25 Responses to Young People Love Socialism-Have No Idea What It Is

  • Don’t cry for me Venezuela!

  • Watching them all get instant brain cramps when having to define what exactly socialism is, is hilarious. Liberals are all mental midgets.

  • College campuses are hotbeds of Socialist sympathizers. , as is the Democrat Party, as is the Catholic Church, and as are many of the kids parents. Being sympathetic to Socialism is politically correct. Medicare, medicaid, social security are socialist type programs. And few folks see the damage all of this causes until it is too late. Socialism is mercy without justice, which ends with justice without mercy.

  • Perhaps one of the reasons young people love Socialism is that Capitalism has caused ongoing recessions, increase poverty, increase poor working conditions and greater gaps between rich and poor. As a Catholic, I find it difficult to be Pro-Capitalist and find it difficult to turn a blind eye to attacks on the disabled and the poor.

  • Considering the appalling record of socialism James, it is not remarkable that ignorant young people, indoctrinated by leftist teachers embrace it, because only the ignorant, the malevolent or those who see socialism as a path to dictatorial political power could embrace it. Milder variants of socialism have a better track record only to the extent that capitalism is allowed to exist. Go to Venezuela and you would quickly change your tune about capitalism unless your obvious ignorance about it is of the invincible variant.

  • Mr. Clarkson has obviously never lived in the old Iron Curtain or Cuba or North Korea. Capitalism is, if memory serves. A term coined by the greatest idiot of all time, Karl Marx, to denigrate free market economies.
    Now, I realize that Marx and all of his followers, past and present, are dolts. Mr. Clarkson’s comments prove George Santanya correct.

  • The names James Charles is interesting. The only James Charles about whom I have heard is that effeminate male model for cover girl – and of course the current Church of Nice (Nice – from Latin Nescius meaning ignorant) encourages such effeminancy inasmuch as the Lavender Mafia have assumed control at the Vatican.


    I will wager that he too is a socialist, albeit he is likely quite ignorant of what socialist extraordinaire Josef Stalin would do to such perverted creatures as he. Even real socialists have their limits.

  • Socialism is the surrender to mob rule or the “party” of one’s sovereignty over oneself and the relinquishing of responsibility for one’s life to a dictator, who imagines himself a god. Socialism is becoming a public servant without a public. This is my opinion and I am sticking with it. The sovereign person made in the image and likeness of God is eradicated and replaced as a cog in the machinery of the human species.

  • Socialism and capitalism both have their shortcomings, but it would be difficult given the evidence to say that capitalism has not had the better run. In a perfect world, ruled and populated by angels, either system would likely work reasonably well, but in an “east of Eden” world, capitalism seems more resistant to total corruption (not immune to it, but it seems to be able to cause less harm once infected).

  • Michael Dowd has it right, I believe– if you’re against Socialism on campus, you’re not PC.

    And those who are not PC can be attacked, be it physically, socially, economically or by your grades.

    Nobody with sense is going to be videotaped saying something that is politically incorrect or could be edited to such a thing.

  • Brown shirts are fashionable these days.
    Berkeley is only one of the fashion centers that cater to tolerance ala’ Nazis style.

    These new recruits are ripe for the jack boots and brown shirts.

    Socialist? Damn straight!
    Freedom baby. Free-dumb!

  • Sorry, James Charles, but your socialism would be just as bad as all the others. Get over it.

  • “Medicare, medicaid, social security are socialist type programs” “Socialist type programs”, in fact, these are the spiritual and corporal works of mercy and are subject to the principles of separation of church and state.

  • James, capitalism in practice is not a perfect system by any means. That’s not due so much to capitalism itself as it is fallen human nature.

    If you stop think about capitalism is the only economic system that contains the mechanisms to rectify the things you decry.

  • Pingback: TVESDAY SÆCVLARIA EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • the word “capitalist” first shows in print in 1792 in a book called “travels in france” by arthur young. the word “capitalism” was not used, as far as the oxford english dictionary can tell until 1833. then it showed up in an article in the british newspaper “the standard”. at that time karl marx was 15 years old. i doubt that he was writing yet for the standard.

  • These kids will change there minds when they’re waiting in line for toilet paper

  • george berea-
    that same source notices that while capitalist was used, the term capitalism wasn’t.
    It meant someone who invests or employs capital, not someone who believes in property rights.

  • Too many labels. I think most young people want a fairer more equitable system. Let us start with a single payer health care system. I have lived in Japan for 20+ years and it works fine. My sister in New Zealand and brother in the UK also have similar systems. Forget the labels and cut to the chase.

  • “I think most young people want a fairer more equitable system”

    If that were truly the case they would flee from a government controlled health care system.

  • To Micheal Thompson:

    Population of Japan – 127 mil
    Population of New Zealand – 4.693 mil
    Population of UK – 65.64 mil

    127 + 4.693 + 65.64 = 197.33… mil

    United States population? 323.1 mil.

    Oh and those health care systems?

    Japan’s buckling system. UK on the brink of collapse. New Zealand slipping behind.

    I notice the SMALLEST country there seems to have the most stable, enduring system at the moment. Yet you think it wise for a country nearly twice the size of all three of those put together to follow in their mistakes. What about medical tourism? According to patients beyond borders:

    Costa Rica, India, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United States

  • The UK system: that’s the one that just got done punishing Charlie Gard’s parents for not aborting him like they should have, right?

  • Of course they don’t know what ‘it’ ‘is’. The term has been used to refer to anything from full-bore command economies to Otto von Bismarck’s old age pensions. Now, why they’re attracted to something they cannot properly define = that’s another matter.
    Actually, these youngsters are making a grab bag of utterances, some endorsing the term, some not.

  • Too many labels. I think most young people want a fairer more equitable system. Let us start with a single payer health care system. I have lived in Japan for 20+ years and it works fine. My sister in New Zealand and brother in the UK also have similar systems. Forget the labels and cut to the chase.

    I’ll cut to the chase: our political economy is suffused with rent seeking, sinecures, (and some looting as well). If you want ‘fairer and more equitable’, you need to cut the number of cadres living on politically-generated incomes, cut the capacity of the central government (especially federal judges) to run roughshod over local communities, and cut (to the bone) the capacity of politicians to act as benefit brokers.

  • Perhaps one of the reasons young people love Socialism is that Capitalism has caused ongoing recessions, increase poverty, increase poor working conditions and greater gaps between rich and poor.

    No, James, ‘capitalism’ does not ’cause’ those things. ‘Capitalism” means merely that private enterprise is conducted by firms in which proprietorship, management, labor, and finance are commonly disaggregated functions.

    Neither ‘poverty’ nor ‘poor working conditions’ are ‘increasing’ as we speak nor have they since 1850 been ‘increasing’ (absent destruction of physical plant) for any length of time longer than a business cycle. Nor do you have ‘ongoing’ ‘recessions’. Economic recession has in this country enveloped 1 year in 6 since 1938, with increasingly long intervals between events.

Ignorance as Brave New World

Tuesday, April 26, AD 2016




Much of leftist politics today consists of leftists stating that what is manifestly not true must be believed with a religious fervor that would put to shame most Trappist monks.  Dave Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts reminds us of the essential element in all this:

Thinly disguised as offended PC sensitivity warriors.  John C. Wright does the take down here.  Yep.  I’ve said already that much of the modern Left is about convincing us that 2+2=4 is hate speech, must be punished, and those who insist on resisting the new math are the baddies.

Why?  Because if you want to follow the basic trend of most Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment era revolutions by setting up a Despotic government where liberty and Utopia were promised, and furthermore want to do so in a nation that was the capstone of 2500 years of a long, agonizing march toward freedom and liberty, you have to make the population stupid enough to declare that 2+2=4 is the most evil, hateful thing imaginable and it’s good that we finally have laws that will punish those who insist on saying 2+2=4.

Much of what Mr. Wright says is, of course, spot on.  The idea that PC Warriors demand courtesy when they provide none, they demand respect when the provide the polar opposite to the traditions and beliefs they hate, and demand tolerance for their eradication of tolerance and diverse opinions, should be the neon warning signs for a generation.

It’s a testimony to our education systems, our entertainment industry and our media that so many Americans are ready to rewrite the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and even the entire notion of a Bill of Rights because we’ve been told it could be hateful to say men can’t have babies.  It takes one stupid nation for that to happen.  Or it takes a nation that is the product of the last 50 years of concerted effort on the part of those same educational, entertainment and media industries to be that stupid.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Ignorance as Brave New World

  • Truth is so bothersome…..

  • Ignorance is all they have. They cultivate in the public schools and universities. Only ignorance can explain (they stink he did well) eight years of Obama, and then Hillary or Trump. Welcome to the Idiocracy.

    The latest lunacy: 0.01% of the US male population is so freaking sick as want to pee in the Women’s Room, and you are a bigot, and your city/state will be boycotted, if you oppose it. I have a granddaughter and I don’t need to worry about her going in a latrine with one of 750,000 registered sexual predators.

  • I agree with this post. Not only is liberalism ignorant and stupid, but it is sinful as well. Sin makes one stupid.

  • The Law Of Merited Impossibility is an epistemological construct governing the paradoxical way overclass opinion makers frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and LGBT civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that traditional Christians and other conservatives will suffer a single thing from the expansion of LGBT rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

  • Thanks Don. Right on. I experience this everyday with some of my kids, e.g., speaking the truth is to be a hater.

    Good book on this subject which I’m now reading is: ‘The Snapping of the American Mind’ by David Kupelian. And, of course, one you recommended before: “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace” by Michael Walsh.

  • It isn’t just the problem of ignorance but also OUR widespread acceptance of ignorance. Sometimes we might think we can ignore the idiocy and find some respite from the tumult . But, no. We can already judge by its fruits – ignorance is not bliss, and the idea of going along with the unwise… for the sake of short/order peace is just an early surrender

24 Responses to Wasted Minds

  • As these students might say, OMG!
    The fact that they don’t know who won the Civil War should squash the idea that Southerners (of this generation at least) still harbor long-held hatreds over the Late Unpleasantness.

    Otoh, I didn’t know what show Snookie is on.

  • Dumb, stupid freaking idiots! Liberal progressive Academia has achieved its purpose – youth educated into imbecility. This ignorance merits nothing but contempt, disgust, disdain and utter loathing.

  • Stunningly awful. These people know not to whom they owe their freedom.

  • “Who is our Vice President?….is that a trick question?” LoL! He’s right! That IS a trick question!

    Well folks….these children are a product of the public school system. Tax dollars hard at work to teach the splendor of anal sex and it’s protected patrons thereof…this is social justice! I’m sure these quality students know how to secure an abortion or call Christianity bigoted. These are Hillary Clinton’s favorite voters. Dumbed down just enough to buy everything the left wishes to sell them.

  • They all seemed like super-nice kids. But maybe they shouldn’t vote, so the rest of us can keep America going a little while longer, for their benefit.

  • But remember, Donald Rumsfeld was the real idiot because he didn’t know what ‘mojo’ meant.

  • If it can be a small comfort, I pop quizzed my 16 year-old homeschooled daughter all of these, as these questions came up (she was not paying attention to me or the video) and she answered them all correctly up to the Snookie question. She doesn’t know who Snookie is. (I am actually proud of that.. 😀 ). She did know who Brad Pitt is currently married to, but not previously. Maybe I should just give her her high school diploma now and call it a day – she obviously know more than these college students. LOL

  • With apologies to Mark Twain. Suppose you were a liberal and suppose you were an imbecile. But, I repeat myself, again.

    FYI. Hillary Clinton is the smartest (Elizabeth Warren is second) liberal woman on the planet. Of course, that is seriously a low bar.

    Instapundit reports that Charlie Rangel doesn’t believe Republicans won the Civil War. Being a pol, Charlie may be lying.

  • Schooling, seat time, and education. Which one is not like the others?

  • My homeschooled 14 year old got these questions right, but didn’t know who Angelina Jolie was. His public school friend got the Civil War and Revolutionary War question right as well. (They told me they knew of Snookie ‘cuz she was on South Park once.)
    My dyslexic 17 year old is in a near panic over passing the ACT with at least a 24 composite (that’s the goal). He is also concerned about struggling with simple (is there such a thing?) quantum mechanics in his chemistry class. I should show him this. It will likely make him feel a little better.

  • Same over here.The removal of history from school curricula has meant that our kids don’t know where we came from, which means they don’t really know who they are.
    But I was pretty flabbergasted at the so-called young intelligensia – the future leaders of your country – don’t know their basic history like the American Civil War and the war of Independence.
    I wonder if the Political History majors from that university had the proper and true knowledge of their history, or has that been screwed to the liberal agenda? Probably.

  • “The removal of history from school curricula has meant that our kids don’t know where we came from, which means they don’t really know who they are.”

    Comment of the week Don! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • We are toast.

    Start brushing up on your Chinese…

  • For about the last 400 years, educated people had a sort of grand pattern or framework in which historical events were located – The fall of the Western Empire and the loss of the ancient learning; the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages; the recovery of learning and the Reformation of religion, ushering the Modern World. These were the great milestones and they were seen as bringing about fundamental, irreversible change. This was the generally accepted narrative.

    Over the past century or so, this pattern has broken down. The classical learning is the domain of a few specialists and the most elementary knowledge of Christianity is no longer a common possession. Nothing in the past is seen as having any permanent influence or significance; history is simply « et puis…et puis… » [and then…and then] like the Merovingian chronicles.

  • “With apologies to Mark Twain. Suppose you were a liberal and suppose you were an imbecile. But, I repeat myself, again.”

    Borrowing. 😀

  • “For about the last 400 years, educated people had a sort of grand pattern or framework in which historical events were located – The fall of the Western Empire and the loss of the ancient learning; the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages; the recovery of learning and the Reformation of religion, ushering the Modern World. These were the great milestones and they were seen as bringing about fundamental, irreversible change. This was the generally accepted narrative.”

    “Over the past century or so, this pattern has broken down. The classical learning is the domain of a few specialists and the most elementary knowledge of Christianity is no longer a common possession. Nothing in the past is seen as having any permanent influence or significance; history is simply « et puis…et puis… » [and then…and then] like the Merovingian chronicles.”

    Which is why we are doomed to repeat it.

  • “Who is the Vice President.” I wish I could forget Joe Biden also!

  • Taxpayers are getting cheated and swindled for their money. The taxpayers get to tell school administration to teach history, the unrevised, unvarnished truth.

  • The “story” is that public education has failed because many of its grads are minimally literate and, likely, innumerate (see John Allen Paulos’ books, Innumeracy and Beyond Innumeracy). I think this is by design and it’s working.

    The state needs its educational apparatus to supply it with idiots.

  • “Doomed to repeat it?” The past is bad, while the future is always bright, right?

  • As one participant stated, “Oh, I feel so stupid.” Well at least she got that one right.

  • No wonder the Democrats can get away with accusing Republicans of being racist when blacks don’t even know who fought and died to free them, and fought the Democrat KKK and Jim Crows laws of segregation afterwards, and who voted in Congress in a higher percentage than Democrats for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965

  • Unbelieveable!
    @the Old Adam, @Charlie, and @Bill: classic!
    @Donald R. McClarey: Thank you!

