Liberals Have Another Pauline Kael Moment

Saturday, October 1, AD 2016




“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

Pauline Kael, Film Critic for The New Yorker, December 28, 1972

When it comes to our politics the divisions in our country are often deplored.  What really should be deplored is that one side of our politics, leftists, tend to lack the imagination to conceive how anyone could possibly in good will disagree with them.

Case in point Gail Collins’ op ed in the New York Times entitled “How Could Anyone Vote for Trump?”.

Why isn’t she leading 3 to 1? This is not a normal race between a Democrat and a Republican. One of the candidates has made it clear that he has no attention span or self-control. World security experts in both parties are terrified by the idea of a Trump presidency. He’s screwed small contractors in his business dealings and bought dumb presents for himself with money from his charitable foundation — a charitable foundation, by the way, that appears to have been managed by a team of gerbils. Also, he keeps changing his positions on critical issues and has paid settlements to people alleging he discriminated against them on the basis of race or not being attractive enough.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Liberals Have Another Pauline Kael Moment

  • Thanks Donald. The Kael quote if funny. This is what you call bubbled-in. The truth is, most liberal are not interested in the truth. They don’t want to hear about the results of their programs. They think anyone who doesn’t agree with them is benighted or stupid.

    Anyway to list of your reason I would add.

    11. Hillary obviously doesn’t care about our Constitution. By her speeches she rejects Freedom of Religion, Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms, etc. If she is elected she will appoint left-wing judges who change the Constitution to suit her. What she will have done is destroy the country and begin setting us up for a totalitarian socialist dictatorship.

    Hopefully enough voters will get the picture. And it would be rather nice if the Bishops could lend a hand and they will be some of Hillary’s first victims.

  • Liberalism is a mental disease or defect. These people cannot be reasoned with. There is something fundamentally wrong with their minds.

  • Any person who cannot read or understand our Founding Principles disenfranchises himself of citizenship, that office that is endowed by the state at birth to any innocent individual lucky enough to be born in America. Clinton has long ago disenfranchised herself from citizenship in America with her disenfranchisement of the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb and her efforts to use international law as the measure of government. Should America be brought to its knees by a godless international body such as the UN with the blessings of Clinton, instead of” the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our constitutional Posterity” America will cease to be a nation of free people. Clinton has contempt for religious freedom in particular and freedom of the people in general. God stands in the way of Clinton’s lust for power.
    The absence of the quality of humanness is a sign of devil possession. “The quality of mercy is not strained but dropeth as the gentle dew from heaven…”

  • Mac, That is a useful list of Hillary’s “issues”/disqualifiers. However, an insufficient number of potential voters knows any of it because the “See no evil (about Hillary). Hear no evil (regarding Hillary). Speak no evil (concerning Hillary).” mass media censors the truth. Sadly, Trump and his team don’t 24/7 expose the loss leaders, either.
    LDQ: Correct. Liberalism is a symptom of serious emotional or psychological pathology. I have proof. the warden’s sister , husband and three adult children are all liberals and all but one are under psychiatric medicines and therapy. They’re all voting Crooked Hillary.
    Hillary is as pure evil as any evil one on the planet. Only thing holding her back is that she hasn’t run up a huge, personal body count as did Mao and Stalin.
    Anybody that would vote for Crooked Hillary is morally bankrupt and too hyperbolically stupid to understand that her destructive policies are even worse for America than is her corrupt soul. She and her worshipping imbeciles truly are irredeemably despicable. .
    The only “good” liberal I ever knew was dead. Make the World a better place [fill-in-the-blank] a liberal in the face.
    I am of the opinion that you won’t be going to Heaven if you vote for Crooked Hillary.

  • “Liberalism is a mental disease or defect. These people cannot be reasoned with. There is something fundamentally wrong with their minds.”

    Leftism (what most folks call Liberalism, now) is first a spiritual disease. Anyone who agrees with unlimited killing of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs is spiritually dead or diseased.

  • #12 Her claim that she is a Christian in good standing in the Methodist Church.

