for and expected a degree of honesty and “fairness ” in our public dealings with each other. We are offended when someone perverts the truth, and compromises the well being of individuals or society-especially by obscuring meaning and manipulating the emotions of innocent minded people. Your statement frankly smacks of that same kind of duplicity.

  • Gay women who call their partners “husbands” or “pretend husbands” and gay men who call their partners “wives” or “pretend wives” are demanding equality with real husbands and real wives. Well, it is like counterfeit money. Fraudulent advertising.
    Marriage consists in one woman who consents to become a wife and one man who consents to become a husband. One husband and one wife consummating the marital act is defined as marriage. Marriage confers the office of husband and wife upon a man and a woman.
    Anything else in a court of law may be considered perjury.

    To demand that one’s fraud and perjury be equal to real marriage is nonsense.
    And gays need to get on their knees and thank God for the beautiful rainbow, God’s promise that He would not destroy the earth by flood. So far there is death, war, pestilence, and famine, without the rainbow, and consummate, unbridled ignorance, the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. It is no wonder practicing gays are called “jerks”.

  • “So, let’s ask ourselves: are the St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers on an equal footing in this respect with the Heritage of Pride organizers? I suspect that the answer is NO, because the level of “restriction” differs.”
    The only “restriction” to the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade is to honor Saint Patrick. What part of “Intellectual Property” don’t you understand? You sure understand IP for the Heritage of Pride. Duplicity, duplicity, duplicity added to hypocrisy.

  • We are witnessing a rise in imperialism, make no mistakes about it. They use all the nice propaganda slogans and phrases, but this is the dictatorship of relativism at work. This is no different than those marches several decades ago of American Nazis in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods. And frankly, if the shoe fits, let them wear it.

  • Pingback: New Confirmation Program Targeting Catholic Youth -
  • I want to say something really sarcastic, but I’ll settle for an exaggerated sigh and a sotto voce “brutalists.”

  • but I’ll settle for an exaggerated sigh and a sotto voce “brutalists.”

    Shhh. You don’t want to fire up that motormouth again.

  • “which one?,”

    he teased

  • What is surprising in this? “Scratch a Liberal, you get a hypocrite” – period. I am old (75) and have a rather wide circle of acquaintances. I know of only TWO people who admit to being Democrat (there are quite a few RINOs also) who would not be deemed two-faced. And one of them is dead.

  • “Scratch a Liberal, you get a hypocrite”
    This would not be so if atheism, abortion, pornography, fornication, adultery and assault and battery by homosexual practitioners had not been given freedom under our First Amendment. These vices turned into counterfeit virtues are corrupting our future generations, George Washington’s constitutional posterity.

PopeWatch: Malta and Adoption

Thursday, January 2, AD 2014



PopeWatch suspects that in 2014 Pope Francis will lose most of his new found leftist admirers.  The process is underway:

On the heels of a leading gay magazine naming Pope Francis its Person of the Year, the pontiff is reportedly “shocked” over a proposal to legalize adoption for same-sex couples in Malta.

Bishop Charles Scicluna of Malta condemned adoption by same-sex couples in his Christmas sermon, according to the Telegraph.

Thing is, Scicluna met Pope Francis on December 12 and told the Times of Malta: “We discussed many aspects… and when I raised the issue that’s worrying me as a bishop [the right for gay couples to adopt] he encouraged me to speak out.”

The Times of Malta said the Pope was “shocked” over the legislation; the Telegraph indicated that Bishop Scicluna’s sermon seemed delivered at Pope Francis’ prompting.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Malta and Adoption

  • Lukewarm is not a temp. favorable to Our Lord. Better to choose…and wisely at that.

  • I like Philip’s comment.

  • Why, in God’s good world, do you insist on using the g– word when referring to a putrid abomination? They are trashy perverts – for whom my Queen and I daily pray for.

    Chesterton opined “It’s neither gay nor a marriage.”

    Phil Ferguson, O.P./L

  • “Why, in God’s good world, do you insist on using the g– word when referring to a putrid abomination?”

    Battling over the use of the word “gay” in reference to homosexuals is a waste of time. I actually rather like the irony of the term because if there are less gay people, in the traditional sense of the word, than most gay activists tend to be, I have yet to encounter them.

  • I’m sorry if I sound cynical and critical of the Pope but, he’s shocked? Excuse me? How in the world could he be shocked? What does that say about his level of awareness of the world around him (outside of Argentina)? Or worse, was that statement of “shock” simply phony?

  • Pingback: Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Shhhh Pope still Catholic
  • Elizabeth,

    My hunch is that he is/was shocked that Malta. a tiny island but almost completely Catholic, that held out against Moslem invasion, is/was now succumbing to the relativitistic cultural dictatorship that so many other countries have already surrendered.

  • I think you are prob right about that Botolph that the key to “pontiff is reportedly “shocked” over a proposal to legalize adoption for same-sex couples in Malta.” is the last two words – in Malta.