  • Edward Radler Rice wrote, “”Doomed to repeat it?” The past is bad, while the future is always bright, right?”
    Recall Marx’s comment on the two Napoléons: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” [Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte]

Gone With the Wind and Proud Contemporary Ignorance

Wednesday, October 1, AD 2014

Apparently some of the young, in addition to not reading, can’t even be bothered to watch a classic film, even when they purport to have an interest in films.  John Nolte at Breitbart gives us the grim details:



Monday we learned that a 25 year-old taking graduate-level journalism classes at New York University had no idea what an editorial was. Today we learn that “most” of the students taking a film class at Georgetown University have never seen “Gone with the Wind.”

[W]hen I asked 13 students in a Georgetown University film class if they’d seen it, most either hadn’t seen the film or had seen only parts of it. These students are serious about movies. But a lot of them sided with Mike Minahan, 20, who said when it comes to Gone with the Wind — frankly, he doesn’t give a damn.

“Everything I’ve seen about it says it, like, glorifies the slave era … and I dunno, what’s the point of that? I don’t see that as a good time in history … like, oh, sweet, a love story of people who own slaves.”

The students had two issues with Gone with the Wind: race and rape.

What a relief it is to know that the next generation of film reviewers, writers, and makers will be politically correct, uneducated, narrow-minded provincials completely out of touch with the real world. You know, just like the current crop of film reviewers, writers and makers.

A poll released Monday shows that 73% of Americans consider “Gone with the Wind” one of the best movies ever.

Not only are these close-minded students missing one of the grandest pieces of entertainment ever released in any medium, but a piece of cinema history that will live on long past any of us. In 1939, GWTW was an epic technical achievement. Seventy-five years later, in this age of CGI, producer David O. Selznick’s masterpiece is even more impressive.

Moreover, the idea that GWTW glorifies rape is laughable. Leftists are supposed to be Captains of Nuance and yet they seem incapable of understanding that this so-called rape is in reality the end result of a complicated dance of seduction between Rhett and Scarlett. As far as the film’s backwards portrayal of slaves and blacks, if you’re going to discount and dismiss any art based on current mores and values, you’re nothing more than a modern day Production Code.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Gone With the Wind and Proud Contemporary Ignorance

  • They remove the Classics so as to facilitate the indoctrination (“children of our times”) not education of students.

    Post-modern academia/journalism/scholarship derives conclusions based on ideology and not data, facts, logic. It relies on anecdotes and stereotypes incorporated in mental, emotional filters.
    The post-modern academy is venal. Its purpose is to advance the nightmare narrative and provide continual propaganda for the progressive program. It seamlessly imbeds fabrications into facts. It sees reading as arbitrary and personal. A theory cannot be proven only disproven. Post-modern also called Behavioral) academics invent facts, deny/ignore errors, display arrogance and execrate anybody that provides opposing evidence. For those liars, truth, facts, realities, and history do not exist. They are clay in their hands. They use them to make a point. Whatever they need to twist or omit is justified by their purity of intentions – and they always have the purest of intentions.

  • Gone With the Wind is one of the few movies that I have seen in a different light with each viewing, Dr. Strangelove being another. Yes, I’ve come away after seeing it with the same feelings expressed by Mike Minahan (more than once, actually), but other times I’ve have different – though never opposite – reactions. A good movie will go that.

    My son is covering Roman history right now, and he asked me about the First Triumvirate last night. I suggested that we watch Spartacus this weekend, since it is a mostly accurate account of those days. He’s resisting with the excuse that movies are too long to sit through anymore. Sigh.

  • Civilization, cultures, manners, humanity, love and art lost and debased in cerebral activity that doesn’t percolate to achieve understanding beyond the bonds of skin color and sexual activity. Last night, I indulged in the four hour movie with musical accompaniment to actual Introduction, Intermission ( Entr’Acte to boot), and Conclusion – and enjoyed a full spectrum expression of human dignity and love.
    ” The students had two issues with Gone with the Wind: race and rape. ” Homogenized minds.

  • I watched part of (it’s crazy long) Birth of Nation for a film class in college. It makes Gone with the Wind look like a Spike Lee movie. How precious are these kids that they can’t watch some classic films in context? Grow up.

  • Thanks Don for the link to your 2010 Spartacusreview. Yep, my “mostly accurate” comment was an attempt to balance “howlers” and “atmosphere”. One major howler was the crucifixion of a young Roman soldier by orders of Spartacus. Inclusion of that in the film would have ruined the ‘noble slave’ theme, no?

  • Pingback: Crd. Wuerl: Save the Middle-East Christians - BigPulpit.com

Just How Dumb Are Some Politicians?

Friday, August 1, AD 2014


This dumb:


During the floor debate over authorizing the lawsuit against Obama, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, suggested that Democrats had the moral high ground.

Even though some Democrats had thought that President George W. Bush had abused his authority when he initiated the Iraq War, the House, while under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, did not impeach him.

The current resolution to authorize a lawsuit, Jackson Lee said in a floor speech on July 30, 2014, “smacks against the Constitution, which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the executive has the right to perform his duties. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the president to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

A reader asked us to check whether it’s accurate for Jackson Lee to say, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” So we took a closer look.

Jackson Lee, it turns out, is an imperfect vehicle for making this charge. Here’s the problem: A dozen House Democrats in 2008 did introduce a resolution seeking the impeachment of Bush. And Jackson Lee was one of the measure’s 11 co-sponsors.

Go here to read the rest.  I might be too harsh of course to attribute this to stupidity.  It may simply be lying.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Just How Dumb Are Some Politicians?

  • “I might be too harsh of course to attribute this to stupidity. It may simply be lying” Memorable and quotable. May I?

  • The House of Representatives and state legislatures will never cease to amaze, entertain, and delight us all.

  • “The sensation [of intoxication] is so elusive that, while they admit it is injurious, they cannot after a time differentiate the true from the false.”
    The Doctor’s Opinion, Page xxvi, Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.
    I have long seen similarities between the intoxication of political fame and power, and the intoxication of alcohol.

  • Jackson-Lee has a reputation for being the boss from hell; she’s by all appearances a kook who would be run out of any job which had operational performance standards and/or serious supervision and management unless the personnel office and legal affairs told you to back off in fear of lawsuits (and no doubt she’s litigious as well). Capsule biographies of her have a nine year gap running from 1978 to 1987 and she admits to just two years as a lawyer in private practice (1975-77). She’s managed to keep a husband somehow. He has a law license but has spent most of his adult life in academic administration (a career arc you see again and again and again if you’ve worked proximate to such people). Here, there, and the next place there are these rancid little funk holes in the economy and the people in them are exempt from skill development and maintenance or from the ordinary penalties exacted on people with severe personality problems. The Obamas would be type A and Sheila Jackson-Lee, a bevy of academics who’ve made asses of themselves in recent years (Erik Loomis, Ward Churchill, Timothy Shortell) and a prominent Catholic blogger who shall not be named would be type B.

    Grimes is a lawyer and has no background in the military; you would not expect her to know much about military technology. Regrettably, the position she’s in tempts her to make utterances about things she does not know much about (which I suspect is a pretty general problem among elected officials).

  • Bless Ms. Sheila’s little heart!

    Ms. Jackson is proof positive that liberalism is a mental disorder. At one point in time she was trying to outlaw the operation of conservative nonprofits in her district. If we are talking about dumb and dumber categories–she wouldn’t fit in either–they would have to invent a “dumbest” category for her.

  • “Regrettably, the position she’s in tempts her to make utterances about things she does not know much about (which I suspect is a pretty general problem among elected officials).”

    Back in the late 1990s, we had a former US House member named Blanche Lincoln, also a Democrat, who decided she was going to stay out of politics and “raise her twins” who were toddlers (as soon as she found out she was going to be beat by her next rival if she ran again for Congress. A few months later she decided she would run for a newly opened US Senate seat in our state (her children must have grown up quicker than most–as it takes most folks 18 years to raise their children.) 😉

    I worked on the US Senate campaign of Mrs. Lincoln’s conservative Republican opponent–in his state capitol office. During the campaign, Mrs. Lincoln carried a notebook with her that was alphabetized by general political topics. Anytine she was asked a question, Mrs. Lincoln would thumb through her alpabetized notebook, find the relative subject in her notebook–and read whatever was written for her on that given subject, whether it answetedShe was so dumb that her aides whether it answered the actual question being asked or not, and then refuse to say another word. 5 different questions on the same topic got the exact same answe from her notebook. She refused to allow the public debates we forced her into to be televised so the general public could not see her reading from that stupid notebook. On the rare occasion when a news reporter catch Mrs. Lincoln by herself and start asking questions, one of Lincoln’s aides would rush over and whisk Mrs. Lincoln away. Blance Lincoln was in the US Senate for 2 terms until the TEA Party took her out in 2010. Because of the note book from which she read all of the time, she was forever after known as “Blank” Lincoln. It didn’t help anything when as a US Senator she was publicly unable to name the members of NATO during the debate of important issues related to a vote impacting our relationship with our NATO members. Once elected, Blank Lincoln didn’t have to think for herself as she only repoeated Democratic talking points and voted however the liberal, Senate Democratic leadership told her to vote.

  • “Blank Lincoln was in the US Senate for 2 terms until the TEA Party took her out in 2010.”

    That was one of the sweetest victories in 2010 Barbara!

  • It’s curious under those circumstances that she managed to remain in Congress for 16 years. Looking at capsule biographies, I see her occupations since 1982 have been (1) congressional aide; (2) lobbyist; (3) member of Congress; (4) lobbyist. She has remained in Washington since being voted out of office; he husband has a medical practice to maintain and he’s never actually lived in Arkansas. Come to think of it, since about 1981, neither has she.

    That’s a career path of the Barney Frank – Trent Lott variety. One assumes Mrs. Lincoln is a much nicer person than Barney Frank.

  • “I might be too harsh of course to attribute this to stupidity. It may simply be lying” Memorable and quotable. May I?

    Use it to devastating effect Mary!

  • There are no dumb politicians. There are only dumb people who choose among candidates, and if they choose badly, isn’t it the voters rather than the politicians who are dumb?

    Just kidding. Sheila Jackson Lee’s an idiot.

  • DRM said: That was one of the sweetest victories in 2010 Barbara!

    *tears* + <3

    Very much so for those of us who poured our blood sweat and tears into keeping her from ever getting to the US Senate to start with. We had a core group of 20-30s somethings in AR Senator Faye Boozman's (the conservative Republican who is the brother to the current US Senator John Boozman.) Dr. Faye Boozman, a military veteran who graduated first in his class as an Opthamologist, ran against Blank for that US Senate seat the first time Blank was elected US Senator. One of the editors of the state paper called us a bunch of "young idealists" because we had reflexive, visceral Attilla the Hunn tendencies when it came to big govt, taxes, abortion, and freedom. We were/still are true believers, and we LOVED Faye & his wife Vickie like they were our parents. The reason that I use the past tense is because Faye died a few years after that in a tragic farm accident. We traveled all over the state with him, attended fundraisers and meetings with the "big" dogs just to get someone with his character, capability, values, and intelligence into office. It was a real calling. When that opening for the US Senate seat came up in the 90s, Faye said that he kept praying & telling God to raise up a good candidate to oppose the liberal Democrats for that seat–and finally he realized that God was telling HIM to run! Lol. After losing, the US Senate race, Dr. Faye Boozman was appointed by then Gov. Mike Huckabee as the head of our AR Department of Health where Faye did a fantastic job until his death. As the head of the dept of health, the Boozeman name continued to be before the public statewide which helped set the stage for his brother John Boozman to win a US House seat and then dethrone Blank Lincoln from what she considered "her" US Senate. Glory hallelujah!

    Blank's dethroning absolutely would not have happened without the energy, funding, & spent shoe leather if the TEA Party in our state. When Faye ran against Blank in the 90s the AR Republican Party didn't have even a skeleton of a county committee in many counties or the SE region of our state.

    Now we are working furiously to see that liberal Democratic US Senator Mark Pryor becomes US Senator Mark Prior. 🙂

  • She’s about as dumb as they come. And I don’t care what color she is. She could be purple as far as that matters.

  • Many voters share those some of those same characteristics- not as bright as they think they are, and self serving.
    I think I and some of my friends are bright enough, but we have a tendency to take things at face value. Naive, really, about all the tricks that are pulled even when the same tricks are pulled over and over again. We just don’t really think folks would be that bad or that dishonest. Gosh, is our president just inept? he couldn’t really be doing this on purpose!
    We wait for another shoe to drop to convince us we really should react somehow. He has dropped a whole closet of shoes and we are still wondering if he means it.

  • AD said: “It’s curious under those circumstances that she managed to remain in Congress for 16 years. Looking at capsule biographies, I see her occupations since 1982 have been (1) congressional aide; (2) lobbyist; (3) member of Congress; (4) lobbyist. She has remained in Washington since being voted out of office; he husband has a medical practice to maintain and he’s never actually lived in Arkansas. Come to think of it, since about 1981, neither has she.”

    “That’s a career path of the Barney Frank – Trent Lott variety. One assumes Mrs. Lincoln is a much nicer person than Barney Frank.”

    During Blank’s 1st US Senate race, we did all we could to make a campaign issue of her having lived in VA for around close to 20 years as well as her having her tax returns sent to her VA address–showing that she was no longer truly an Arkansan–however it was to no avail. Blank would appear on TV with that friendly smile and her professional public relations’ prep and her real, slow Southern drawl–and all of those 100s of millions of dollars she had sent from Congress to the crop farmers in this state (with the promise of more cash to come) pointing out that she had “grown up” on an Arkansas farm– with a D after her name-in what was at that time a yellow dog Democrat state (with the exception of a few counties in the NW corner of the state-and kept getting elected until the TEA Party came on the scene and dethroned her.

    It is hard to describe to someone, who has not lived on a yellow dog, democrat machine state like Arkansas was until this last 2 election cycles, why Blank could stay in office so long.

    Blank’s every public move and word
    was choreographed by professional consultants. All contact with the public was strictly controlled. When the debate surrounding Osamacare (misspelled on purpose) was won the first go around–to be lost later when it was brought back up–her staff in her congressional offices quit answering the phone and left voice mail on for the constituents. When everyone else was having town hall meetings in their districts, Blanch refused to come home until finally it became a campaign issue for her. Some of the loudest screaming was coming from the TEA Party group in my home county. She finally scheduled one meeting with a bunch of politicians in my county so she could send out press releases making it sound like she had held a town hall meeting in our part of the state. The problem with Blank’s plan was that Fox 16 out of Little Rock had hired an intrepid young reporter and assigned her and a camera man to cover local community events in our county. This reporter came down to ask Blank some questions and was not allowed access to the a US Senator on her first visit to our county to my knowledge in years. At the same time our county TEA Party leaders, who had been trying to gain access to Blank for a year decided to go hold a protest with signs outside the building Blank was meeting in that day–as all public access was denied to the US Senator. So the intrepid reporter had a ready made story about the TEA Party and the press being denied access to a US Senator–took tons of beautiful video of the TEA Party members & their signs with an interview of the leader of the group and a full airing of their concerns re: Blank and her voting record. This intrepid reporter succeeded in splashing this story all across the state on a state wide news channel. Lol.