    Is she listening to the guidance of God when she prays…if she prays?
    Is her prayer telling God what she wants to have happen?
    Is she listening to the the promptings of the evil spirit?

    By their fruits dear people…by their fruits!

    Rotten fruits.

  • T Shaw, I know two liberals, and yeah, they both have mental issues. Both of their careers are in fields that require high levels of organization. One actually is hyper organized. Way OCD, very critical of other people who don’t do things the “right” way (I refers to things that do not matter here). They both seem to have “little person” syndrome–or whatever it is you call it when you feel inadequate as compared to others, and are trying to compensate for that. They both come from very comfortable middle class backgrounds, and majored in English during college. They both have advanced degrees. One is a women, one a man. The man strikes me as being something of a misogynist, while the woman is a feminist, which I think may be a form of misogyny itself. And I am not surprised they are voting for Hillary.
    After some thought, it seems very natural that they should support a “command and control” party like the (near communist) Democrats. I don’t think they can handle the concept of a free market and little regulatory control.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus wrote, “Liberalism is a mental disease or defect. These people cannot be reasoned with. There is something fundamentally wrong with their minds.”
    No, it is simply an example of false consciousness.
    Different groups will have different practical aims, some in the preservation of existing social relations, some in their overthrow so as to allow the development of new social relations based upon new forces of production. The result is that different sections of society have different experiences of social reality. Each will tend to develop its own overall view of society, which will be markedly different to that developed by the others.
    Such views are not only accounts of what society is like. They also serve to bind people together for the practical task of preserving or transforming society, for each prioritises some sorts of practical social activity to the detriment of others.
    A social group identified with the continuation of the old relations of production and the old institutions of the superstructure necessarily only has a partial view (or a series of partial views) of society as a whole. Its practice is concerned with the perpetuation of what already exists, with ‘sanctifying’ the accomplished fact. Anything else can only be conceived as a disruption or destruction of a valuable, harmonious arrangement. Therefore even at times of immense social crisis, its picture of society is one of a natural, eternally recurring harmony somehow under attack from incomprehensible, irrational forces.

  • On the madness of liberalism. Looks like everyone agrees on this matter, even, MPS who employs the term “false conscientiousness” as an alternate description. Other allusions to this insanity are George Santayana: “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” And Albert Einstein: ” Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Liberals either reject the past or misinterpret according to what they would like to see versus what is in reality.

  • If my observation is representative, people in the word-merchant sector do not socialize much with people who have contrary employments and sensibilities, and tend to define such people as they do know out of the realm of anyone you’d listen to or take seriously. They also tend to value surfaces and credentials more than actual experience or performance. Look at Charles Fried’s assessment of Sarah Palin in 2008 or Scott Sumner’s assessments of Trump this year. The former had to ignore completely the unpreparedness of the Democratic presidential candidate and the latter the actual history of criminal conduct of the Democratic candidate. They do that, because no one they listen to thinks any differently.

    Sumner, unlike other faculty bloggers, actually deigns to reply to people. However, you can tell very readily when he’s addressing someone he thinks is a professional economist and someone who is a member of the general public. His replies to the latter always consist of gamesmanship and nothing else. He never actually converses with them or entertains anything they say. That tells you something about the faculty (and professional people generally, at least in coastal cities).

Time For Catholics to Stand Up

Monday, April 27, AD 2015


Bravo to Professor Stephen Bainbridge:

I agree with Kingsfield that secular elites at high end universities and colleges are an annoyingly self-satisfied:

To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, “at best religion is something consenting adult should do behind closed doors. They don’t really understand that there’s a link between Sister Helen Prejean’s faith and the workd she does on the death penalty. There’s a lot of looking down on flyover country, one middle America.

“The sad thing,” he said, “is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don’t hold. It’s all about power. They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They’ve got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good.”

Which is precisely why Kingsfield needs to come out of the closet. Sadly, however, he is going deeper into the closet:

The emerging climate on campus of microaggressions, trigger warnings, and the construal of discourse as a form of violence is driving Christian professors further into the closet, the professor said.