  • Self-styling “American Catholics” (our more left-leaning fellow Catholics) will never be fully satisfied with our teachings on moral issues and questions pertaining to ecumenism. They give themselves away with the very use of the term “American Catholic(s).” On the other hand, it will greatly benefit the very few American conservatives belonging to the Church to remember the Church they sincerely want to support, has a lot more things on its mind, heart and plate to consider than the desires of a small elite.
    The left needs to develop the patience and thick skin it’ll need for the long haul and not to forsake all hope should it not get its way; and worse, use the pulpits of tenured academic leaders to sway much younger minds as a previous generation of like-minded powerfully positioned academics managed to pull off over Birth Control in ’68. The right needs to do likewise in spirit; and forevermore forsake the use of fiscal blackmail. The old feudal days are over. Finito.

  • Pingback: Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Pope-a-Dope: What a difference 48 Hours Makes
  • Pingback: Pope Francis The Wonderful -
  • It is very shocking that Malta, nearly all Catholic, would want to legalise same-sex “marriage”. Doesn’t make sense.
    Its a slippery slope from here on.

  • Sorry- same-sex adoption. Worse!

  • Some liberals may interpret this green light on the part of Francis as a way to get Scicluna into hot water. The notion that all children have a right to the same kind of family that Jesus had is a pretty lame argument. Francis may not get as much egg on his face over this issue as one might expect.

    BTW, Phil Ferguson’s overt bigotry does not reflect well on his religion. It makes him seem like a hater extraordinaire. There are plenty of Catholics who would be shocked by such vitriol.

  • “The notion that all children have a right to the same kind of family that Jesus had is a pretty lame argument.”
    The notion that all children have a right to the same kind of family that Jesus had is the only argument. The innocent virgin at conception makes a mother of a woman and a father of a man. It is the duty of the state to protect and preserve virginity and innocence to deliver Justice. Gays cannot make family, nor mother nor father nor gaiety. What kind of state would deprive a child of a mother or a father?

First Amendment? Hello? First Amendment?

Thursday, August 22, AD 2013


Elaine Huguenin




Hattip to Ace at Ace of Spades.  Apparently the New Mexico Supreme Court desperately needs to have a copy of the US Constitution sent to them.

New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people.  It calls this “the price of citizenship.”

The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

Continue reading...

33 Responses to First Amendment? Hello? First Amendment?

  • This is going to continue. Corporations – especially heavily regulated ones like banking, airlines, medical, nuclear, etc. – will require employees to sign statements supporting gay marriage / gay rights under penalty of loss of employment, and this will be a part of the tolerance and non-discrimination policies and programs that will be federally mandated.

    This is the start of persecution. Incarceration, torture and execution usually follow, sometimes in decades, sometimes less. Yes, I know I am a pessimist. Yes, I know that I should look forward to the 2014 mid-term elections, but frankly, I think we are over the crest and have now started an irreversible slide.


    I pray I am wrong, and it won’t hurt my feelings one bit to be wrong.

  • My comments do not come from an agreement with this injustice against Elaine Huguenin, who has my prayers, but from a desire to point out the big picture which all too often gets ignored.

    “Yeah, they could compromise their religious beliefs, or, you know, the gay couple could simply find another photographer.”

    You’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, that’s democracy for you. Once people get it into their heads that their choice is their “right”, they tend to stick it out until they get what they want–or else have made the person who wouldn’t give it to them suffer for failing to.

    It doesn’t help that the above quote, while completely true and just, can seem to such people like a flippant attitude. “You don’t like it? Tough!”

    I’m still praying, and I still have faith in the Lord to see us through whatever happens, but I have very little faith in democracy–democracy is what got Barabbas free and our Lord crucified, let us never forget that. Jesus is our King of Kings, not President of Presidents.

    To be honest, I think the “freedom of religion” ship sailed with the establishment clause–that stifles the religious freedom of the Congress, after all.

  • “To be honest, I think the “freedom of religion” ship sailed with the establishment clause–that stifles the religious freedom of the Congress, after all.”

    It most certainly does not, unless you think that religious freedom includes establishing a state church which I think is absurd.

  • “This is the start of persecution. Incarceration, torture and execution usually follow,”

    Not if faithful Catholics “man up” Paul and stop conceding the field to the enemy before the battle begins.

  • While thinking of forms of insanity, I conclude that the following response of Ace is healthy, sane, logical, reasonable, and economical (these cases cost money which is in a sense non-existent). The opinion of the court isn’t.

    The response of Ace to the supercilious and asinine statement of Justice Bosson is priceless: Yeah, they could compromise their religious beliefs, or, you know, the gay couple could simply find another photographer. No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”

  • Agreed, Donald: “Not if faithful Catholics ‘man up’ Paul and stop conceding the field to the enemy before the battle begins.”

    I will concede nothing. Furthermore, I oppose mistreating or demeaning homosexual persons. Everyone should be treated with the dignity inherent in being a human being creating in the Image and Likeness of God. But while I won’t shove my beliefs down anyone else’s throat, I won’t on the other hand sign on any dotted or solid line saying that I agree with “gay rights” or “gay marriage”. (Well, it’s all electronic signature now.) And that, my friend, in a corporation regulated by the Federal government may one day cost someone his only means of employment, and to lose it for “intolerance” and “discrimination” is to be black-balled forever. 🙁

  • For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For some reason the militant gay agenda believes that persecuting believers for their faith will endear them to all people. Even in Hilter’s Germany there was an undeground resistance to the nazis. The catacombs prove that there was a resistance to religious persecution in the early days of the church. Marriage under duress is no marriage. A contract made under duress is no contract. It is not potographs the gays want. The gays want to own persons and the court just gave the gays the power to own people, body, soul and Faith. Belief in God is the virtue of Faith. The court cannot decide how an individual will exercise his virtues. The court is to decide how to enforce laws against vice. If and when the court redefines our exercise of virtues, the exercise of Faith, the court violates the principles of separation of church and state.