    I knew that Blank was a gonner when the AR Democratic Party chair for our county told me he was voting against Blank in the Democratic primary. She had come back one time a while later to the lower end of our county, again in an attempt to make a public relations splash for a supposed “town hall meeting.” My friend, who was the top Democratic elected official on the committee for our county (and who had gotten many Democrats from our county elected for years) was denied access to the “constituent” town hall meeting with Blank because only people who were on a pre-approved list were allowed in. The press was not allowed in either. There is no way I could over emphasize the fact that she behaved as if she were royalty and the contact with the great unwashed had to be strictly controlled at all times. I have NEVER seen any kind of impromptu pic or interview with that woman. Her political image was strictly a political consultant managed creation– like she was the queen of England. It was when her constituents started demanding that she actually provide representation as a legislator that she went down in flames.

    Even access to her congressional staffers was strictly controlled. I participated in a TEA Party protest against socialized medicine outside of Blank’s Little Rock office. We went to her office because her staffers were refusing to answer the phones in person. Again, we were ignored.

    Her husband is an obstetrician if I am not mistaken. I and an older woman, who was a Democratic county chair in one of the big crop farming counties had a public dust up re: Blank & her husband’s career and those twins. The Democratic county chair saw me walking around in a Faye Boozman For US Senate t-shirt campaigning at a public event and promptly confronted me about being a woman working against another woman. I asked her what was going to happen with her twins as US Senators and doctors work 12-16 hour days. The Democratic woman popped off that Blank would put her children in a good day care like the rest of us do. I told this woman that there was no way that Blank’s children would be placed in a day care like normal folk’s kids. I guess she didn’t want to discuss the elite lifestyle Blank lived in the Wash DC area because the Democrat disappeared in the crowd at that point.

    I don’t know how nice Blank is. I know she is a smooth, Teflon based, political operator without a independent thought in her head. She didnt get married until she was well up into her 30s, and there are all kinds of rumors about her wild sex life in DC before she married–however I have no first hand knowledge regarding those activities–thank God.

  • DRM said: “I was transferred to a gentleman on Lee’s staff…’Oh look it here, we have one of those right wing, tea-bagger nut jobs on the phone taking his cues from FOX News.'”

    “He then accused me of being un-American, raising his voice at me while asking me to calm down, and telling me that I am just on some mission to destroy our country. When I calmly asked for his name, he said ‘I don’t have to give it to you because I don’t want to show up on some right wing blog and be on your Twitter account.’ Keep in mind, I never said who I was – he just made assumptions and attacked me… When I reminded him that he gets paid by our tax dollars, he said ‘I doubt you even pay taxes and the IRS will find you soon enough,’ and hung up on me.”

    Uh, that Jackson staffer most likely knows exactly who called Ms. Shelia’s office–God help the poor constituent. Two of my friends are staffers in a US Congressional office here in Little Rock. They have constituent management software that allows them to pull up the name, address, all history of contacts of a given constituent with that office–including an electronic copy of all correspondence such as email, letters, donations, etc. They can reference such access to constituent history by phone number.

    Also, Jackson tried to outlaw the operations of TEA Party groups in her district as such groups were giving Jackson Hell about the time the federal bailout took place and the debate on Osamacare started.

  • “I might be too harsh of course to attribute this to stupidity. It may simply be lying” Memorable and quotable. May I?
    Use it to devastating effect Mary!
    Oh, I have, I have.

  • Barbara Gordon: “Ms. Jackson is proof positive that liberalism is a mental disorder.”
    Liberalism is a spiritual disorder as well. Having sold their soul to the devil, liberals like Ms. Jackson, cannot possibly represent human beings, persons who are composed of body and soul.
    Taxation without representation results when politicians refuse to acknoweldge his/her constituents complete with the constitutents’ immortal, human soul.

  • “She’s about as dumb as they come. And I don’t care what color she is. She could be purple as far as that matters.”

    Ms. Shelia cares deeply about her skin color and everyone else’s. She is one of the most openly rascist federal politicians I know of. Her rascist comments against “white” people are absolutely to the point of being downright shocking.



    Some more dumb quotes from Ms. Shelia:



  • Sheila Jackson-Lee managed to pass the bar exam (Virginia’s or DC’s, I believe) and prior to that trudge through Yale and the University of Virginia. Her general intelligence is adequate, though it may have been subject to a great deal of atrophy in the last 35 years. Her problems are emotional, behavioral, and characterological (which may have feedback in the sort of politics she espouses). How she has stayed married is beyond me, though it may help her husband’s peace of mind that he is in Houston and she is in Washington. There are two children, one of whom is apparently in charge of landscaping at the Houston Airport (having done similar work in Atlanta). What they make of their kooky mother is anyone’s guess.

  • Barbara Gordon correctly wrote:
    “Liberalism is a spiritual disorder as well. Having sold their soul to the devil, liberals like Ms. Jackson, cannot possibly represent human beings, persons who are composed of body and soul.”
    Pope Leo XIII would agree, having written in his encyclical Libertas (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html):
    15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
    16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.

  • “Sheila Jackson-Lee managed to pass the bar exam (Virginia’s or DC’s, I believe) and prior to that trudge through Yale and the University of Virginia. Her general intelligence is adequate, though it may have been subject to a great deal of atrophy in the last 35 years.”

    Here in AR one of our state university which caters to minorities predominately literally has disciplined professors and entire departments/programs for writing tests that minority students cannot pass. In the case of the Univ of AR at Pinebluff it was the nursing program a few years back. Also the Univ of AR law school had a large number of students fail the bar a few years back–again, the accepted explaination was that there HAD TO BE a problem with the professors’ instruction or the construction of the test. It was just too hot of a political potato to point out it might be a problem with the students’ skill level or their application of their efforts toward their academic subject matter. In a lot of instances, continual receipt of federal monies in educational programs are based on making sure that a certain number of minority races are accepted into and graduate fron a given program. My point is that just because Ms. Jackson has degrees doesn’t mean she actually achieved them.

  • Here in AR one of our state university which caters to minorities predominately literally has disciplined professors and entire departments/programs for writing tests that minority students cannot pass.

    Unless you think the board of law examiners in DC or Virginia gave her a different test than the other applicants received, I cannot see how this is relevant.

  • Cannot say what the situation was in 1975. As we speak, about 43% of applicants fail the Virginia bar exam on their first attempt and 54% fail the DC bar exam. I believe 30% pass the Virginia exam on subsequent attempts.

  • Excuse me, 20% pass the Virginia exam on subsequent attempts.

  • AD said: “Cannot say what the situation was in 1975. As we speak, about 43% of applicants fail the Virginia bar exam on their first attempt and 54% fail the DC bar exam. I believe 30% pass the Virginia exam on subsequent attempts.”

    Re: testing of minorities in the 70s & 80s in the US. US Law PL 94-142 (which eventually came into application as IDEA) and the modern application of Section 504 of the 1973 American’s with Disabilities Act (and their requisite reauthorizations) came about as a result of parents of primarily students with disabilities and minority students/students for whom English is a second language being labeled as having disabilities when they did not because of false low scores on IQ tests as a direct result of testing bias against minorities purposefully and accidentally written into tests–in the 70s and up to the current time this was/is a raging controversy and point of contention at all levels of education. This is related to what quadrants of the Bell curve minorities were falling into test results, etc. I have dealt with this issue as part of my profession for decades–and continue to deal with it. We regularly see test results, IQ being just one of many, that do not have valid results. Testing bias was a RAGING issue at all levels in the 1970s. The relevancy of my comment comes on because of how testing bias was dealt with historically and still is dealt with today. The federal courts have historically assumed that minorities, etc. have been given biased tests when a large number if minorities score low on them. Assumed and actual testing bias often dealt with by 1. Completely ignoring the outcome of a test all together. 2. Throwing out a certain number of low scores of an overall grade. 3. “curving” grades/scores so that a higher number of students pass–either overall or just for given subsets of students such as minorities. 4. Setting lower acceptable/passing scores for certain subsets of students such as minorities/those who speak Englush as a second language. 5. Te administering the test. 6. Read ministering a different test. 7. Throwing out certain items that a large number of people scored badly on 8. Etc.

    Regularly, when there are not a large number of people of certain minority groups doing well or graduating in a given program, the assumption is that there is institutional bias/active discrimination against that subset. Administrators of educational programs work desperately to make sure that Their programs meet mandated quotas of who completes their programs/passes their tests, etc. I have seen funding decreases or eliminated entirely over such issues.

    The brouhaha over the Univ of AR at Pinebluff nursing program due to high rates of failures and the AR law school were a result of assumed bias toward minorities–including African Americans and women. Ms. Shelia is both an African American and a woman.

    There are all kinds of ways to administer a test/program and come out with politically mandated outcomes in re: to race, etc. by manipulation of data and deeming the qualifications of a degree plan met through alternative means. I have seen it for decades now.

    There are a lot of people passing tests and graduating from given programs on paper–who never actually passed the tests nor met the actual graduation standards on paper.

  • AD said: “Cannot say what the situation was in 1975. As we speak, about 43% of applicants fail the Virginia bar exam on their first attempt and 54% fail the DC bar exam. I believe 30% pass the Virginia exam on subsequent attempts.”

    Continuing thoughts from my previous comments re: application of political correctness in higher Ed in order to move people through programs for which they are not qualified on paper:

    1. Testing bias is a real, legitamate problem as I have seen many false testing results good and bad.

    2. The concern re: bias so not so much the overall percentage pass on the first, second, etc. tries on a given test or who Graduate from a given university–the concern is does various subsets graduate or pass or complete various universities/exams, etc at least at the same percentage as is their makeup of the general population. For instance, if Martians were to make up 20% of the US population, then theoretically 20% of those passing the bar exam must be 20%+ or your entire school program risks sanctions/defunding–and there is likely to be a turn over of staff.

  • Pardon me for noticing—but until this report, I had not seen a recent picture of Ms. Shiela Jackson Lee:and so I do say, in contrast to the gauntness of Mr. Lincoln in 1864, she doth seem to have had some mighty fine fare these arduous years in Washington as she serves all of us, the people. Mighty, fine fare, indeed, and a full accounting a glimpse of her she doth give of it.

The One Thing the World Will Never Run Short Of

Wednesday, July 9, AD 2014


A lady once asked him how he came to define ‘pastern’, the knee of a horse: instead of making an elaborate defence, as might be expected, he at once answered, “Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance.”

James Boswell, Life of Johnson



Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist looks at the contemporary media and concludes that the main problem with it,is the arrogant ignorance that abounds among the younger members of the Fourth Estate:


The real problem is the arrogance that goes with the ignorance. Take Kate Zernike’s 2010 attempt at an expose of the ideas that motivate tea party activists that ran in the New York Times. She wrote:

But when it comes to ideology, it has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas. It has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers — in some cases elevating them to best-seller status — to form a kind of Tea Party canon.

Who are these obscure authors of long-dormant ideas? She points to Friedrich Hayek, for one. Yes, the same Hayek who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974 and died way, way back in … 1992. Whose Road To Serfdom was so obscure that it has never been out of print and was excerpted in Reader’s Digest, that obscure publication with only 17 million readers. The article doesn’t get around to actually providing any insight into these activists’ philosophy and it’s probably a good thing considering that this is what she has to say about “the rule of law”:

Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

Oh dear. Where to begin? How about with the fact that “rule of law” is not Hayek’s term. The concept goes back to, well, the beginning of Western Civilization and the term was popularized by a 19th century British jurist and constitutional theorist named A.V. Dicey. It’s not an unwritten code, by definition. The idea that this would be an obscure concept to someone says everything about Zernike and the team at the New York Times and precisely nothing about Ron Johnson or Hayek or that sector of citizens of the United States who retain support for the rule of law.

A few weeks ago, David Brat beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a stunning upset. The media didn’t handle it well. You might say they freaked out. Among other things, reporters sounded the alarm about a phrase Brat used in his writings that, they said, suggested he was a dangerous extremist: “The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military.” As National Review‘s Charles C.W. Cooke noted:

“Unusual” and “eye-opening” was the New York Daily News’s petty verdict. In the Wall Street Journal, Reid Epstein insinuated darkly that the claim cast Brat as a modern-day fascist. And, for his part, Politico’s Ben White suggested that the candidate’s remarks “on Neitzsche and the government monopoly on violence don’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Unusual, eye-opening, and non-sensical, perhaps, to people who had never studied what government is. But that group shouldn’t include political reporters, who could reasonably be expected to have passing familiarity with German sociologist Max Weber’s claim that “the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination. It has been successful in seeking to monopolize the legitimate use of physical force as a means of domination within a territory.”


Continue reading...

2 Responses to The One Thing the World Will Never Run Short Of

  • The “Rule of Law” is a very ancient idea. “The Greeks had a word for it,” Ίσονομία, Isonomia from the Greek ἴσος isos, “equal,” and νόμος nomos, “usage, custom, law,” is used by both Herodotus and Thucydides

    It finds expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, which requires that “Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law… It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes” which is pretty much the Greek notion.

    As for the proposition that “The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military,” on the Continent, universal suffrage and universal conscription were long seen as two sides of the same coin. Its proponents pointed out that, under the ancien régime, the same principle applied; it was the military aristocracy which had the principle voice in the making of the laws and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman.

  • The sorry surplus of resentful/wrathful and ignorant/unintelligent people among the lying media continues to increase.

Ignorance, Pure Ignorance

Thursday, March 13, AD 2014

Vatican II


Pastern: The knee of a horse. (This is wrong. When  Dr. Samuel Johnson was once asked how he came to make such a mistake, Boswell tells us he replied, “Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance.”)

One of the major problems over the past half century in the Church is almost complete ignorance about what was actually written at Vatican II.  Father Z gives us a grand example:

Someone sent me a PDF of a flyer from the Diocese of St. Petersburg in Florida promoting a series of talks on Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Hopefully the talks will be great.