“If I said something that was construed as attacking a gay student, I could have my life made miserable with a year or two of litigation — and if I didn’t have tenure, there could be a chance that my career would be ruined,” he said. “Even if you have tenure, a few people who make allegations of someone being hateful can make a tenured professor’s life miserable.” 

He’s right. I’ve been there (albeit for saying something obnoxious unrelated to my faith). But so what? 

Polycarp wasn’t threatened with people making his life miserable. He was threatened with being burnt at the stake. And he refused to deny Christ. And he went to his death thanking God for allowing him to be counted among the Church’s martyrs.

The Christians beheaded by ISIS faced a fate far worse than a smear campaign by academic lefties and they refused to deny Christ.

Put simply, being a Christian is supposed to be hard. “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

It is true that Christ tells us that we are sheep among wolves and so must be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But going into a religious closet is not shrewd.

“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”

I am a sinner who is far from perfect. But I refuse to be a closeted sinner. So I am going to continue teaching and writing about Catholic Social Thought. And I’m going to go on having a picture of St Thomas More in my office. And I’m going to go on having many books on religion in my office. And I’m going to go on wearing my ashes to class on Ash Wednesday. And I’m going to go on pushing back when people infringe on freedom of speech and religion, especially on campuses.

And if my colleagues don’t like that, all I can say is “Come and Have a Go If You Think You’re Hard Enough.” After all, if I may be forgiven quoting the great reformer, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Time For Catholics to Stand Up

  • Will the Catholics who will hear arguments on so-called Same sex Marriage stand up today? Will they consider Natures Law?
    Will they defend the family, or redefine the family and scoff at the idea that a mother and father are the best forms of raising children? Or, are these beliefs to be outdated and held in contempt?
    Stand Up?
    God help us!

  • Philip: The SCOTUS must consider not only natural law by that our founding fathers intended that our founding principles be handed down to our constitutional posterity as an heritage.
    Consider too, that the taxpaying citizen must be free to be a sovereign person who requires the vote to participate in the culture, in the public square, in the democratic process…no matter what the democrats say.

  • Our public Rosary starts in an hour.
    We will include SCOTUS justices to be guided by The Holy Spirit as they ponder the arguments in the next several Weeks leading to a decision.

    As you so beautifully request from time to time, we will add “one Hail Mary.”

  • ….to Mary De Voe.

Established Churches

Tuesday, April 7, AD 2015



Instapundit gives an example of the type of established churches we have on many campuses in this land:


Members of the Virginia Tech football team have been accused of acting disrespectfully at a campus sexual assault awareness event.

Players were required to attend a Take Back the Night event on March 26. The event was organized by a campus female activism group and featured sexual assault survivors speaking about their experiences as victims. Multiple attendees accused the players of infringing upon the “safe space” the event is intended to foster, according to The Roanoke Times.

Take Back the Night is a national organization that seeks “to end sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual abuse and all other forms of sexual violence.”

Several attendees wrote letters to the student newspaper, the Collegiate Times, complaining about the players’ behavior. The players arrived late, said they did not know why they were attending the event and spent much of the time looking at their phones, the letters said.

“[T]heir judgmental remarks made it very hard to feel safe,” one wrote. “When survivors took the stage, there was nothing respectful in the way the football team took it, especially in reference to transgender survivors. I am deeply offended and horrified by the disrespectful nature that the players displayed.”

Honey, you’re a caricature. Your pointless, politicized event got all the respect it deserved, and then some. Generally speaking, captive audiences aren’t especially appreciative. More here: “Womanspace at Virginia Tech, a campus organization for feminist activism, has coordinated the event at Tech for 26 years, with this year’s version featuring speakers from the transgender community as well as survivors of sexual assault.”

UPDATE: From the comments: “I was born and raised in Cuba. I have certain memories of staged rallies.”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Established Churches

  • I am convinced that this is but yet another weapon of the “crush masculinity/ fatherhood etc” machine–all done by diabolically using a good (rape is bad) as deceitful camouflage for their intent to destroy normal societal functioning.
    Our moral atrophy has been but a case of decades of Christianity hiding in the social justice closet while all the perverted passions are coming out with their demons as cheerleaders.