  • Should the worm turn, the legal profession will have much occasion for regret.

  • “It most certainly does not, unless you think that religious freedom includes establishing a state church which I think is absurd.”

    Treating blasphemy and idolatry as though they were comparable to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is hardly kosher. We’re Americans, but we must be Catholic first–or else we’re Catholics not at all.

  • The pendulum always swings back. There is going to be some harsh backlash when the 97% get fed up with the tantrums of the 3%.

  • “Treating blasphemy and idolatry as though they were comparable to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is hardly kosher.”

    Freedom of religion means that people get to practice the religion they choose and not what we would choose for them. I shudder to think what religion the politicians in Washington would ultimately impose upon the country if part of their duties was to establish a state church. No doubt one of its sacraments would be large cash payments to incumbents. Politicians should be kept far away from having any control over religion, which is the genius of what the Founding Fathers sought to establish for the Federal government.

  • What part of “free exercise thereof” is confusing to these people?

  • Secret minutes of a February 2009 WH meeting among Obama, Biden, Holder, et al, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty. Our MSM cheerleaders will ignore it. The rubes won’t see it until it’s too late.”

  • This is just one more example of something that goes back to Eden, which is the desire to have what one knows in the depths of his soul – illuminated by the scintilla conscietiae – affirmed by others in the foolish – nay, the insane – belief that if you can get enough people to agree that it is not a sin it will not be such. The first thing Eve did after tasting the fruit was to share it with Adam, who, abdicating his role of God’s viceroy for creation and choosing a lesser good (his relationship with Eve) over a greater (his relationship to God), cravenly ate some himself.

    The problem is, of course, that what is intrinsically wrong can never be made right, no matter how many laws are passed or how many hearts and minds won (and thereby corrupted).

    I have often wanted to ask these in-your-face pansexualists why it is that, if they believe what they are doing is good and right in the face of God (or Whatever), they need anyone’s approval for it. The fact that they seem to require it is an evidence of just how weak-kneed they really are. Which should be no surprise when one considers that lack of virtue is, by philological derivation, lack of strength. In the end, they are nothing but bullies, and all bullies, being cowards at heart, will collapse if opposed with sufficient courage.

  • What intellect could conceive this tyranny to be “the price of citizenship”?

    It’s a price I refuse to pay. It wasn’t in the social contract I “signed.”

    Try silent, dogged resistence at every opportunity.

    No, it is the yoke of serfdom.

    Who will pay the price of freedom?

  • Should they be forced to go through with the session, it will be interesting to see how finely the pictures and the behavior of the photographers while on-site will be scrutinized. Can the NMSC rule on artistic capacity? Or how “happy” they were while there?

    What if, during the photo shoot after the “wedding,” the photographers are hassled or abused because of their moral stance? is that a hate crime? Are their civil rights being violated?

    This judge is an insult. Please, Lord, let sanity work just once in the next election and have him ousted in as undignified a way as possible.

  • When the matter of abusive legislation and practice in Canada, Britain, and Sweden is raised, you get these responses along the lines of ‘well, they do not have the 1st Amendment’. When the legal elites are great manufactories of humbug, the protections of the 1st Amendment have no more durability than the constitutional allocation of discretion to state legislatures re the protection of the unborn. What matters is salable excuses. They only have to sell the excuses to each other, and since the circles in which they run are culturally uniform, this is not difficult.

    One feature you see in liberal fora is the pro forma obeisance to ‘free speech’ conjoined to vitriolic language directed against fairly innocuous and obscure characters – like a photographer in New Mexico or the owner of a Chicken dinner franchise or an evangelical pastor with a congregation numbered in two digits. They are down with this, in spite of their denials, and do not expect to be injured by it.

    The legal profession may discover one day that there are rough men who will deal with them lawlessly, because said shysters have ruined what law there was.

  • “One feature you see in liberal fora is the pro forma obeisance to ‘free speech’ conjoined to vitriolic language directed against fairly innocuous and obscure characters – like a photographer in New Mexico or the owner of a Chicken dinner franchise or an evangelical pastor with a congregation numbered in two digits.”

    They will defend to the death Art our right to agree with them. Liberals have a let’s pretend view of the world and language. To most of them, with certain honorable exceptions, Nat Hentoff is a glorious one, words like freedom and liberty are without content except what they give to such concepts on a purely ad hoc basis. That is why liberal jurists love a “living constitution” which transforms the constitution into a tabula rasa on which they write their will. It is a fun game as long as their adversaries do not adopt their practices and adhere to such old fashioned rules as one law for all, and strict adherence to the Constitution. That is my position and it is a great handicap in battling what these people are doing. Eventually they will face adversaries who will adopt their methods to checkmate them, and the country will be the worse for such methods being universally accepted as the proper way to treat laws and constitutions: as mere props in ongoing political warfare.