The flyer, however, isn’t so great.   There are a series of statements which perpetuate goofy notions that have been circulated for a long time.  Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments:


  • Did you know that before the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy we did not always have Old and New Testament readings at Mass? (Chapter 2, #51) [This is a false statement.  There are Old Testament readings in Extraordinary Form. Furthermore, every Mass includes texts from the Psalms.  The Antiphon are mostly Old Testament.]
  • Did you know that reception of the Eucharist under both kinds for the people came into practice after the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? Before the document, people did not receive the Eucharist at every Mass and did not receive the blood of Christ at all. (Chapter 2, #55) [This is a misleading statement.  Frequent Communion was strongly promoted by St. Pope Pius X.  However, people still understood before the depredations that took place in the wake of and name of the Council that if you are not in the state of grace, you shouldn’t go to Communion.  Furthermore, this statement makes it seem that if people are not receiving the Precious Blood, they are somehow being deprived of receiving the Eucharist.]
  • Did you know that before the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Mass was only offered in Latin – not in the multiple languages allowed today? (Chapter 1, #36) [This is a manipulative statement that also hides the truth of what the Council commanded.  First, it is not entirely desirable that multiple languages be used, because the multiplication of languages has fractured our unity, both across borders and across centuries.  The illicit elimination of Latin also slammed the doors of our treasury of Sacred Music.  Moreover, the Fathers of the Council commanded that Latin be retained!  They allowed for some limited use of the vernacular on occasions.]
  • Did you know that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy reestablished the adult catechumenate? The RCIA process was developed to bring adults (and children age 7 and above) into the Church. (Chapter 3, #64) [This statement is much ado about nothing.  Adult converts and children above 7 were constantly being brought into the Church before the Council, and not in a one-sized mainstreams all method. Additionally, I can’t tell you how many people I have spoken to who wished they had had the opportunity of private instruction rather than the silly RCIA stuff they had to endure.]
  • Did you know that prior to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, people were not expected to actively participate in Mass by responding, praying, or singing – people were there just to “hear” the Mass? (Chapter 2, #48) [This is a falsehood.  Of course people were expected to participate actively at Mass, but actively in its most authentic sense of interiorly receptive activity. Furthermore, Popes throughout the 20th century urged people to make responses during Mass and clarified which parts they could participate in also with outward, vocal participation.]
  • Did you know that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy calls for conscious and active participation in Mass and affairs of the Church by all the faithful by reason of our baptism? It set in motion the ability for lay people, including women, who were previously not even allowed in the sanctuary, to be lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, [No!] altar servers, [altar girls were promoted contrary to the law] and hold leadership positions. (Chapter 2, #14) [This is incorrect. Before the Council began, during the Pontificate of Pius XII there was an important document on Sacred Music which promoted congregational singing and gave a clear, strong definition of “active participation”. Also, lay people cannot be “Eucharistic Ministers”.  They can be ministers of “Holy Communion”.  Only the ordained are truly Eucharistic Ministers.]

These statements are misleading. They reflect an attitude of, “Before the Council, bad. After the Council, good.” It is not uncommon among people of a certain age to find a view that the Church really began with Vatican II.  They want you simply to accept their premises (e.g., women being allowed into the sanctuary is a good thing).

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Ignorance, Pure Ignorance

  • I am just old enough to remember the days before Christus Dominus in 1953, when communicants were required to fast from midnight. Christus Dominus introduced a three-hour fast from solids and a one hour fast from beverages (other than water).

    At that time, intending communicants usually attended an early mass, of which there was at least one and, often, several. Communion was not normally distributed at masses after 10 o’clock.. The missa cantata or high mass was normally at 11 o’clock. However, the change was introduced by Christus Dominus, not Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    I recall the great reverence that the good sisters inculcated for the Eucharist. They taught us that that there is no difference between Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and Jesus Christ in heaven, except that here He is veiled, and there He is not. Accordingly, they insisted that there must be no other difference between the purity of those who receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and that of the blessed, than what exists between faith and the open vision of God. Many daily mass-goers only received weekly, or even monthly, after a period of several days’ preparation, self-examination and sacramental confession.

  • Donald,

    I couldn’t agree with you more. The hermeneutic of continuity calls all that propaganda about “pre-Vatican II Church bad/ post-Vatican II Church good” as rubbish. Just as it calls all that propaganda about “pre-Vatican II Church good/ post-Vatican II Church bad” as equally being rubbish

  • MP-S. I didn’t receive Holy Communion for the first time until 1956 But I remember fasting overnight as a young person ?

  • This does not surprise me about the Diocese of St. Petersburg. This flyer sounds like it came from the parish where my mother attends Mass.

  • Pingback: Contemplating the Savior of Science - BigPulpit.com
  • I didn’t know this!

    So in the old days, they had one form of communion, no awkward mass translations, no “contemporary” music, no “Catholic calisthenics” and half mumbled responses (half of which are the wrong translation out of habit), no “EM”s and no RCIA?

    Can we go back, please?

The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

Saturday, May 5, AD 2012

The above video is a salute to Rick Santorum, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for understanding the essential nature of the Crusades as a defensive reaction to Islamic aggression.  In the video below we have a rather mindless reaction to the same quote from a talking head from the liberal group Young Turks, who, judging from his comments, gained his knowledge of the Crusades from the laughably ahistorical crusader bashing flick Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

Ignorance of the depth displayed in the video above is always to be lamented, and is not unusual, as noted by Dr. Thomas Madden, one of the foremost of the scholars of the Crusades, who, over the past 40 years, have revolutionized our knowledge and understanding of that epoch:


The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren’t the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace? Weren’t they cynical imperialists seeking to carve out colonies for themselves in faraway lands with the blessings of the Catholic Church? A couch potato watching the BBC/A&E documentary on the crusades (hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame no less) would learn in roughly four hours of frivolous tsk-tsk-ing that the peaceful Muslim world actually learned to be warlike from the barbaric western crusaders. No wonder, then, that Pope John Paul II was excoriated for his refusal to apologize for the crusades in 1999. No wonder that a year ago Wheaton College in Illinois dropped their Crusader mascot of 70 years. No wonder that hundreds of Americans and Europeans recently marched across Europe and the Middle East begging forgiveness for the crusades from any Muslim or Jew who would listen. No wonder.

Jonah Goldberg, in his just released book Tyranny of Cliches, demonstrates that he is aware of the current scholarship on the Crusades:

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3   Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to different groups.”4

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual re­sponse to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

  • I just finished Goldberg’s book. Not quite as good as Liberal Fascism, but still very enlightening as he takes hammer to a bunch of trite cliches that rule our political discourse. The Crusades extract taken above is part of a larger chapter about the Catholic Church and the bone dry ignorance that persists in certain quarters about it.

  • All lies. All the time.

    You can detect when a liberal is lying: his lips are moving.

  • i, as may be noticed, tend to be naive– thinking if those other guys just really UNDERSTOOD, were really educated on the subject, they would change their behavior… like on the issue of Georgetown and Sebelius (isn’t there a great composer with that same name?)
    … if the Young Turks, and Shepard Smith (who has also made remarks about the Crusades on air) and those priests at Georgetown just really UNDERSTOOD I can’t imagine they would do what they do.
    but sadly I am forced to see that they do understand, and this is just what they choose. God gives us an Intellect and a Will and puts the choice before us. Those of the Other Side do have their Intellect engaged– and are making their choice.
    yes, the war of ideas precedes other wars on this plane… the efforts to discredit Santorum, to occupy wall street etc., all use useful idiots…. and it is important to educate them about the truth of history.. but our concern about the truth of the Crusades goes beyond judging them fair or foul– but joining them. The devil is NOT an idiot..

  • For them the truth is that which serves the cause.

    It is easy to exaggerate, distort, fabricate, omit aspects of major events that occurred 1,000 years ago.

    Lying about history serves the narrative and the agenda.

    Students are indoctrinated not educated. Taught what to think, not how to think.

    The narrative: Western European institutions, economics, men are essentially evil, in fact, the source of all evil. The agenda: it must be destroyed. America is the primary target.

  • Ah, the Crusades. Along with their slightly taller cousin the ‘Dark Ages,’ both seem to be the favorite historical trump card to be played, well, whenever.

    Fortunately, in some ways both have undergone a sort of rehabilitation within the academic world. Many of the more recent books I have read on the Crusades take a far more moderate approach- at the very least the chronological snobbery is held to a minimum.

    I thought The First Crusade: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam by Thomas Asbridge was a decent read- unlike many historical works, he is a good writer and crafts a stirring account. The Battle of Antioch chapter could actually be considered a page turner. Granted, the subtitle kind of gives away where it ultimately ends up, but his concluding thesis is more nuanced than the title (no doubt foisted upon it by the publisher) might lead one to believe.

    As far as the ‘Dark Ages,’ Barbarians to Angels by Peter Wells is a good read, dealing more with the archaeological evidence. I’ve also written briefly about it on my blog.

    One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. I’m not Catholic, (yet) but I am thankful for voices such as these, since so many authors are far more tempted to be lazy with the material and parrot the more popularized narratives, especially when it comes to Christian history.


  • “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    A high compliment indeed Jason, and we thank you for it!

  • I am always happy to see history put in the correct context. Cultural Marxism has corrupted our view. So many subscribe to the materialist fallacy of the long march of history, as if history is sentient and fatalistic. Removes responsibility of the individual I guess-somehow that must be ‘comforting’ to some.

    Ah, for the sake of accuracy, Rick Santorum is not technically a FORMER candidate, he is a current candidate with a suspended campaign. Same applies to Speaker Gingrich. Until delegates vote at convention, there is no nominee and Mitt is incapable of securing 1144 prior, less so to defeat Obama. If we get another four of him thanks to a weak liberal GOP candidate like Romney, then we may need to launch a Crusade because Catholics (at least if you are ‘one of THOSE Catholics) will face pogroms (perhaps not violent, but legal and psychological pogroms can be just as bad.)

  • American Knight,

    “Cultural Marxism” is excellent short-hand for it, but it really goes back long before Marx…and, in fact, a case might be made that Marx could only have written his theories because for a long time intellectual adherence to truth had been fading. Not to try and start a fight with anyone, but when our Protestant brothers and sisters set about justifying their break with Rome its not like they could rigidly adhere to truth, now could they? It became a necessity, as it were, to re-cast the past in a manner which justified the desires of the present. Do that for a few centuries and it becomes rather easy to do what has been done to the Crusades – simply make up a fairy tale about them and call it “history”.

    It is quite daunting when one thinks about it – how the heck can we get the truth to be widely accepted when a gigantic series of inter-locking lies have been deeply ingrained in our society? I don’t know how to do it – but I suspect that only a revival of Catholic militancy will ever do it.

  • Pingback: The Crusades and Historical Ignorance | The American Catholic | Catholic Canada
  • Right on Mark. I was attempting to cast it in light of an ‘acceptable’ villain (Marx, despite the current occupant of the WH), but Protestantism, although not today’s adherents, certainly is a significant contributor. We can lay blame at Machiavelli and Wesihupt, et al. as well. Of course the father of lies is the ultimate culprit. But I think you identified the most blameworthy human culprit: You and me. Yes, brothers & sisters, it is our fault for as Mark pointed out we are not behaving as the Church Militant. This, I suspect is the reason God is allowing the present and intensifying persecution of the Church and Obama’s attempt at setting up an anti-Church.

    On this ‘Mexican holiday’ perhaps we should recall the bitter history of our southern neighbor with the Church and get busy. Viva Cristo Rey!

  • The Enlightenment cast religion as the villain, didn’t it?

    Given three big cultural revolution type examples like that, I think we can put it down to the human love for obvious villains.

  • @ Jason: “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    Here! Here!

  • One thing that is frequently left out of the placing of the Crusades in it’s fitting historical context is the important fact that… these battles were fairly insignificant affairs. The numbers involved and the cities at issue were both small. The population density of that region was negligible, conditions were inhospitable, and resources for extended campaigning in short supply and difficult to impossible to replace. That the Crusades have any significance at all is entirely as a result of the cultural residue of the real estate it took place on. The Byzantines had been campaigning, often very successfully, against various iterations of Islamic challengers for hundreds of years. Christian vs. Muslim, but w/o the cultural cache.

    The Crusades happened not even 1000 years ago, and yet it is separated from our understanding by a gulf so deep and wide as to be impassable. I hold that historical research has done the best it can, given what is available, in attempting to make sense of near antiquity. Far off or deep antiquity might as well be another planet altogether. The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.

  • Lepanto is in the Holy Land?

  • “The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.”

    Actually our knowledge of the Crusades has been expanding rapidly in the past few decades. A good starting point is to read some of the numerous works of Dr. Riley-Smith.


    Here is a link to a First Things Article in which Riley-Smith explains what the Crusades were:


    The Crusades are not something that “can be just about anything you want it to be”, but rather historical events that we can know much about if we have the determination to make our way through the mountains of good scholarship available.

  • I’ve been told by folks who actually study the “dark ages” that anyone who talks about the “dark ages” and doesn’t qualify it should be looked at with a bit of suspicion…. they’re “dark” because of the lack of data, not because of some inherent characteristic.

    Which I am thankful for, since it gave me a big flashing WARNING sign when a friend from high school that’s into anthropology started going on about how horrible the middle ages were.

    Want something really funny? Watch Terry Jones’ series on “Medieval Lives.” The conflict between offending modern assumptions and being pissed at the Catholic Church is hilarious! (If you’ve got Netflix, I suggest a drinking game for “The Hidden History of Rome.” Every time you recognize a phrase from modern political arguments, take a half-shot of beer. I can’t suggest anything stronger because being drunk is sinful….

  • Pingback: Crusades SSPX Pornography Dan Savage Pope Benedict XVI | The Pulpit
  • Foxfier- excellent points.

    The perception of the ‘dark ages’ comes both from a lack of data and a residue of cultural snobbery (for lack of a better term) left over from the Renaissance. (which, in many respects, was not really much of a renaissance at all.)

    The interesting thing is that many of the writers/thinkers/whatever of the renaissance period shared similar perceptions towards the culture of the early Middle Ages as those whose writings from that era are still extant- namely, if the cultural or societal artifact under consideration didn’t have a decidedly ‘golden age of Rome’ quality, then it was somehow inferior. (I’m making broad strokes here, of course.)

    Never mind that none of the writers/thinkers/whatever from either period had ever experienced such a thing or that such a thing probably never existed. (sorry Gibbon…) Never mind that technological innovation (such as advances in agriculture that brought about the (probably) first time in human history where physical development wasn’t hampered by malnutrition) and cultural production and creativity flourished. If you’re not writing Ciceronian Latin or sculpting Phidian Amazons it’s simply barbaric, damn it! Your exquisitely ornamental fibulae just don’t have that Roman seriousness!

    As far as the lack of data- one of the problems of earlier studies of the ‘dark ages’ that led to its equivalence with ignorance, lawlessness and the like was that archaeological knowledge was scarcer than today, combined with a tendency to harbor a favorable prejudice towards literary evidence. Even in this respect there are different categories of literary evidence- those of a more narrative nature (like Gregory of Tours, Bede, etc.) are more scarce than evidence from land purchases and disbursements, legal proceedings, etc.

    Additionally, as with the Crusades, computers have been instrumental in recasting the way in which these events and periods are perceived, as they can correlate data more easily and systematically. For example, one common misconception about the Crusades is that many of the Crusaders went off to the Holy Land in hopes of striking it rich. No doubt some did, but on the whole the opposite is actually the case, as crusading was horribly expensive. Even the wealthy often had to sell off land or take loans against them to fund themselves and their entourage.

    Sigh. Now look what you’ve made me do. Apologies for the verbosity. 🙂

  • Apologies for the verbosity.

    In the words of my generation– dude! That ain’t verbose for the amount of actual information conveyed!

    Watch what I say for a notion of verbose minus data conveyed!

  • Thank you for the links.
    I am glad to see that you feel that after some 900 years we are finally getting some proper perspective on the matter! “Make haste slowly” if ever I saw. Please, don’t get me wrong. The prospect of making my way through a mountain of good scholarship wets my whistle. It is just a question for me of pay off. In weighing my time commitments (active practice of the Catholic faith already generates a lot of reading commitments) I’d much rather explore Cluny as an expression of the Catholic theoarchy, aka Christendom, than the relatively small potatoes of the Crusades, except in so far as it relates to the former. Acknowledgment: it is a significant relationship.