  • They complain about rape yet want to be libertine sexual hedonists. Really! Liberal. Progressive. Democrat.

  • “Our moral atrophy has been but a case of decades of Christianity hiding in the social justice closet…”

    Actually, now the social justice crowd has a new cause in “transgender survivors”

  • Our culture is the way it is today in large measure because Christian Churches especially the Catholic Church lost it’s courage to stand-up for Christian morality and decided that ‘opening it’s windows to the world’ was the way to become relevant and influential. Now, in the most ironic turn of events, some in Vatican leadership wish accept and support our cultural corruption. It will take an Act of God to help turn this around.–many many.

  • Don Lond: “I am convinced that this is but yet another weapon of the “crush masculinity/ fatherhood etc” machine–all done by diabolically using a good (rape is bad) as deceitful camouflage for their intent to destroy normal societal functioning.”
    This is another weapon as the deceitful camouflage for their intent to destroy the image of God in man, the sovereignty of God over man and the sovereign person. Rape is especially heinous because it violates the sovereignty of the victim to give informed consent, a free will act, to the (act) crime. Any and every crime is a violation of God’s law and the image of God in the human being, the proof of a man’s soul, the metaphysical part of man, the human being. It was the burden of proof on Sarah Weddington of Roe v. Wade that was not forthcoming. It was Roe’s burden to prove that there was no human soul with sovereign personhood in the newly begotten human person in the womb. A miscarriage of Justice is a crime.

  • The New Millenials understand that they are sovereign persons made in the image of God, probably visited by the souls of 60 million innocents murdered in the womb. Anyone under the age of 41 is a survivor of genocide in America.

  • Every rapist today who has not be struck dead by God is a walking miracle.

  • “Requiring people to go to an event encroaches on that safe space,” Sahai [Womanspace co-President Malavika Sahai] said. “If you don’t want to be there, you really shouldn’t be there.”

    Compulsory attendance would appear to have been imposed by “Athletic Director Whit Babcock and coach Frank Beamer,” as part of their own programme.

  • The Inquisition of the Middle Ages is a more apt metaphor than “church” or “religion.”

  • My favorite line: “honey, you’re a caricature”
    also Love that photo graphic
    petulant (adj.)
    1590s, “immodest, wanton, saucy,” from Middle French petulant (mid-14c.), from Latin petulant …”wanton, froward, saucy, insolent,” present participle of petere “to attack, assail; strive after; ask for, beg, beseech”… Meaning “peevish, irritable”
    first recorded 1775, probably by influence of pet (n.2).
    Related: Petulantly.

  • No. The inquisition had set rules and procedures about things like “evidence.” The inquisition also kept better records.

  • Ernst: Point well-taken. The only things these people accomplish are massive, unnecessary hells here and in the hereafter.

GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Monday, March 30, AD 2015

Religious Freedom Restoration Act


Recently Indiana passed and the Governor signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  By doing so Indiana joined a majority of states which have such protections for religious freedom. There is also a federal version of the act which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton.  Here are the operative sections of both the Federal and State Acts:


Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

And here is the text of Indiana’s RFRA:

A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Go here for the complete text of the Act.  States enacted their own version of the statute because the Supreme Court in 1997 ruled rightfully that the federal act was not applicable to state laws or local ordinances.

What does this have to do with GenCon, the gaming convention held in Indianapolis that I and my bride have been attending since 1986?

Well, homosexual activists have been busily portraying this statute as a license to discriminate against gays, and the head of GenCon decided to get on this band wagon.  Go here to read the letter by Adrian Swartout.