  • Pingback: Benedictines of Norcia Celebrate Year of Their Brewery -
  • I would like to see this issue discussed with reference to the idea of “forced speech.” For example, if a Jewish signpainter refused service to a Muslim who orders a banner saying “Happy Birthday,” that might be discrimination; but what if he ordered a sign saying “Down with Israel”? Should the signmaker be forced to comply (as part of the “glue that holds us together” etc.)? This is how I see the photographer’s refusal.

  • Good point Smitty. The original purpose of these anti-discrimination laws in regard to public vendors was the old Jim Crow situation where blacks simply were shut out of most of the market place in some states. Now these laws have been twisted to allow certain protected groups to harass people who do not agree with their agendas. Another example would be to force a Muslim caterer to serve pork at a meal, or an observant Jew to provide professional services on a Saturday. These anti-discrimination laws now serve no purpose except to allow activists to harass people by compelling them to violate their consciences.

  • You have Hentoff, and Jeralyn Merritt, and Harold Pollack, and Alan Dershowitz, and KC Johnson who are advocates of particular policy perspectives and adhere to the idea that political society and social organisms have to adhere to procedural rules which are not simply the rubrics of power games.

    They are no longer the norm in liberal political discourse. “Liberals” now constitute a self-aggrandizing social subculture – a bunch of Byzantine Blues telling the world how much they despise the Greens.

    One interesting aspect of the contemporary liberal worldview is how much it appears derived from high school social relations. Liberals seem to conceive of themselves as, at different times, occupying each side of the social transaction between adolescent and school administrator. On the one hand, we see the celebration of the expressive malcontent. On the other, we see a concept of political society which looks upon elected institutions as if they were student governments – toy telephones subject to the limits placed on them by school administrators. Principal Anthony Kennedy makes the rules.

  • Every human being comes into existence through one man and one woman. The newly begotten human being invents one father and one mother. The Supreme Court for the United States of America interprets the U.S. Constitution according to the Ten Commandments engraved in stone in their chamber. The atheist cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court without perjuring himself and contradicting himself using God’s Name: “I AM” (an atheist) in vain. “Honor thy mother and thy father”, the Fourth Commandment decidedly prevents any celebration of same-sex action. No court can order a person to “celebrate” same sex action, in thought, word or deed, indeed. If the photographer cannot, in good conscience, celebrate same sex action, the person who has constituted our nation with his sovereign personhood and who is a citizen by virtue of his belonging to our people, cannot be forced, bullied or coerced into celebrating, not for love or for money. If the citizen must submit to a cruel and wrongful law, let him not take any compensation or partake of the fruits of such evil or become an accomplice to the violation of truth, Justice and the American way. Let the damnation of the violation of the Supreme law of the land through perjury, that is, lying to the court about honoring his parents, or consummating the marital act, and further violating the Fourth Commandment and the community who has brought him into citizenship be the perjurer’s alone. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.
    Citizenship must meet the test of the human existence. If the same sex practitioner came into existence other than through a man and a woman, I, for one, want to know.

  • By the way, even those five named are probably content with misfeasance by appellate judges if it suits their objects. Raoul Berger was a critic of appellate judge nonsense as has been Michael Kinsley (intermittently) and R.M. Kaus. Kaus would be considered an apostate by most liberals who have heard of him and are familiar with his writings.

  • Not helpful in the broader sense but I suggest the couple go do the photo shoot (as they are being forced to do) and take the absolute. worst. photos. ever. Consider it a day wasted/a dollar wasted, as they would surely be fought tooth and nail to actually get paid for terrible “pretend wedding” pictures. Spiteful, yes. But I’d do it anyway.

  • There is merit in Elizabeth’s suggestion. Every time a Christian photographer is asked to do a photo shoot of a gay “marriage”, let him just muck up the pictures and say, “So sorry, so sad – technical difficulties. Here’s your money back.” Repeating this a few times will sink into the heads of these sexual idolaters that their forcing the rest of us to accept their sexual perversions isn’t going to work. Let’s beat them at their own game.

    PS, I have nothing against gays arranging their own “ceremonies” in private with their own photographers, and being un-harassed, unmolested in so doing. Just don’t force Christians to accept this nonsense, and if you do, then you’ll get precisely what you deserve.

  • I disagree. To do that is to “spit in the water cup” before serving; any willful loss of dignity only serves the purposes of the instigators.

    Instead, I would do my best work, audibly praising God for the gifts my talents and openly conversing about my marriage and my family. I would give nobody any cause to further pursue the farce, which is precisely what it is. By not bowing down, by being uncowed and unshaken in my faith by this derisible display, I would defeat them more handily.

    “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

  • “gifts ofmy talents” – oh, for an edit option . . .

  • I concur with the dire attack on freedom of religion this case involves. But perhaps more disturbing is the plain naked emperor illogic accepted in order to advance the cause.