    Seeing as you take exception to my “can be whatever you what it to be” stance, what are the Crusades to you? A forgotten-at-best or abused-at-worst historical period that is only now getting the valiant defense it needs or a relishing at the prospect of smacking the anti-historical socialist/leftist/anarchists on the snout? If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    Eh? What’s that? You know I’m right? Yes you do.

  • If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    I wish I could put this better, but….

    Grow up.

    History isn’t about you, or anyone else.

    History is about what was.

    If you can’t accept that, it says something about YOU, not about then.

    We may not know this-and-that about some other time, but that doesn’t mean that it’s about us. “Then” is ALWAYS about then.

  • The bees fly in swarms, and do not begrudge each other the flowers. It is not so with us. We are not at unity. More eager about his own wrath than his own salvation, each aims his sting against his neighbor.

    St Basil the Great.

  • Good men and women must confront it or evil prevails.

    The issue is that jihadis, liberals, progressives, and other assorted evil persons distort history to support their vile agendae.

    In the case of the Crusades: OBL, et al use the lies to recruit mass murderers. Liberals use the lies support the memes that we deserve to be massacred and that all things Western Civilization must be destroyed.

    I studied the Crusades, particularly the military orders, for edification: try to understand the men and women, and the world views, of the age; and to understand how we got here.

    That was years before Lockerbie and the Beirut bombing. In the 1950’s, NYC Catholic parish schools taught fifth graders that the Crusades also served as an opening of exchanges on various levels of the West to the East . . .

  • Disco is a western sin in a class by itself. Maybe joined by polyester leisure suits.

  • We can never repent too much for those sins cmatt! 🙂

  • All this erudition makes my head hurt. However, I do wish people would check the spelling of their comments. Saying “wets” instead of “whets” completely changes the meaning of the sentence. By the way, the Battle of Lepanto was fought in a strait between the Bay of Corinth and the Ionian Sea. I apologize, but as my old aunt used to say “It’s the little things in life that make it beautiful.”

  • Are we talking all Crusades? What about the Fourth Crusade? (1201-1204). This group of Crusaders were supposed to go directly to Cairo, leaving Europe in June of 1202. They changed course from the Holy Land and took Constantinople on April 12, 1204. Pope Innocent III had issued a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states. The Crusaders were asked for help by members of the feuding Angelos Dynasty. In exchange the Crusaders were to receive land and money. After defeating Alexius V Angelos (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV Angelos, put in power by the Crusaders) they sacked the city desecrating the Most Holy Eucharist, profaning Hagia Sophia, pillaging churches and monasteries, violating nuns, killing priests, raping women and children, stealing countless ikons, relics and manuscripts.
    Bishops and priests were among the Crusaders, none were documented as trying to stop the destruction of the city.
    In mercy and Christian charity, please, please no one say that these sins were brought on by a Byzantine leader or because Latins considered the Byzantines schismatics and therefore somehow justified in this sacrilege. I have heard these pathetic excuses before.
    The Crusaders could recognize the image of our Lord or His all pure Mother in the ikons. The churches of the city were familiar enough to Western eyes to be recognized as churches. What else could be in the golden artophorions on the altars other than the Holy Gifts of the Eucharist? Could the Crusaders not recognize the image of the Lord in those they killed, raped or used as slaves? The defeat of Byzantium, already in great decline, was accelerated so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey of the Muslims. The Fourth Crusade resulted, in the end, in the victory of Islam, which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention of the Crusades.

  • The best work I have read on the Fourth Crusade is Donald Queller and Thomas Madden’s The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople:


    Pope Innocent III of course condemned this misuse of the Crusade. Byzantium was already well on its way to being a military nonfactor before the Latin Empire, created by the conquest of Constantinople, occupied Constantinople until 1261. The recreated Byzantine Empire then endured until 1453, courtesy largely of Turkish internecine conflict and support from the West, most notably the sea power of Venice and the other Italian city states with merchant empires in the east. The popes of course continually called for assistance to the Greeks and other Christians in the East throughout this period, calls which were increasingly ignored as the centuries rolled by.

    The sacking of Constantinople is considered a cause celebre to this day by the Greek Orthodox. I would have more sympathy for this attitude of perpetual high dudgeon if Byzantine armies hadn’t been besieging and sacking cities in the West, including Rome, for many centuries. Internecine strife among Christian polities was never a one way street, and the sack of Constantinpole is usually considered some sort of unique crime and that is simply not the case.

  • (Guest comment by Don’s wife Cathy:) It happened back in the 6th century, Fr. Philip, when Justinian was trying to reconquer Italy back from the Ostrogoths (through generals such as Belisarius and Narses). It’s the backdrop against which L. Sprague de Camp’s alternate history novel Lest Darkness Fall is set (and SF author Harry Turtledove has credited that book with getting him interested enough in Byzantine history to get a Ph.D. in it).

  • Hi Cathy! I have found nothing that states that Justinian or Belisarios sacked Rome. While the war against the Ostrogoths brought suffering to the people of Italy, I cannot find any historical information stating the Imperial forces during battles desecrated churches or violated monastics. I can’t find any reference regarding forces of the Empire of stealing ikons, manuscripts and sacred vessels. I do know that the Ostrogoths were Arians and that Justinian was concerned not only about his control of Italy but also the spread of heresy. War and slaughter are always counter to the mercy of God so Justinian’s way was not good, no question there. But war unfortunately seems to be part of human sinfulness. Still, I find no reference to the type of sinfulness shown by the forces of the Fourth Crusade to people, places and things consecrated to the Lord.
    Regarding alternative history novels, I have read many the works of L. Sprague de Camp, Harry Turtledove and S.M. Stirling. They are, as you said, “alternative history.” When Darkness Falls offers de Camp’s sympathetic view of the benevolence of the Ostrogoths, while that is fine it is not reality. Here is another alternate history option; if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?

  • “if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?”

    Probably not because the war with the Ostrogoths opened the door for the conquest of most of Italy by the Lombards who were also Arian. They were peacefully converted by the Church in the seventh century. Addditionally the Franks had already been converted to the True Faith under Clovis and were quickly becoming a secular mainstay of the Church in the West.

    Rome surrendered during the siege because the Byzantine army brutally sacked Naples in November 536 and the Romans rightfully feared similar treatment. Justinian of course fell into heresy during his reign and had absymal relations with the popes of his time.

  • I was responding to the mention of “alternative history” regarding the Ostrogothic Arianism and the Orthodoxy that Justinian promoted. Cathy mentioned alternative history in response to my earlier post. In the realm of alternative history the Lombards might have never gotten an ascendency. So much for alternative history!

    Objective history (see the only exception I can find below) seems to show that Justinian was a firm proponent of Orthodoxy; he condemned and worked to stamp out heresy during his rule. He made belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation part of the law of the Empire and he stated that the heterodox were to be deprived of due process of law. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was made the only creedal symbol of the Church in his reign and he gave legal force to the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. He called the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, condemning the teachings of Origen and affirming the definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. Justinian also took a very firm stance in his support of Orthodoxy; he fought different heresies throughout his rule. He built churches, including Hagia Sophia and showed a tender devotion for the Mother of God. He lived a moral and pious life.
    The only primary source I can find regarding an accusation of heresy against Justinian is in The Life of St. Eutychios of Constantinople. The hagiographical document accuses Justinian of subscribing to the asartodoketai/aphthartodocetist heresy which taught that the Incarnate Word could not suffer in the flesh. Evagrios the Historian states that Justinian issued a decree imposing this heresy on the Empire. No copy of this decree has been found, nor did any hierarch or Council other than St. Eutychios denounce Justinian for holding this heresy. That St. Eutychios and Justinian were at odds was obvious through other events. Justinian ordered St. Eutychios deposed; there is no mention in primary documents as to why this was done. An accusation of heresy by a hierarch was a good way to denounce an Imperial opponent. Deposition from an episcopal throne by a ruler was a good way to remove an annoying hierarch.
    Justinian and the bishops of Rome did have many serious disputes, though none of the popes ever accused him of heresy.

  • Justinian towards the end of his reign adopted a policy of conciliation towards the Monophysites. Towards the end of his life he adopted aphthartodocetism which is simply Monphysitism under another name. Many Greek Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but as this passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire indicates, I believe the historical record is clear on this point:

    “The Three Chapters was not the last theological enterprise of Justinian. In the last years of his life he adopted the dogma of aphthartodocetism, which had been propagated, as we have seen, by Julian of Halicarnassus, and had sown strife among the Monophysites of Egypt. This change of opinion is generally considered an aberration due to senility; but when we find a learned modern theologian asserting that the aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation,we may hesitate to take Justinian’s conversion to it as a sign that his intellectual power had been enfeebled by old age. The Imperial edict in which he dictated the dogma has not been preserved. The Patriarch Eutychius firmly refused to accept it, and the Emperor, not forgetting his success in breaking the will of Vigilius, caused him to be arrested (January 22, A.D. 565). He was first sent to the Island of the Prince and then banished to a monastery at Amasea. The other Patriarchs were unanimous in rejecting the Imperial dogma. Anastasius of Antioch and his bishops addressed to the Emperor a reasoned protest against the edict. Their bold remonstrances enraged Justinian, and he was preparing to deal with them, as he had dealt with Eutychius, when his death relieved the Church from the prospect of a new persecution.”

  • Donald, I know of the recent scholarship that states that Justinian was a heretic. However, there is no statement by the Church that he was. Analysis of writings and documents of Church documents contemporary to the subject do not support the premise that Justinian fell into heresy. The supposed decree ordering the Empire to accept Monophytism either did not exist or cannot be found.

    You state that the Orthodox dispute that Justinian was a heretic and this is true. Does the fact that many Orthodox writers believe Justinian was Orthodox make it untrue? Is this debate about Latin claims versus Orthodox claims?

    You states that many, “Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but a passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire…” proves your point.

    Here is the “other side.”

    Father Asterios Gerostergios (yes, he is one of those Orthodox folks) in his book Justinian the Great, refutes the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism. The depositions of both Eutychius and Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch cannot be proven to be related to their opposition to the supposed edict.

    “That they were deposed because of their refusal to accept the edict we do not believe to be true because of the following reasons:
    1. The bishop of Northern Africa, Victor, an enemy of the Emperor, mentions the deposition of Eutychius in his Chronicle, but does not give any reasons for the deposition. If he really knew anything about a new edict, and if, further, he knew of Justinian’s acceptance of the aphthartodocetistic heresy, not only would he certainly have mentioned it, but he would also have emphasized the event, in order to defame Justinian’s exiling and imprisoning him.
    2. If Eutychius had been deposed for this reason, his successor, John the Scholastic, would have had to accept such a decree. We have absolutely no information concerning his acceptance of the edict, nor any testimony that he accepted aphthartodocetism. On the contrary, Pope [Saint] Gregory the Great, who was then the papal representative in Constantinople, praises the new patriarch, John, for his holiness and Orthodoxy.
    3. The same Pope Gregory praises Justinian for his Orthodoxy and he makes no mention of the edict. He says that Patriarch Eutychius was an Origenist. For this reason, W. H. Hutton and A. Knecht have stated: this was the cause for Eutychius’ deposition.
    4. When Patriarch Eutychius returned to the throne of Constantinople in 577, he did not mention the reasons for his dethronement.
    5. Bishop John of Ephesus, contrary to Evagrius, makes no mention of what transpired in Antioch concerning the deposition of Anastasius. … For all the above reasons, we can only conclude that Justinian never issued or planned to issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism. Such an act would have been in antithesis to his whole previous theological work, and it is clear that it would not have helped the overall purpose of unification. Moreover, such a complete change at such an advanced age, we believe to be a totally unnatural thing. With regard to the deposition of the two mentioned Patriarchs, we believe that it was not related to such an edict, because there is no basis for such a conclusion from the contemporary sources. We are of the opinion that their deposition was due to other reasons, probably to their failure to obey the old Emperor.”

    The sad claim that “…aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation…” by Bury does not stand up to the reality of the Orthodox view of salvation. Aphthartodocetic heresy is found nowhere in the writings of the Eastern Fathers, later writers, canonical writings, the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy or the lives of the saints. Bury shows his ignorance of Orthodox soteriology and faith. I know of no contemporary Roman Catholic theologian who would hold this view, including the current Pope Benedict. His writings only show admiration for Orthodox soteriology.

Tavis Smiley: More Examples of Christians Than Muslims Blowing People Up in America

Saturday, May 29, AD 2010

Tavis Smiley claims that terrorist activities by Christians happens quite often in the United States.  Not only does he make the claim that Christians do terrorism, but there are more terrorist acts done by Christians than by Muslims.

Mr. Smiley expressed these thoughts on a program hosted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

Here are his exact words:

“Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is – I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians – and I happen to be a Christian. That’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”


Continue reading...

36 Responses to Tavis Smiley: More Examples of Christians Than Muslims Blowing People Up in America

  • The Columbine shooters were Christians, were they? Is that why they killed Cassie Bernall for saying she believed in God?

  • Blackadder is correct: the Columbine killers were militantly anti-Christian. Of course this whole thing is ridiculous to begin with, even without those details.

  • Maybe.

    The 9/11 terrorists reportedly slummed with prostitutes. Maybe virtuous and religious Muslims would disown them.

    The Columbine shooters were probably baptized. Barring any formal apostasy, they would be considered Christian.

    I think we can more safely say that extremists commit extreme acts of violence. Some of these extremists have religion as a philosophical substrate in their lives. And some of that subset are Christians.

    Are there more baptized Christians committing terrorism than Muslims? I don’t know this is a helpful question: Whose extremists are worse? The orthodox Christian keep watch over his or her own personal conduct, prays for and attends to victims of violence, and is careful not to cause vexation to others. The question of whose bad guys are worse is comic book fare: Whose archenemies are the baddest, Batman or Superman?

  • Obviously, TS is referring to the muslim film makers that were stabbed to death for insulting St. John the Baptist; and the al Jazeera reporter that was beheaded while “covering” the 1993 Waco government massacre of innocent women and children.

    At least, he didn’t make the accusation that 9/11 was an inside job or that “they” deserved to get murdered by muzzy mass murderers.

    Thank God for small mercies.

    In conclusion, that guy looks and sounds like the incompetent, felonious poseur currently “slumming it” in the White House. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  • He forgot to mention how Christians stone women to death for so much as looking at a man.

    Oh, and how Christian “religious police” go about throwing acid into the faces of scantily clad women.

    And the Christian “modesty police” that arrest girls and women off of the streets and shred their clothing before forcing them into burkas.

    Not to mention the multitude of Christians that carve the genitals off of their young girls with razor blades.

    And what about all of the Christians attacking mosques and slaughtering Muslims while they are at prayer?

    He left out a lot.

  • Don’t forget, Coffee Catholic, how Christians behead or hang homosexuals.

    Teach us, Tavis Smiley!

  • The trul sad thing is that some people that listen to this tripe will bring in up in the future as gospel..so much for “public broadcasting” .and this self admitted “Christain ” i am suprised he did not mention the Crusades.

  • Wrong again, Todd. The examples of baptized Christians commiting atrocities for motivations that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs (assuming they even have any) cannot be compared to practicing Muslims who are motivated to commit atrocities precisely because of their religious beliefs. But of course you’re smart enough to know that already, but just can’t resist making your typically lame point.