The ignorance contained in the letter is simply stunning.   Swartout is apparently bone ignorant as to the federal version of the act and how many states have similar acts.  Swartout also is apparently  ignorant of the fact that the Act could only be used if a government seeks to discriminate against an individual or business on the basis of their religion.  The only possible applicability to homosexuals would be if a government sought to take action against a business that discriminated against gays.  The only businesses where such a contention would survive judicial analysis would be those where the owners could demonstrate that their religious beliefs forbid providing a service, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding.   The idea that this statute would have any impact on services provided to convention attendees in downtown Indie is simply farcial.  Of course all the hoopla about the Act has nothing to do with the law or facts, but everything to do with the flexing of political muscles by gay activists.  This tempest also demonstrates that religious freedom is simply not going to be tolerated by those who shriek loudest for tolerance.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

  • What does this have to do with GenCon, the gaming convention held in Indianapolis that I and my bride have been attending since 1986?

    Really??? It’s always been my dream to attend GenCon someday…

    (plots to suck up to Don for lodging)

  • I have three brief responses to hype and hysteria being flung by the gay gestapo and its lying, liberal (I repeat myself again) acolytes, “democracy” ; “The Bill Of Rights”; and “37-year-old Adam Smith is living on food stamps because he criticized Chick-fil-A in a video he posted on YouTube.”

  • As a citizen of the Hoosier State, I have seen lots of contention and hollering but little in the way of intelligent discourse, for reasons that are probably obvious. This, of course, does very little to further my understanding of the situation. I am not blessed with a strong sense of abstract, and am in need of examples, much like learning from parables and acts.
    It is worth noting that this contention is occurring at Easter, when we remember another mob that was led to hysteria by a self-serving core of power-mongers. I pray the conclusion of this contention stops short of that one’s.

  • Pingback: GenCon and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act | The American Catholic | Head Noises
  • Find it kind of notable that you’re the first person I’ve seen quote the act. Everyone else just screams about how it’s going to do this or that…..

  • You mean it’s not a compelling state interest to see to it that very special snowflakes are serviced by the vendor(s) of their choosing, regardless of the desire of the vendor(s) to serve very special snowflakes in the first place?

    I ask you, what’s the point of being a very special snowflake if you can’t always get your way by using the state to bully others?

  • I caught a bit of Stephanopoulos’s interview with Mike Pence on the evening news yesterday, and it occured to me that “tolerance” (“acceptance” by another name) for homosexuality is rapidly become the modern-day equivalent to the pinch of incense offered to Caesar’s genius.

  • I’d have said “active support,” myself….

  • I can see such legislation having far-reaching consequences.

    I wonder how this legislation would apply to (say) the prohibition of shechita, halal and other methods of ritual slaughter of unstunned animals, or to the importation of the products of animals so slaughtered.

    Would it invalidate a ban on the ritual circumcision of minors, or female genital mutilation?

    Would it prevent a ban on the wearing of the hijab or the kippa in public schools or the wearing of the burka in public places?

  • I did give “approval” some thought. You’re certainly correct that the distinctions between “tolerance,” “acceptance,” “approval,” and “support” are collapsing.
    I wonder what word will appear in the Newspeak Dictionary?

  • I wonder how this legislation would apply….

    It all depends on how compelling the state’s interest in prohibiting those activities in the examples you gave is.

  • Wow. Just stumbled across a news report that touches alot of hot button issues around here.

  • “I can see such legislation having far-reaching consequences.”

    Yep to all three questions MPS. Thank God.

  • Pingback: Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act: What's The Deal? | Acton PowerBlog
  • Over at the Catholic League, Dr. Donohue reminds us that The Supreme Court in 1997, gave its approval of the RFRA. Probably to undo some of the ill effects of the Court having tried atheism under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion, obliterating and eradicating “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” of the First Constitutional Amendment. What part of “the free exercise thereof” can atheism or anti-theists as they are beginning to call themselves constitutionally remove without three quarters of the states ratifying any change they impose?
    Atheism is unconstitutional because it is completely opposed to every free person’s, every sovereign person’s choice of “the free exercise thereof.”
    As unconstitutional as atheism is, the anti-theist must be tolerated and the First Amendment must be defended and understood as the freedom extended to all persons who are citizens, or taxation without representation is imposed, which is what is happening now with the Person of God evicted and rendered “persona non-grata” in the public square. Not the state, nor the Constitution gives sovereign personhood. Only God gives sovereign personhood. The state is constituted by sovereign persons to defend and protect the sovereign person.