    This case, probably like all others similar to it, has nothing to do with the orientation of the plaintiffs. If either of the women returned and tried to order flowers for their wedding with a man, it would have gone down just fine. Now the women would argue they would never do that, but that misses the point, that their orientation is irrelevant. So there was no conflict with the law.

    Similarly, if I and my buddy (both straight) sauntered down and tried to buy flowers for our wedding (say we wanted a tax break…), we would be refused as well.

    This is stone cold logic 101. Yet it is flatly ignored, proving the case/law is not about equality but rather about tyranny and thoughtcrime.

  • From the indomitable Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online:

    “Judge Bosson insists that the Huguenins must take the business of a gay couple as part of the price of citizenship. Well, what if the situation was reversed? What if it was the gay couple that refused to hire the Huguenins? After all, that would make more sense than the fact pattern of the actual case. Who wants to have their wedding photographed by someone who rejects its legitimacy? I married a Catholic girl. I looked for rabbis who’d officiate. They refused because they didn’t condone a mixed marriage. I completely understood their reluctance. It didn’t offend me in the slightest. But you can be sure I wouldn’t hire a photographer who passionately felt that what we were doing was disgusting or evil or wrong. So anyway, suppose the gay couple made the utterly reasonable decision not to hire a wedding photographer who passionately rejects the whole idea of gay marriage? Now imagine that the poor Hugenins really need the work. Should a judge march in and tell the gay couple you’ve got to give these people money to photograph a ceremony that disgusts them? The logic of Bosson’s decision would say yes. Everyone has to compromise. It’s the price of citizenship! In fact, as support for gay marriage grows and religious orthodoxy declines, it’s easy to imagine a world where the Huguenins are the minority — if they aren’t already. Do they suddenly merit intervention by a thumb-sucking judge simply because their views have become minority views? “

  • “it is the price of citizenship.” Good will is the price of citizenship. Neither the judge, nor the same-sex couple, have good will towards the citizenship and the civil rights of the photographer. With good will, the same-sex couple might have found a willing photographer. Of course, the pictures will not be the best. Force makes a sorry contract. Peace on earth to men of good will.

  • Donald,
    “Freedom of religion means that people get to practice [AND LIVE] the religion they choose and not what we would choose for them.”

    Had to add those two important words because too many, including our Dear Leader, believe freedom of religion means you can attend and worship on Sunday without being hassled by the government. For them, freedom of religion ends when the weekend is over. Trying to live your faith 7 days a week at home and at work is a foreign concept to them.

    So, I try avoid using the phrase “practice their religion” and opt for “living their faith” or “living their religion.”

  • Pingback: Weariness and Current Events : Catholic Stand

Obama’s Gay Military

Friday, June 15, AD 2012



Opponents of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” , a policy to keep out of the closet homosexuals from serving in the military, predicted that such a repeal would be merely a first step, and they have proved prophetic:


Last summer, gays in the military dared not acknowledge their sexual orientation. This summer, the Pentagon will salute them, marking June as gay pride month just as it has marked other celebrations honoring racial or ethnic groups.

In the latest remarkable sign of change since the military repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the Defense Department will soon hold its first event to recognize gay and lesbian troops. It comes nine months after repeal of the policy that had prohibited gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.

Details are still being worked out, but officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wants to honor the contributions of gay service members.

“Now that we’ve repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ he feels it’s important to find a way this month to recognize the service and professionalism of gay and lesbian troops,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman.

This month’s event will follow a long tradition at the Pentagon of recognizing diversity in America’s armed forces. Hallway displays and activities, for example, have marked Black History Month and Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month.

Continue reading...

56 Responses to Obama’s Gay Military

  • I’ll tell you what this is really about. It is about finding one more way to equivocate homosexuality with racial groups, to make opposition to homosexuality as socially unacceptable as racism.

    I think it is time to start really exploring the extent to which the gay identity is socially and politically constructed.

  • Right Don. This was always a cultural issue – changing another institution to acceptance, and then endorsement, of homosexuality. Those who didn’t understand this don’t understand the methods of the radical left.

  • God will let us now lose wars.

  • Question for General Foghorn:

    What does celebrating this crap have to do with the mission: destroying things and killing massive numbers of bad guys?

    In my opinion, 97% of our brave troops will be treated like puppy dogs that crap on the carpet and get their noses rubbed in this crap.

    This will be one huge negative both for mission orientation and unit cohesion.

  • No Paul, God, with some help from the voters, will allow Obmama to lose this election.

  • Yep T.Shaw and Obama and his cronies could care less. They will probably only begin to care when the military vote is counted this Fall.

  • As one who actually served (very few if any of the Washington policymakers have), I can unequivocally say that having a queer within the ranks is at the least a distraction and at the worst disruptive of morale and unity. Of course that was back in 1959 when I was in boot camp at Great Lakes, Ill., and of the approximately 100 guys in our company it wasn’t hard to tell which one of us was a bit light in the shoes. He never made it all the way through the 8 weeks because of his disruptive behavior.

    A military unit must have cohesion and a clear objective and not be distracted by such attempts at social engineering for the sake of so-called “rights.” The Uniform Code of Military Justice governs the lives of servicemen and women and the rules, like them or not, are different than those in civilian society.