  • He was speaking of acts inside this country. Given that our country is roughly 5% Muslim and 65-70% Christian, his statement shouldn’t be shocking. It is little different than saying there are more white people on welfare than black people on welfare. While I prefer a narrower definition of terrorism – for example, I don’t consider the incident at Fort Hood to be terrorism – there is little doubt that postal shootings and what not would be considered terrorism under many people’s definition of it, particularly when they don’t confine terrorism to being what Muslim’s do. But like the welfare example, this isn’t all that significant. There is gross poverty in the black community and the fact that there are more white people on welfare doesn’t change that. Likewise, the likelihood that more Christians have committed terrorist acts in this country doesn’t change the fact that there is a real and substantive movement that actively seeks to terrorize Americans under the banner of Islam.

  • Extremist Christians and Muslims have different targets in the US. The former targets the government, and the latter both the government and civilians. Christian extremists as we saw at Waco, Oklahoma City, and Jonestown have no problem morally with involving large numbers of innocents in violence.

    It may be easier for Christians to disavow such acts since Christianity hasn’t had a full-scale civil war since the 17th century. But as we saw in 1204, even Catholic-sponsored missions were not above going all Galatian on other Christians.

    Muslims are by far the greatest targets of their own violent extremists. I can appreciate that most Muslims want to avoid antagonism that might have deadly results. And we see from the Catholic internet that few are scorned as deeply and insultingly as pro-lifers who appear to deviate from the straight and narrow.

    Are Muslim extremists a greater threat to conservative white Americans than Christians? Sure they are. Who’s more likely to die at the hands of a Muslim extremist? Another Muslim, hands down.

    Again, I don’t think the AC line of reasoning here is helpful, either to us as Christians or Americans.

  • M.Z.,

    I agree about that definition.

    I see more Christians staring angrily and that terrorizes many of us that are innocent against these type of transgressions.

  • “Christian extremists as we saw at Waco, Oklahoma City, and Jonestown have no problem morally with involving large numbers of innocents in violence.”

    Vernon Wayne Howell, aka David Koresh head of his sect of the Branch Davidians, taught that he was Christ. Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma City bomber was an agnostic. Jim Jones, who started out as a card carrying member of the Communist Party, derided Christianity and taught that he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Buddah, Lenin and Father Divine. By 1978 he was a self-proclaimed atheist.
    Calling any of these fruit loops Christian is rubbish.

  • “Calling any of these fruit loops Christian is rubbish.”

    Well, sure. Christians would say that. If you cornered a Muslim imam and asked him about porn-watching murderers, he might disown, too.

  • Self-hating liberals and Smiley can have their opinions (Plato: Opinion is not truth.).

    They cannot make up facts.

    Waco was federal violence against an armed sect that had not committed terrorism. Did the fed police preclude Branch Davdian terror by massacring them? How does federal police killing 83 citizens compare with OBL planning and committing mass murders to punish America for having troops in Saudi, supporting Israel, etc.?

    Yeah, OK City bombing was a perverted attempt by a couple persons to get obscene revenge for the Waco massacre of women and children. How is that Christian? The Q’ran and Hadith are full of exhortations to conquest, mass murder, and terror. The history of Mohammedanism a lengthy catalog of invasions, conquests and massacres. Try reading it.

    Jonestown was a suicide – violence against self – en masse. How does that compare with muslim murder bombers?

    Put away the bongs and read.

  • The Q’ran and Hadith are full of exhortations to conquest, mass murder, and terror. The history of Mohammedanism a lengthy catalog of invasions, conquests and massacres. Try reading it.

    T. Shaw, it’s much easier to pretend that Muslim violence is in fact a perversion of true Islam, that way one absolves oneself of any untoward un-pc feelings. Sadly, the opposite is the case, as a majority of Islamic scholars and practitioners either embrace violence or agree with the end goal of terrorism: the imposition of sharia law. To even imply that there is a corresponding tenet within Christianity is engage in willful ignorance.

  • It’s sad to see intelligence used in the service of stupidity.

    The Columbine killers weren’t Christians. In fact they killed a girl because she said she believed in God.

    Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic.

    The People’s Temple folks started out as Christians, but by the time of Jonestown had long since explicitly rejected Christianity.

    The only group Todd mentions that even claimed to be Christian was the Branch Davidians, and whatever you think of them, they didn’t actually engage in any terrorist acts, but were killed when the government raided their facilities. And, of course, while the Waco Davidians considered themselves Christians, no one else did (whereas most everyone considers Atta a Muslim).

    It is ironic that in an attempt to show some kind of parity between Christians and Muslims when it comes to terrorism, Todd keeps picking examples of people who were not Christians.

  • Again, I don’t think the AC line of reasoning here is helpful, either to us as Christians or Americans.

    When is it ever? And why call it “reasoning”?

  • If one wants to cite terrorist/militant groups that are Christian, and in some sense point to Christianity as part of their cause, you pretty much have to go abroad. One could cite, with varying degrees of legitimacy, the IRA, the Orange militias, some Lebanese Christian groups back around the time of their civil war, and some Croatian extremists back in the 90s (and 40s).

    Now really, these were more nationalist militant groups of groups which identify as some form of Christian — more like the PLO than like Al Qaeda. Whether these should “count” is probably open to question. What this boils down to, however, is a basic difference which for some reason people are very hesitant to admit: Islam is, in it’s origins, explicitly militant, while Christianity is explicitly not. This is a basic theological difference between their founders and their sacred writings which no degree of equivalency will get beyond. The fact need not necessarily upset Muslims. If their religion is true, and ours is false, then it is not a defect that it has from its very founding lived, in part, by the sword. If Muhammad’s revelation is true, then this is how God wanted it to be, and there is no reason to be ashamed of it.

    None of this, however, really help’s Smiley’s claim which Todd is trying to back up, which is that there is significantly more terrorism in the name of Christianity in the US than there is in the name of Islam.

  • Have any of you considered that perhaps your take on Smiley’s claim is colored (perhaps even warped) by your own assumed definition (or lack thereof) of “terrorism”?

    Islamic terrorism is largely a response to Christian terrorism, I’m afraid.

    If one wants to cite terrorist/militant groups that are Christian, and in some sense point to Christianity as part of their cause, you pretty much have to go abroad. One could cite, with varying degrees of legitimacy, the IRA, the Orange militias, some Lebanese Christian groups back around the time of their civil war, and some Croatian extremists back in the 90s (and 40s).

    What this has to do with it, considering we’re talking about a transnational, i.e. “catholic,” church, I have no idea.

    Islam is, in it’s origins, explicitly militant, while Christianity is explicitly not.

    It sure is interesting how Christian origins are discussed in different contexts. If you people were talking to a Christian pacifist, you would argue that Christian origins have little to do with nonviolence, and that Jesus in fact used and perhaps even encouraged violence. When comparing Christianity to “Islam,” suddenly you’re interested in invoking the peaceableness of Christian origins.

    You are hypocrites, I’m afraid. The textbook definition of.

  • Timmy,

    If you people were talking to a Christian pacifist, you would argue that Christian origins have little to do with nonviolence, and that Jesus in fact used and perhaps even encouraged violence.

    Let me see if I have this right: you’ve just attempted to refute me by saying what I would argue in a hypothetical, then followed up by charging me with being a hypocrite for having committed those hypothetical actions you have imagined.

    Got it…

    But since you ask the question, you’re making an implicit assumption that there are only two possible positions: pacifist non-violence and the use of holy war to spread the faith.

    I would disagree with the pacifist claim that early Christianity taught that violence was never acceptable under any circumstances, that a soldier cannot be a Christian, etc. However, when I talked about Islam being “militant” in its origins I meant not “accepting soldiering as morally acceptable in protecting the civic order” (which is a uniquely pacifist use of the term) but rather “using military force and an explicitly expansionist fashion to spread the faith and political control at the same time”. The Caliphate was a direct and clear continuation of the way that Muhammad himself led the faith, with political authority and the sword in hand. Christ, on the other hand, taught that his kingdom was not of this world, and even with the Caesaro-papism of the East, beginning under Constantine, there was always a clear division understood between secular and religious authority, with clerics forbidden to bear the sword because they were consecrated to a higher task.

    There is a very real distinction here, for those willing to understand the history involved rather than insisting on a neat dualism between “non-violence” and “militarism”.

  • Timmy do you also believe the Nazi “final solution” was a response to Jewish terrorism?

  • Islamic terrorism is largely a response to Christian terrorism, I’m afraid.


    How is this ‘largely a response to Christian terrorism’?

  • “Islamic terrorism is largely a response to Christian terrorism, I’m afraid.”

    There is this quaint concept called backing up assertions with evidence. You might try it some time.

  • Isn’t the Tavis Smiley show publically funded? Why are my taxes paying this bum for spewing his rotten bile?

    Especially on Memorial day weekend.

  • At least, Bush could have esatblished an Ombudsman to stop the 24/7 PBS lies.

    Here (and among somme commenters) we have examples of the damage done to young minds by PBS broadcasts of nonfacts and public school/PC university anti-Christian indoctrination.

    Since 1775, approximately a million gave their lives for their country. Was it in vain?

  • There is this quaint concept called backing up assertions with evidence. You might try it some time.

    You might ask that of your buddies here who make assertions about Muslims without evidence, jerk.

    Donald I checked out some of your other posts. You are a textbook fascist.

  • Timmy, you are a textbook troll, and you are banned from this blog. Go to other venues where shrill invective is considered to be an adequate substitute for evidence and reasoned debate. You have nothing to offer but insult and hate.

  • Fascinatingly enough, “Timmy’s” IP address originates in the same West Virginia town as another commenter who was recently banned for consistent rudeness and aggression.

    Though I note he’s done his best to sound like a newcomer with lines like “Donald I checked out some of your other posts. You are a textbook fascist.”

  • Timmy,

    There’s no need for name calling.

    I completely back up everything that all the posters here at TAC say, especially Donald’s last comment.

  • “Fascinatingly enough, “Timmy’s” IP address originates in the same West Virginia town as another commenter who was recently banned for consistent rudeness and aggression.”

    I am shocked! Shocked!

  • My understanding is Jonestown was a suicide that only killed the participants, Waco was an act of violence by the government against the participants (again, only killing the participants) and that OKC counts as a terrorist act, but had nothing to do with Christianity. Three stikes. (And Columbine had nothing to do with Christianity, but deranged teen outsiders who were mentally unstable – in fact, it was more an act of violence against Christians – so make that four strikes, one extra for good measure).

  • My understanding is Jonestown was a suicide that only killed the participants…

    Wrong. They also killed Congressman Leo Ryan and four others at the airstrip.

  • One of the Columbine kids thought he was God; now unelss that kid happened to be Jesus Christ, he is not a Christian.

  • I just rewatched the video, and you know what, I didn’t realize that acts of Christian terrorism occurr “every day.” “Every day” acording to the ironically serious Tavis Smiley.
    I wonder if Mr. Smiles is familiar with Goebel’s Big Lie Theory, because he would be very proud.
    [No I am not calling Tavis a Nazi; I simply comparing his lies about Christian terrorists daily attacking the US, comparable to what Goebel’s said about the Czesolovakians treatment of the German speaking people in the Sudetanland. Come on; stop being outraged it’s totally comparable.]

  • Well one of the Columbine killers was a lapsed Jew. But you don’t hear libs calling them Jewish terrorists right?

    I’m sure this bit of information will be tucked away for a straw man argument by our intellectual superiors one day.

  • Pop quiz: What’s the first word that comes to mind after “suicide bomber” and/or “terrorist”?

    I rest my case, your honor.

Coakley: Faithful Catholics Shouldn't Work In Emergency Rooms

Friday, January 15, AD 2010

“Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

A charming sentiment from Martha Coakley running for the Senate seat in Massachusetts.  For this gem, I award Ms. Coakley the second American Catholic Know-Nothing Award.  If I were living in Massachusetts, I would be out next Tuesday to cast my vote against this bigot.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Coakley: Faithful Catholics Shouldn't Work In Emergency Rooms

  • If I were living in Massachusetts, I would be out next Tuesday to cast my vote against this bigot.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, Don. Massachusetts is like some inverted parallel universe where right is wrong and wrong is right – stupid is wise and wise is stupid. There’s no other way you can explain the electoral history. Ted Kennedy was a living saint in MA while in the real world he was a scoundrel. And lets not mention the legacy of Barney Frank too!

  • I assume Ms. Coakley was referring to situations in which devout, pro-life Catholics would be working in emergency rooms where they might be called upon to administer emergency contraception to rape victims.

    For her to say who should or should not be permitted to work under those conditions is, of course, the height of arrogance. This combined with her other recent statements and actions also makes me wish I could vote against her on Tuesday. (We Illinois residents, however, will have to settle for voting against Mark Kirk, the pro-abort RINO running for Obama’s old Senate seat, in the Feb. 2 primary… but I digress) I am definitely rooting for her opponent!

    However, allow me to play devil’s advocate here and suggest there MAY be a grain of truth in what Ms. Coakley said — what devout Catholic today would WANT to accept a job where they KNOW they are likely to be asked to do things that are against their conscience?

    If I were interested in pharmacy or medicine I would have to think very, very long and hard about taking a job in a retail pharmacy, an acute care hospital, a student health center on a secular college campus, or any environment where I knew contraceptives or abortafacients would be distributed. That would make about as much sense as, say, a Jew signing up to work in a meat packing plant that processes pork, or a Muslim applying for a job in a restaurant that also requires them to tend bar occasionally or regularly.

    It’s one thing if a pro-life Catholic who went into the pharmacy or medical field years ago and was never confronted with this issue before is suddenly confronted with it and forced to choose between his/her job and his conscience when the employer could easily have found someone else to do the objectionable task. And I presume there are still plenty of other doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. available in just about any hospital to take over morally objectionable tasks like administering emergency contraception so it’s not as if the entire operation of the hospital, etc. will come to a screeching halt.

    However, it seems to me to be a bit disengenuous to apply for and accept a job and then say “Oh, by the way, I’m not going to perform this part of my job.” If the employer does find a way to excuse you from performing the objectionable part of your job, that’s good and they should be allowed to do so; but ultimately, should they (employers) be FORCED to do so?

    I realize that what I’m suggesting means that pro-life Catholics may find their employment prospects in pharmacy or medical fields pretty limited and perhaps eventually nonexistent, which is regrettable. It would be much better, of course, if medical employers didn’t make these kind of demands, but as long as they do so, maybe faithful Catholics really should think twice about working in emergency rooms.

  • Elaine, I couldn’t disagree more, the First Amendment doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except for Catholics”.

    I understand what you are saying as a matter of prudence, but exceptions for religious reasons are made every day for a myriad of beliefs (i.e. wearing head scarfs etc). If Catholics capitulate on conscience issues then the secular society will see that as a sign of weakness and run roughshod over them.

    What Catholics DO need however is a truly Catholic Health care system that practices what it preaches – something that has and remains harder and harder to find as Catholic hospitals sell their souls to secular society in mergers & acquisitions. Fortunately God is raising up leaders in this area like:

    The Tepeyac Family Center

    Divine Mercy Pharmacy

    Maybe such efforts like this should be the focus of the USCCB instead of funding groups like ACORN and issuing “Catholic Climate Covenants”

  • JB: The establishment clause has nothing to do with any issue related to abortion, since the evil of abortion falls not under the category of revealed precept but natural law. According even to Catholic teaching, a Catholic wouldn’t have to bring religion into the equation to refuse distributing the morning after pill.