    There are age limits, weight and height and other criteria that determine one’s fitness to serve and homosexuality is an automatic disqualifier if one is to be true to the mission of the military. Unfortunately, all the traditional old soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are dying out or deferring meekly to the likes of Obama, Panetta, et al, who are clueless about military life. Then perhaps they think someone has to bring up the rear.

  • Fixing typo: There are age limits, etc…

  • One of your more recent posts concerned a speech given to a convention of high school yearbook and newspaper staff by an obnoxious sex columnist. The contemporary liberal mindset is like the Borg. It recognizes no part of public life as having a legitimate dynamic, sensibility, or set of standards of its own. (And about this all of our Vichy Catholics and most of our Republican politicos are clueless).

  • Bingo Art. Perhaps worse than the Borg:

  • Joe Green wrote, “I can unequivocally say that having a queer within the ranks is at the least a distraction and at the worst disruptive of morale and unity.”

    I mostly agree. There was one gay person on my submarine. He kept mostly to himself when we went on shore leave, though he was a great drinking buddy (alcohol being a favorite past time of sailors the world over regardless of sexual inclination). But when after entering port most of us directed our energies to the local brothels, he went out by himself to do what he wished with whom he wished, and no one of us made a fuss about it. What he did in a closet was none of our business (just as we didn’t want anyone to see what we were doing in a brothel, which is just as much a sin). But being gay, he never seemed to have the ambition to advance in rank or do anything really noteworthy (though he was one of the best sonarmen aboard). I really don’t know what makes people like this tick (nor do I want to know), just as long as they don’t parade themselves in public. They can make all the social contracts between themselves for medical care and visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc., that they want to. But what they do isn’t marriage and shouldn’t be celebrated at all. They are perverts, plain and simple. If they keep their activities to the closet where those activities belong, then I will be happy to ignore their sexual perversion. As regrettable as I find it to be, people have a right to send themselves to hell if that’s their wish (including unrepentent frequenters of brothels as well as sodomy perverts; after all, the same rules apply to everyone, sodomists, lesbians and whore mongers alike).

    Oh, but I am being unkind, unjust, divisive and intolerant by writing such words. Absolutely and proudly so! 😉

  • AD: Kudos on your liberal-borg analogy.

    My only qualifier: liberals are far more evil.

  • Excellent, Art Deco and Donald M., excellent!

    “The contemporary liberal mindset is like the Borg. It recognizes no part of public life as having a legitimate dynamic, sensibility, or set of standards of its own. (And about this all of our Vichy Catholics and most of our Republican politicos are clueless).”

  • *edits comment*
    Fixed per request, Joe.

  • Donald, that’s still one of my favorite speaches– villain has a point. (Of course, they were treated like terrorists because they WERE terrorists, and pursued so much because the Cardassians are prickly at best, but I still think he had a point….)

  • I would be interested to see how this is all going to work out on a practical level.

    Will everyone still take showers together in bootcamp?

    At various training schools were bunks are in the open will they still be?

    We used to share canteens in the field, share MREs and engage in other such non-sexual male bonding. Engage in certain pranks and joke about each other. I have my opinions on how all of that will change, but I wonder how troop “bonding” will now be enforced.

    During afterhour’s barbecues and other events will soldiers bring their same sex partner? Will other have to watch them flirt and kiss? Will officers or enlisted wives clubs have to allow a partner of a gay soldier to join?

    How are they going to figure out who your bunkmate is going to be in the barracks? How will sexual harassment of non-gay soldiers by gay soldiers be handled?

    Will soldiers be allowed to talk about religion to each other? Will it be hate speech for two Catholic soldiers to talk about the latest sermon at church? Or will chaplains be told to refrain from preaching about “hate”?

    Lots of practical issues involved, it’s a big social engineering project that’s going to end very badly.

    Unfortunately, now that the genie is out of the bottle you cannot put him back in.

  • Good points, Paul and Chris. Ever seen the sleeping quarters aboard ship? My son, who also was in the Navy, sailed with the USS Kitty Hawk for 2 years and they were stuffed in bunks like sardines. Although I’ve never been on a sub, it’s no doubt just as tight or tighter and a good night’s sleep after pulling a double shift is vital. A swabbie can’t be worried about the guy next to him while getting some much needed shuteye.

  • Make it easy – those who wish to identified as Gay soldiers, sailors and and airmen should wear the rainbow flag. Those who wish to be identified as American soldiers, sailors and airmen should wear the American flag.

  • I really don’t get what the fuss is about. As long as they behave like all other soldiers, why does their orientation matter?

  • Kristin…that’s the point. They don’t behave like others.

  • How do you know that for sure? Not all gay people exhibit “gay” mannerisms or behavior.

  • There are drones to be relied upon, so now the objective of military service is sidetracked by internal humanism issues.

    ” Details are still being worked out, but officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wants to honor the contributions of gay service members.

    “Now that we’ve repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ he feels it’s important to find a way this month to recognize the service and professionalism of gay and lesbian troops,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman.

    This month’s event will follow a long tradition at the Pentagon of recognizing diversity in America’s armed forces. Hallway displays and activities, for example, have marked Black History Month and Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month. ”

    This reminds me of what became of education, when computers became the teaching modules.

    Thinking and doing done electronically for self absorbed humans.

  • Kristin, easily identifiable most of the time especially in this day and age where they love to flaunt it. My comments were confined to military settings and situations where they don’t fit in, not to civilian life. Personally, I don’t care what people do in privacy, but when they’re perverted acts get too close to me or my family I have a problem. I don’t mean to be offensive but the sexual depravity displayed by homos is repugnant to normal people.

  • Kristin, your point is well taken. But if that were always or even most usually the case, there would be no issue. Gay servicepeople would refuse the effort as unnecessary and distratcive to their desire to simply serve as anybody else does. So it’s not our perception and treatment of gay servicepeople, but their behavior and desire to make a political issue that is, in fact, the issue.

  • where did you get that photo of those buff half naked men– not in combat clothes for sure.
    has the military ever had a month celebrating families or marriage or fidelity or Irish Catholics, or the G.A.R? : )

  • One of the problems with gays in the military is that it degrades the standard for soldiers form real men to slaves of passion which makes the military look less and less honourable.
    The problem I have with woman soldiers in the military is something different, I think the problem with women soldiers is that they fight too well because the moment they find out that someone from Iraq might kill her children she would destroy the whole country, so my problem with women soldiers is that they are too effective, not ineffective soldiers.

  • I think the O administration move is about politics– I don’t think he esp favors gays. and would throw them under the bus eventually if it suits the long term goal of transforming America and the world. Division. Loss of unity. But I think the nefarious plan will be foiled– in November.

  • I think the Star Trek clip helps explain why man would have been kicked out of paradise the reason being that God respected mans freedom to leave which is important because if God didn’t respect mans freedom he would be rejecting a Good part of man which is his freedom, and if man does not have freedom he can’t do good things freely, but the problem with Adam is that he rejected God and so kicked himself out of the country club.

  • Don as long as the military fights for abortion and allows homosexuality, it is sure going to fail just like Roman empire, the Third Reich, and the Soviet Union. God is all Good and all Evil that gets in the way gets destroyed by Good.

  • I”’ll tell you what this is really about. It is about finding one more way to equivocate homosexuality with racial groups, to make opposition to homosexuality as socially unacceptable as racism.”

    As it pertains to the military, it’s about a lot more than that. It’s mainly about undermining the cohesiveness and effectiveness of our military. One of the things absolutely crucial in the military is forming fraternal bonds within a given unit or division. I don’t think I need to tell you what happens when you throw sexual attraction into that mix. This is especially crucial aboard Navy ships where you have around eighty guys living in an area of the same size of an upscale suburban home or maybe even less. This is something I know from experience. I spent eight years in the Navy and five of those years I spent aboard ship. It’s like living in a men’s locker room.

    Furthermore, put yourself in the position of someone with same sex attraction (or even a practicing homosexual for that matter) who didn’t want to make an issue of their sexual inclinations (and believe it or not many of them don’t) you would not want to be put in that environment.

    This is why I favor going further than don’t ask don’t tell and reinstate the outright ban on homosexuals in the military that existed prior to DADT.

  • On March 14, 1778, George Washington, then Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, approved the sentencing of LT Enslin on attempted sodomy of another soldier. General Washington called it an infamous crime to be viewed “with Abhorrence and Detestation”. He ordered Enslin “to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”

    Read more here:
    Thomas Moore Law Center

  • I can see November from my front porch.

    For liberal dolts (I repeat myself again): We will straighten out this mess on Election Day.

  • Mr. Shaw:

    It’s gonna take a lot more than just this election to turn this around. I don’t see Romney having the stomach for it. It isn’t just the political part of the government, it’s the left wing careerists who control the bureaucracy.

  • GM: You are probably right.

    If Obama gets re-elected on the backs of lisping lieutenants and high school salutatorian invaders, America is finished.

    I’m preparing for that, too.

  • All I can think of for preparation is to include prayer for a happy death. How to prepare?
    The following list is from a post on Abyssus – Am sorry that I don’t know how to copy links to references and all – any way I just saw this article and thought how extremely beautiful the sound of the birds is this morning in what is becoming my little world.

    Vision to America News [email protected]

    Constitution, Government


    Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months! What did Congress do in those 40 months?

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates theof all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

  • Thank you PM

  • PM No wonder Obama is so cocky about being re-elected. His has preempted the will of the people, Congress and the founding Principles. Executive Order 11004 “establish new locations for populations.” sounds like relocation to Auschwitz by Uncle Hitler.

  • PM I think one thing to prepare is if people have enough courage and hutzpah to figure what a new government (or rather governments) should do after the US collapse further than its society and economy, because it is real easy thinking of ways to take over the government it’s hard to figure out how to replace it and with what.

  • Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • The hatred you spew takes my breath away. And you call yourselves Christians? Jesus called us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

  • The Navy Chaplain Corps’s leadership last year tried to get the chaplains to sign on to the repeal of DADT by equating it with the kind of mutual cooperation already practiced by chaplains and faithful of different religions. (This was the approach taken by the, admittedly, not-very-bright head of the Reserves; without a doubt, though, he was following the line, if not the talking points, of the Chief of Chaplains et al.) One chaplain objected: Aren’t you equating religious beliefs in the one case with sexual behavior in the other? Additionally, we were all assured that homosexuality would never be regarded like ethnic groups (African-American, Hispanic, Native American, etc.), which are made the focus of interest and recognition throughout a month dedicated to the same. So now the fear is that we will receive regular emails next June with “Gay Pride” month facts, famous “gay” servicemembers, etc., all culminating in a command assembly celebrating “Gay and Lesbian” month. The which may God forbid!