  • Rick,

    I wouldn’t be so sure, Don. Massachusetts is like some inverted parallel universe where right is wrong and wrong is right – stupid is wise and wise is stupid

    Very succinct!

  • Meet the new junior senator from Massachusetts!

  • I don’t know about that one, Zach. Every article and op-ed I’ve read today sounds like “doom-and-gloom” for Coakley, including among the liberal Left. They sound as if their daggers are out for her and that they’ve all but given up on her potential to win–there isn’t a bus big enough for her to be thrown under, from the way they are reading the tea leaves. We can only hope Brown pulls the upset and puts the nail in the coffin of the atrocious HCR bills now being constructed behind closed doors!

A Stumbling Block to School Administrators

Tuesday, December 15, AD 2009

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  As someone who received an undergraduate degree in the teaching of social studies, I am never very surprised when a school administration decides to engage in an act of public stupidity, however, this incident is in a class all by itself.

A second grade student at the Maxham Elementary School in Taunton, People’s Republic of Massachusetts, was sent home from school after drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross.  The student made the drawing in response to a class assignment that the students draw something that reminded them of Christmas.  Apparently the student’s dullard teacher decided that the drawing of the cross was too violent.  The school administration, in a move which hearkens back to the old Soviet Union placing dissidents in psych wards, decreed that not only would the child be sent home, but that he would have to undergo a psych evaluation.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to A Stumbling Block to School Administrators

  • That’s “The Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts.” Otherwise known as “the Pay State.”

  • Well it’s kind of a happy ending.

    He still had to get a psychiatric evaluation and be approved that he was “sane”.

    He did just that and “passed”.

    He then was so traumatized by the entire incident he didn’t want to return to the same school so the father is petitioning (I think he got approval) for his son to transfer.

    This is very scary. For a school administrator to cater to hate-mongering of an innocent depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion makes my blood boil.

  • I would NEVER take my child to a psychologist over this, but I learned my lesson the hard way. When my son (who was then seven) was having trouble in class, the school wouldn’t do anything until we had a complete evaluation to make sure he didn’t have psychological or emotional problems. My husband and I went for OUR evaluation with the school psychologist (“case history” stuff before he was scheduled for a trip) and were so unimpressed with her that we cancelled his eval and went to our pediatrician instead. Our son didn’t even know anything was going on. Then, when things got really ridiculous (I was observing in the classroom and the teacher was incompetent) I threatened to take him out of school and he was moved immediately. His problems were solved. I learned then not to do ANYTHING the school said (not the lesson they intended to teach) but instead to insist on my child’s rights under the law. And they wonder why parents are antagonistic! Could an 8-year-old be traumatized over this incident? You bet, depending on the kid and on how it was handled. The parents should have had a nice, calm, conversation with the principal and the teacher. And then if that didn’t work, they should simply have said that he would be back in class the next day or the school would hear from their lawyer the next day.

    All schools freak out over violence. When my son was eight he used to draw soldiers, bloody knives, spaceships shooting each other, etc. on his papers. The teachers told us that was “unacceptable” and so just told him that the school was silly about things like that, so he would have to draw those things at home. Don’t ALL little boys draw that stuff? Likewise, same year, he got a discipline point for reading an “inappropriate” book in class. When I asked the teacher what it was, she said it was a book about the Battle of Gettysburg and it had photographs of dead soldiers in it. I told her that he got it from the SCHOOL LIBRARY, so she took the discipline point away — but he still couldn’t read the book in class.

    They are all terrified of boys becoming violent. My kids are now in Catholic school, but they can’t bring in toy guns — even neon-colored plastic squirt guns — for skits and things.

  • It seems like there are plenty of news stories everyday of the public schools doing something not terribly intelligent….

    This has especially been on my mind with kids right around the corner. What a faddish wastebasket of wishful thinking many schools are…..read about the Kansas City case (and New Jersey, for that matter, following the court cases of the 80s) for example.

    What folly!

    What is needed is not more money but better moral foundations.

  • This is the logical result of all those “zero tolerance” anti-violence, anti-sexual harassment, and drug abuse policies that became so popular after Columbine.

    Zero tolerance policies forbidding absolutely ANY word, image, object or action that even hints at violence allow school administrators to APPEAR to be doing something about youth violence, without the bother of actually having to get to know students personally, judge each case individually, or risk being accused of racism or discrimination if the child/youth involved happens to be of a protected minority group.

    The result is that little kids get busted for drawing crucifixes, kissing girl classmates on Valentine’s Day, etc. while outside (or even inside), gang violence, suicide, drug abuse, etc. continue unabated.

    The main reason schools are “terrified of boys becoming violent” is because so many of them HAVE NO FATHERS and therefore no idea how to be real men, except by being the kind of macho jerks they see on TV or in movies.

  • Zero tolerance usually means zero brains. It allows administrators to mindlessly follow policy rather than to make real decisions, which of course is what they are supposed to be doing. True profiles in uselessness.

    I agree that public schools usually have no clue as to how to handle boys who act, well, like boys. A perfect example is a timeout. Most of the time a timeout will simply make an energetic boy bored and hostile. Much better to give him a task to accomplish, especially if it is something physical. Of course this is just common sense knowledge of the differences between girls and boys, something that seems to be verboten in public schools, but which is obvious to most parents who have spent time rearing both boys and girls.

  • I’m not a “rogue parent” at my daughters’ virtual school (where my wife is also a teacher). My emails to their former teacher (who was not accommodating my eldest’s disability) are now being quoted regularly at meetings as signs of a parent to watch out for. The latest suggestion was that parents who challenge “school policy” (which is defined as the whim the principal, a Charlestonian elitist who goes way back with Mark Sanford) could be charged with educational neglect.

  • Well … if you believe every dad trying to horn in on America’s reality tv culture …

  • Having dealt with public schools Todd both as an attorney and as a parent, I readily confess that I am more inclined to believe parents over administrators until the opposite is proven.

  • Well … if you believe every dad trying to horn in on America’s reality tv culture …

    Heard that before.


  • What Mr. McClarey said on Paul Zummo’s Cranky Conservative bears repeating: “The forces of open minded tolerance so often are represented by narrow minded bigots.”

    Quite frankly, I’m surprised “Christmas” was even mentioned, much less had an assignment attached to it.

  • “I readily confess that I am more inclined to believe parents over administrators …”

    It would seem there’s a good bit more to the story than was posted here. What’s still standing today is a he-said/they-said tussle that’s more than two weeks old. The news reports I’ve seen is that the drawing was not the one that got the young lad noticed, that there’s a history with the boy and his family, and that nobody was expelled from school. It would seem enough doubt has been thrown into this story to cause prudent observers to withhold judgment. Clearly, Donald shows us why he stayed at the attorneys’ tables and never ascended to the judiciary bench.

    In my long experience in parishes and schools, I often find that two sides in a dispute often are talking past each other and not even in agreement on the point(s) in question. It’s usually adequate enough to make the communication connection and allow diplomacy to smooth kinks in the relationship.

    What Art seems to be getting at is this: one must agree with him not only on the major points, but on every small detail of politics in situations like these. No room for dissent from the jots and tittles of the Catholic blogetariat.

    I would hold it is possible to be right (pointing out a grave moral or administrative error, for example) but to go about it in the wrong way (producing a forged document, or making oneself a threat–even just a perceived one–to a school administration). Prudence would dictate leaving the judgment to the Judge, and taking necessary precautions for one’s own children, or one’s own morality, depending on the circumstances.

  • “Clearly, Donald shows us why he stayed at the attorneys’ tables and never ascended to the judiciary bench.”

    Actually Todd, that is by choice. The legal profession is not one where all attorneys wish to be judges. Some, as in my case, make it very clear to judges who indicate that we would make a good judge that we do not wish to have to wear a black robe on the job.

    The school administration, after coming under intense media scrutiny yesterday, has a different story from the parent. That is as surprising as the sun coming up in the east or bureaucrats dodging responsibility. This incident in June 2008 indicates to me that bozos are in charge of the Taunton school system and that the parent is probably more accurate:

    “This is not the first time in recent years that a Taunton student has been sent home over a drawing. In June 2008, a fifth-grade student was suspended from Mulcahey Middle School for a day after creating a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.

    The Mulcahey teacher also contacted the police to take out charges in the 2008 incident.”


  • I’ve also read that there was a gun incident in that school district not too long ago. Parents themselves insist that schools be hypervigilant when it comes to the safety of their children. A one-day suspension for a blatant act of insubordination to a teacher … I’m sure you saw enough contempt of court citations in your years in the courtroom. Authority figures take authority very seriously.

    According to you, the school administration was a loser no matter what they did. If they were totally wrong, they could confess or clam up or lie. If they had justification for criticizing the lad, they could either remain silent on the matter and let the conservatives spin it, or they could offer a public rebuttal. By your statement, whether they lied or told the truth, your reaction would be the same.

    The caveat emptor in this case: if something sounds too good to be ideologically true, it probably is. Given how this story is unravelling for the father, I’d say there are a number of media and blog outlets with egg on their faces today.

  • What Art seems to be getting at is this: one must agree with him not only on the major points, but on every small detail of politics in situations like these. No room for dissent from the jots and tittles of the Catholic blogetariat.

    News to me.

    I’ve also read that there was a gun incident in that school district not too long ago.

    So we call the cops over some other kid’s droodles.

  • Part of feminizing men is to make all violence bad because boys tend to violence. Ladies, before you get upset with me, there is nothing wrong with the feminine – I love and respect my beautiful bride and the Blessed Virgin Mary – but women should be women and men should be men – equal in dignity yet different.

    Violence is not necessarily bad, or good. It just is. Drawing a picture of Christ crucified is a picture of violence – what could be more violent than Diecide?
    Mel Gibson’s movie was also violent – too violent for some tastes. Was this bad violence? I don’t think so, the worst evil was also the greatest good. There is nothing wrong with depicting Christ crucified, in fact there is everything right with it, as violent as it is. All men should wish to be Christ on His Cross.

    Boys are violent – boys like guns, swords, fights, tanks, knights, cavalry, shields, war games, etc. and that is as it should be. Our job as a society, and by logical extension our school systems, is to direct and temper that violence – not emasculate it.

    Thank God that the generation born in the 1920s was violent. They went overseas and did some violence to the Nazis – and I am pretty sure we’re all happy with how that turned out.

  • “Our job as a society, and by logical extension our school systems, is to direct and temper that violence – not emasculate it.”

    Which is exactly what a society in which vast numbers of young boys are raised without stable father figures fails to do. Even among animals like elephants, the presence of older males keeps fighting among the younger ones from getting out of hand.

    Was the World War II generation really any more “violent” than we are? I’m not so sure. Yes, boys played with guns, collected toy soldiers, and played cops, robbers, cowboys and Indians and other politically incorrect games. However if you take a look at the movies from that era, even the toughest tough guys like Bogart, Cagney, et al. used far less firepower and killed far fewer bad guys in 10 movies than, say, Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger did in just one.

    Also, Knight, I think you overlook the fact that there are times when women can or must become “violent” in a “good” sense, particularly when defending their children from harm. Again, even among animals, a mother defending her young from real or percieved threat is often far more dangerous than the male.

Jimmy Carter, anti-Catholic Bigot

Saturday, December 12, AD 2009

I’ve never had much use for Jimmy Carter.  I view him as in the running with James Buchanan for the title of worst President of the United States, and he has always struck me as a mean and spiteful little man.  Now he adds the title of bigot to his list of dishonors.  In an address to the World Parliament of Religions (You know that has to give God a good laugh!)  the Solon of Plains is reported to have unloaded on both Southern Baptists and Catholics.

In opposition to the vast majority of authentic scholars and historians, Carter asserted: “It’s clear that during the early Christian era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets.”  He added: “It wasn’t until the 4th century or the 3rd at the earliest that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant position within the religious hierarchy.”

Contrary to the theorizing of Carter, Pope John Paul II taught, “The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.”  He added: “the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself.  For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church; 1577)

Carter singled out the Southern Baptist Convention and Roman Catholic Church, claiming that they “view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men.”  However, both Christian faiths hold to the Scriptural truth that God created men and women equal.

Carter suggests that only in permitting women to become priests and pastors could male religious leaders choose to interpret teachings to exalt rather than subjugate women.  “They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter, subjugation,” he said.

“Their continuing choice provides a foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world,” said Carter. Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to Jimmy Carter, anti-Catholic Bigot

  • It is an embarassment to this country that this ignorant bigot ever sat in the oval office.

    As an American I don’t feel quite as embarrassed about that relatively unknown and empty suit[case] of a man having been elected president as those who lend him an ear should.

    And what’s up with this?

    Carter goes on to list horrific violations against women such as rape, genital mutilation, abortion of female embryos and spousal battery.

    I didn’t know the Catholic Church supported such things. But worse is the inclusion of “abortion of female embryos”. I know he wants to mask the reality of what abortion is, and he thinks using the incorrect term of embryo makes a point as much as he intends to conceal, but it’s not indicative of the clearest of thinking, not to mention the inconsistency of his sense of morality. Any abortion is a grave act of injustice for whatever “reason”, but why does Jimmeh only have qualms about the aborting “female embryos”?

  • Age sure isn’t making Mr. Peanut any wiser. Well, Carter doesn’t have much use for Jews either:


    Personally, I am honored to be part of a group loathed by such a foolish and bitter old man. Back in 1976, Americans fell for the John Boy Walton, “Shucks, Ahm jes’ a humble, sweater-wearin’ peanut farmer” hokeum. Who realized then what a vindictive and bigoted and confused character he was and is?

    Ironically, Carter decries Southern Baptists, while retaining the two of the less savory aspects of traditional southern fundamentalism – prejudice(especially anti-Catholic prejudice) and sanctimony. But since he backed Obama, he can kid himself that he’s an “enlightened” southerner.

  • So is this a sign that Carter is preparing to announce he is leaving the Southern Baptists for the 3rd time while doing no such thing?

    Jimmy C is past ready for a padded cell, how about 1 next to Algore so they can exchange delusions?

  • A man who never was of any significance. His bitterness has never ceased since he was considered to be one of our worse choices and just perhaps the one he endorsed will also be in that same ilk.

  • Jimmy Carter is misinformed, and is of an age where it is difficult to look beyond one’s comfortable, accustomed sources of information to locate truth.

    He’s increasingly like that cranky relative who goes on tirades at family gatherings, to which everybody listens, nodding vaguely, only to huddle up when he leaves the room and ask one another, wide-eyed, “Hey, what the heck are we gonna do about Uncle Jim? Is anybody checking up on him? Is he still taking his meds? Do we need to put him in a home? What?”

    A Little Information About Baptists

    By the way, Jimmy Carter is a Baptist and from the southern United States. But he is not a Southern Baptist (referring to the denominational convention) nor has he been one since 2000. (And prior to that, though his church had been affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, Carter was what Catholics might call a “loud dissenter” from the 1980’s onward.)