  • PM:EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 GRANTS authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

    If the Department of Justice fails to do what Executive Order 11310 tells them to do, then the Department of Justice is violating the Order. Obama is ordering the Department of Justice around and writing Executive Orders to enforce ordering the Department of Justice around. The Executive branch of Government does not order the Department of Justice around, nor does Obama have authority to authorize the Department of Justice to be the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice exists because the Constitution says that The Department of Justice exists. (And Alexander Hamilton thought that giving the Department of Justice free reign would beget tyranny. He did not foresee Obama)

    Obama does not get to redefine the existence and purpose of the Department of Justice for his own agenda. “EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders”

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. “ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL CRISIS. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Use the crisis to take over the country.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. I think Obama already has…by Executive Order.

  • And to go and sin no more. Love never means pretending that sin is not sin.

  • Why is it that people like LXP deliberately confuse love with condoning? Homosexual behavior is sin just as adultery is sin. If we love the homosexual, the. We will not shy away from pointing out that his unrepentant sinful behavior will land him in hell. The same was true in the case of Jesus confronting the woman caught in adultery. Self-righteous people wanted to stone her to death. But it was Jesus who cast the first stone, as Donald quoted: go and sin no more.

    1st Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of people who won’t make it into the kingdom of heaven. In that list are malakos (the receivers in the act of homosexual intercourse) and arsenokoites (the penetrators in the act of homosexual intercourse). Now how is it loving, kind, just, or nice to grease the skids of such people so that they can burn in hel forever and ever? I may as well go there myself! I pray that I don’t because I know what I deserve. Why would I want that to happen to someone else?

  • Arrrgghhhh – darn iPad touch screen. Sorry for the typos.

  • LXP Christian was a word made up by the murderous protestants, and some advice I was given is to hate the sin and love the sinner. Loving homosexuals is to help them in refraining from sin so that the Devil doesn’t drag them to Hell.

  • Paul I think Homosexual acts might be even worse than adultery in the way that it disregards natural law to such a high degree.

  • LXP I think that hating the Devil and sin seems perfectly reasonable considering how corrupt both are. We don’t hate our neighbors we hate what they do.

  • LXP:

    What are you talking about?

    Cite concrete examples of HATE.

    HATE compared to what? Compared to Obama pitting whole classes of people against their fellow Americans?

    “Cliches: How the left cheats in the war of ideas.

    You don’t have one example of HATE.

    You are a typical lying liberal villain.

    We hate the sin and love the sinner. Because as long as the sinner lives he/she may come to a better disposition.

    3 . . . 2 . . . 1 RACISTS!!!!

  • Here is string of Obama Exec Orders that show Obama’s HATE for poor children trapped in failed , union-controlled public schools. He gave nineteen states waivers so they don’t have to comply with the “No Child Left Behind” law.

    Another example of liberal HATE: Huge, public school teachers benefits are never reduced, so school children’s education and life-long well-being need to be diminished.

    It’s not that Obama loves less poor school children. It’s that he loves more public school teachers unions and their money.

    3 . . . 2 . . . 1 RACIST!!!!

  • Gays in the military is really about lesbians in the military. Gay men don’t last long unless they have desk jobs, while lesbians are relatively common among military women.

    And I would say that lesbians cause FAR fewer problems than the heterosexual women.

  • Valentin wrote, “Christian was a word made up by the murderous protestants.”

    This is incorrect. Acts 11:26 states:

    “And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

    The actual Greek word is ??????????.

  • Jim-
    Spoken like someone who didn’t have to deal with them.
    Lesbians cause the same sort of trouble as straight women, in the style of a man, but good luck getting anybody to listen to you.
    As much as I really hated how women would use their sexuality to get ahead, I also disliked the assumption that if you were not using your sexuality to get ahead, you were a lesbian.

  • “1st Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of people who won’t make it into the kingdom of heaven. In that list are malakos (the receivers in the act of homosexual intercourse) and arsenokoites (the penetrators in the act of homosexual intercourse). Now how is it loving, kind, just, or nice to grease the skids of such people so that they can burn in hell forever and ever? I may as well go there myself! I pray that I don’t because I know what I deserve. Why would I want that to happen to someone else?” Jesus went to hell for us and led us into heaven. That’s LOVE.
    In embracing sin, the sinner denies God, Holy Scripture, his rational, immortal soul and the soul of his partner, and the souls of all human beings, thereby imposing his sin on all humanity. This is not love but hatred, starting with the hatred of God and ending with the hatred of mankind, himself, included. Sin and death are cast into the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Paul, Help me out here, as I do not have the quote. I am in awe of your knowledge of Scripture.

  • Imagine having two lesbians as parents. As Woody Allen once said, “Having one mother was tough enough.”