    The “New Baptist Covenant” group Carter helped start up along with Bill Clinton and Mercer University president Bill Underwood is in fact intended as a counterweight against the more conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

    To contrast them: The SBC defines social justice in terms of equal protection under law and strong advocacy of charitable assistance for the needy at the individual and church level (some local churches dedicate over half their operating budgets to charitable giving in the community, the nation, and overseas, and conservative Baptists tend to be among the most reliable tithers in the whole Christian sphere).

    Carter’s alternative group, the NBC, adds to this a rejection of traditional gender roles, including a belief in ordination of women for all clergy roles. Local churches which ordain active homosexuals or conduct gay commitment ceremonies can participate in the NBC. The SBC is too theologically and practically traditional to allow for this.

    So, oddly, while Catholics might think SBC Baptists sounded uncomfortably fundamentalist (and therefore liable to harbor those anti-Catholic myths of Mary-worship and salvation-by-works so common among American fundamentalists), they’d find rather more agreement with the SBC on matters of faith and practice than with the kinder-and-gentler-sounding NBC.

    Put another way: SBC are the EWTN Catholics of Baptists, and NBC are the Episcopals of Baptists.

    Finally, please keep in mind that Baptists are Congregationalists; each local congregation is independently governed, owns all its properties, and selects its own leaders. Local churches, if they opt to participate in a larger organization, decide which Conventions, Associations, and Fellowships they wish to participate in on the basis of being doctrinally simpatico. Their membership dues go into cooperative programs for needs ranging from organized support of overseas missionaries to printing of Sunday School lesson booklets.

    My point is that it’s not like the SBC could excommunicate Jimmy Carter or replace the leaders of his local church. Authority among Baptists is bottom-up.

  • Like RC, I think your headline here is bilious and inaccurate. Not every critic of the Catholic Church is anti-. As for the lack of quality of his presidency, I think he has a fair way to go to beat the previous occupant of the White House, who showed a grave lack of concern about terrorism, and after the homeland was supposedly prepared for calamity, revealed himself and his government to be as ill-prepared as ever.

    Mr Carter shows no depth of knowledge of Catholicism, but to refer to him as an “anti-Catholic bigot” seems to reveal more about the author than the target.

  • Todd, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that you would rise in defense of both an anti-Catholic bigot and someone in the running for being the worst President to ever curse these United States. However, Carter can take comfort in this fact. The pro-abort you voted for last year for President may well save him from the title of worst President by the time he is done.

  • Donald, how charming to lock horns with you on a Sunday morning.

    It is part of the blindness of conservatives such as yourself that you misinterpret as “defense” a mere disagreement with the headline on this thread. I don’t think Mr Carter was the strongest of American presidents, but he certainly isn’t accurately identified as an “anti-Catholic bigot.”

    It isn’t, however, enough to agree than the man is wrong about Catholicism. In your eyes, one must also call names. Probably stick out one’s tongue and go “nyah, nyah, nyah” in the direction of Georgia, too.

    Your objection is noted, counsellor, and overruled.

  • Todd, I didn’t call names. I accurately described Carter, and you reflexively came to his defense, which is only to be expected.

  • A man who is blaming the Church’s position on female ordination for violence against women around the world, or even seeking to relate them in some way, is an anti-Catholic bigot as far as I am concerned.

  • Donald, what is to be expected is that I will tweak the errors and oversights on AC. As Joe profoundly demonstrates, this post is more about a cheerleading session, “Jimmy, bigot, rah, rah rah!” than any serious commentary on how non-Catholics mischaracterize Catholicism.

    Bishop Sheen had more the measure of situations like this than you.

  • I will offer that some of the above is de trop.

    I think Mr. Carter had a mixed record in office, bedeviled by his own misunderstandings of his social world, by the misunderstandings within the subculture that was the elite of the Democratic Party, and by the crooked and refractory character of the Democratic Congressional Caucus. For all his policy failures, his quality was above the median in the matrix in which he was operating.

    Still, you can see a good many of the man’s vices on display.

    1. He is one of the more abrasively sanctimonious characters to have abided in American public life; Anthony Lewis and Ramsey Clark are among the few who have him beat.

    2. He is at best ambivalent when confronted with the choice between the intuitions and arguments of historic protestant confessions and the kultursmog around him.

    3. His conception of the sources of collective behavior is gratuitous and bizarre. It does show who some of his favorite bogeys are. It is sort of surprising that he did not figure out a way to blame female genital mutilation on the Government of Israel, though. I figure that’s coming up.

  • Todd you know as little about Joe as you obviously do about Carter. Joe Hargrave is no man’s cheerleader.

  • Todd,

    I have lost all respect for you as a ‘Catholic’.

    I had no idea you voted for the most pro-abortionist president in the history of the United States of America.

    Pretty sad.

  • bigot: (n) a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    I think this describes Carter well

  • Todd writes Sunday, December 13, 2009 A.D. at 9:25 am
    “As for the lack of quality of his presidency, I think he has a fair way to go to beat the previous occupant of the White House…”.

    Is there in rhetoric [debating] a term for the use of pointless comparisons? That X was better [or worse] than Y tells us nothing much about X. It is the kind of thing used in high school debates.

  • I have lost all respect for you as a ‘Catholic’.

    Keeping in mind that equal respect is the abolition of respect, we might at least maintain a quantum in reserve. No need to send it all down the drain.

  • Is there in rhetoric [debating] a term for the use of pointless comparisons? That X was better [or worse] than Y tells us nothing much about X. It is the kind of thing used in high school debates.

    Too true. Also, trying to do a generic comparison between different chief executives is difficult because the contexts and challenges can be quite dissimilar, and call for different talents and virtues.

  • AD,

    I respect him as a human being and as a child of Christ.

    Does that count?

  • I would say so, but you shoudn’t pay too much attention to a hoodlum like me.

  • Pingback: Defenders of the Catholic Faith : Hosted by Stephen K. Ray » Jimmy Carter as “Church Historian” (giggle)
  • Really? My short little post was a “profound” demonstration?

  • Art you are never a hoodlum. At worst sometimes a grouchy smart penguin. 🙂

  • Hey – it’s Jimmy Carter. Nothing more need be said

  • Carter was the first president I ever voted for… in an 8th grade mock election that is, though I can’t remember why exactly.

    The one good thing I think Carter did in his presidency was facilitate peace between Egypt and Israel at Camp David. I don’t give him total credit for it, because it was Anwar Sadat’s and Menachem Begin’s idea to begin with, but Carter did at least help their talks along when they bogged down. In some ways I think THAT was the main reason God permitted someone like Jimmy Carter, who was otherwise mediocre if not incompetent, to be elected.

    I also admire Carter for his commitment to Habitat for Humanity; the publicity he gave the organization helped put it on the map.

    Unfortunately, ever since he left office, he has been “coasting” on the reputation for negotiating skills and charitable commitment he seems to have gained from those two things (Camp David and Habitat). As a result he gets a pass on many of his more outrageous claims and statements such as this one.

    As bad as Carter was I still don’t know that I’d place him on the all-time worst list below James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, or Warren Harding. I suspect, however, that Obama may yet claim the title of worst president in my lifetime.

  • Carter was the first president I voted against Elaine in 1976 at age 19. I had little enthusiasm for Ford, but I suspected that Carter was going to be bad news for the nation. As to the Camp David Accords, that was a solid achievement, and Carter deserves his share of the credit.

  • It seems to me that an important issue is going very much unmentioned. When politicians with some level of influence over public thought begin to discuss matters that are of theological question (such as suggesting the need for the ordination of women), they are overstepping their bounds as politicians. As Catholics, we ought to be doing something to clarify how this is different than a question of social justice, because to those outside the Church this is obviously very misunderstood. It probably stems from an unfortunate cultural belief that equal dignity of men and women necessitates equal opportunities, roles, abilities and so forth to the point of a culture losing the notion of “man and woman He created them.”

    I think a worthwhile question in response to unfortunate public statements such as this must be: How can we as Catholics witness to the world that women are most respected according to their own unique vocation, and that the male nature of the priesthood is and will always be a theological matter?

  • If Carter was truly interested in decrying religious maltreatment of women, he ought to have mentioned honor killings. No one gets killed in upholding the all-male priesthood in Roman Catholicism.

    Oh, wait….that’s Islam. Never mind.

  • The best thing about Carter that I can recall is the SNL skit where he tried to fix Three Mile Island.

  • Michael Medved refers to Carter simply as “T.W.O.” meaning “The Worthless One”. The current occupant of the White House seems to be working toward a similiar title.

  • Pingback: Jimmy Cracked Corn, and No One Cared? | 2SecondsFaster.com
  • I really love Jimmy Carter. He isn’t anti-Catholic he just has a different perspective. This article is what makes Catholics look bad.

  • I despise Carter but nonetheless agree with Bill on both counts. That said, Carter’s “perspective” is grounded in comfortable self-righteous ignorance.

  • Carter’s perspective is that the teaching of the Catholic Church that only males may be priests is misogynistic clap trap dreamed up by power hungry prelates. My perspective is that Carter is an anti-Catholic bigot as well as a fool.

  • Donald, I think we will have to agreeably disagree! Merry Christmas!

  • I’m with Donald.

    Mr. Carter is an anti-Catholic bigot.

  • “Donald, I think we will have to agreeably disagree! Merry Christmas!”

    Mike, any minor disagreements between us will always be agreeable! The Merriest of Christmases and the Happiest of New Years for you and your family!

This May Explain His Position on Abortion

Friday, March 13, AD 2009

Fertilizing embryos?  You know, I never thought much of the intelligence of ex-President Clinton, although I stood in awe of his political skills, but I did think, based upon his colorful history, that he had the facts of life down pat.  For his future reference, and the edification of anyone who agrees with him about fertilizing embryos, this video might be helpful.  The fellow not correcting Clinton?   Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the nominee of President Obama for Surgeon General until Gupta abruptly withdrew his name from consideration.

Update: Father Z is all over this story.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to This May Explain His Position on Abortion

  • I think that Clinton’s clear message was that the American people will support the killing of human beings for the purpose of harvesting their body parts as long as those human beings are deemed useless. Clinton correctly pointed out that the key to keeping the support of the American people is emphasizing the uselessness of the embryos.

  • Don, I’m sorry to stick this here in the comments section.

    We’ve got huge problems and are desperate for some help getting it out there. Catholic periodicals are refusing to to publish the story because it exposes a Cardinal in a series of lies that will ultimately lead Catholic physicians, nurses and healthcare workers in Massachusetts and eventually other places from losing their conscience protections.

    He has opined that Catholics may speak to women seeking abortions putting abortion in a positive light in a primary healthcare setting, they may provide referrals to abortion hotlines and even provide the woman with transportation. He has agreed to have planned parenthood monitor healthcare workers to be in compliance with this contract. One healthcare worker is suggesting that monitoring be done directly in the examination room with pregnant women. This, the Cardinal says, is completely consistent with Catholic ethics and the Gospel of Life.

    Boston Catholics organized a large contingency of opposition which forced the Cardinal asked for a second opinion from the Bioethics Center but the Bioethics Center’s opinion will remain confidential and with the dishonest tenure of Cardinal O’Malley who has permitted Bryan Hehir to run the diocese, we do not trust that the opinion will be released in a timely manner or the be honest about the the contents of the opinion.

    In response, the Cardinal is circulating communications that are dishonest about the facts and maligning faithful prolifers as people who are doing a disservice to the Church.


    To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church. We are committed to the Gospel of Life and no arrangemt will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching.

    Details from the Boston Globe:


    The Connector Authority board, which oversees the Commonwealth Care program, voted unanimously in favor of the joint venture proposed by Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based health organization, and Caritas Christi Health Care Network.

    The vote followed several closed-door sessions in which officials from Centene and Caritas, the minority partner in the joint venture, assured regulators that women will have “ready access” to family planning and reproductive services, an issue that sparked concerns from abortion foes and reproductive rights activists.

    Among the written assurances are a pledge that medical staff operating under the Centene-Caritas insurance plan, known as Commonwealth Family Health Plan, will inform women of their healthcare options, including abortion. The insurers will also provide a toll-free customer service line, available around the clock, to inform women about where they can get contraception, sterilization, and other family planning services not offered in the immediate setting. In an emergency, a service representative will arrange transportation to the nearest appropriate facility, officials said.

    The regulators promised to watch closely. “We will certainly monitor their performance,” said Jon Kingsdale, the authority’s executive director. “We will not allow them to start up or continue if they are not in compliance.”

    As a measure of the underlying tensions, four board members emphasized the need for oversight.

    “I remain somewhat concerned about implementation,” said Nonnie Burnes, state commissioner of insurance and a former Planned Parenthood board member. “I am willing to support this as long as we have some way to monitor this” in doctor’s offices and other healthcare facilities.

    When Caritas let the cat out of the bag the plans at the hospital level, he had to cease and desist saying there would be “no abortion referrals”. His most recent statement implies that while he appreciates the opportunity for Caritas employees to serve poor woman by providing her with abortion information, resources, phone numbers and sending her by taxi for the abortion, he’s waiting for the Bioethics Center to render an opinion on whether this is honest to God Catholic credo.

    While I appreciate the opportunity given to Caritas Christi to serve the poor through this agreement, I wish to reaffirm that this agreement can only be realized if the moral obligations for Catholic hospitals as articulated in the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are fulfilled at all times,O’Malley said. “To assure me that this agreement will provide for the integrity of the Catholic identity and practices of Caritas Christi Health Care System, I have asked the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the agreement and to assure me that it is faithful to Catholic principles.”

    This is a news release from Boston Catholic Action League.


    THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009



    (781) 251-9739


    The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocesan hospital network, Caritas Christi, for accepting a state contract, in conjunction with the Centene Corporation, to provide Commonwealth Care health insurance, which includes abortion coverage. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority Board awarded the contract this morning after Caritas/Centene assured the panel that women will have “ready access” to timely family planning services such as abortion, sterilization and contraception.

    The Catholic Action League called the contract “a significant defeat for the pro-life movement, inflicted not by secular society, but by the Catholic Church in Boston.”

    Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “What remains of the Catholic character of Caritas Christi has now been fatally compromised. The partnership in which Caritas Christi is one of the two principals will provide ‘ready access’ to abortion, which the Catholic religion condemns as ‘an abominable crime’. ”

    “It is now clear that the Archdiocese of Boston has spent the last week cynically misdirecting Catholics and the general public with empty assurances that Caritas Christi would not collaborate in abortion. If a woman with a Commonwealth Care card walks into a Caritas Christi hospital seeking an abortion, she will be directed back to her health plan — the Caritas/Centene partnership — which will not only arrange for the procedure, but if necessary will provide transportation to the facility which performs it.”

    “With Caritas Christi now thoroughly embedded in the culture of death, we are now facing the end, in Massachusetts at least, of Catholic medical resistance to abortion and contraception. This tragic state of affairs is the personal responsibility of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who not only failed to stop this contract, but who endorsed it while making unsupportable assertions implausibly denying what everyone else knew — that the contract required participation in the deliberate killing of innocent unborn children.”

    Please help us get it out there – Carol McKinley

  • Never thought I’d see the day Bill Clinton needed to have where babies come from explained. 🙂