  • Man and his freedom are created by” their Creator”. Man is PROCREATED by man. The state is constituted by the sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator.”
    So, what can atheism give to mankind? I mean besides totalitarianism, unequal Justice, enslavement of man’s freedom and the obliteration of the people?

  • Thank you, Don McClarey, for this excellent post.

  • Love thy neighbor as thyself. and the free exercise of religion will have the effect of : You are born, so the unborn must be born. You are circumcised as a male, you wear a burka, so you must allow others the same freedom. You are an atheist, so you must allow others to be theists. FREEDOM

  • I agree that the hysteria surrounding this act is way over the top, but I am curious about an issue raised by some of its opponents, who claim that the Indiana RFRA is NOT quite the same as the federal RFRA or other states’ versions. They claim that the other acts only apply to governmental entities while the Indiana act applies also to private entities. Is there any truth to this assertion?

  • “I agree that the hysteria surrounding this act is way over the top, but I am curious about an issue raised by some of its opponents, who claim that the Indiana RFRA is NOT quite the same as the federal RFRA or other states’ versions. They claim that the other acts only apply to governmental entities while the Indiana act applies also to private entities. Is there any truth to this assertion?”

    Very little. That section is to provide for what happens when a private party seeks to enforce a state law or ordinance against a party asserting the religious freedom statute. Here is the similar provision in the federal act:

    “(c) Judicial relief
    A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.”

    I would assert that the government, by creating or allowing private enforcement of the discriminatory act, is allowing the private party to stand in for the government and thus the RFRA act would apply against the private party.

    That point has been hotly litigated in Federal court as law professor Josh Blackman points out at his blog:

    “Third, and most significantly, the law provides a defense in a private suit where the government is not a party.The Indiana RFRA offers the following language:

    Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.

    In other words, the law provides a defense against a private discrimination suit. For example, Jill and Jane Doe sue a photographer for failing to photograph their wedding under a local non-discrimination ordinance. The photographer than raises the state RFRA as a defense. Even though the government is not a party, RFRA can be raised as a defense in the judicial proceeding. The court would have to determine whether the application of the non-discrimination ordinance substantially burdens the photographers exercise of religion.

    Does the federal RFRA also provide a defense? It depends on what Circuit you’re in. Shruti Chaganti writes in the Virginia Law Review about this split.

    The circuits are split as to whether RFRA can be claimed as a defense in citizen suits—suits solely between private citizens in which the government is not a party. This split is based on an ambiguity in the text: whether the phrase “and obtain appropriate relief against a government” is meant to limit the set of cases in which a “claim or defense” may be raised in a judicial proceeding, or whether the phrase simply signifies an additional right upon which a litigant may rely.

    Some circuits (CA2, CA9, CA8, CADC) hold that RFRA can be raised as a defense:

    Some circuits (hereinafter “defense circuits”) have allowed RFRA to provide a defense in citizen suits, finding the statute’s language and purpose sufficiently broad to create a defense regardless of the parties to the suit.7 Under this reading, an unambiguous version of the text would be modified to say, “A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief (including against a government).”8 This reading makes clear that relief against a government is merely an additional right—a subset of the more generally obtainable relief under RFRA. Thus, “claim or defense in a judicial proceeding” is freestanding and not limited by the “obtain relief” phrasing.

    It is noteworthy that then-Judge Sotomayor dissented on this issue for the Second Circuit in Hankins v. Lyght (2nd Cir. 2006), holding that RFRA could not be raised as a defense. Sotomayor dissented, and wrote “the statute does not apply to disputes between private parties.”

    RFRA by its terms does not apply to suits between private parties.

    Two provisions of the statute implicitly limit its application to disputes in which the government is a party. Section 2000bb-1(c) states that “[a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government” (emphasis added). In the majority’s view, we should read this provision as “broadening, rather than narrowing, the rights of a party asserting the RFRA.” Maj. Op. at 103. This interpretation would be questionable even if Section 2000bb-1(c) were the only provision of the statute affecting the question of whether RFRA applies to private suits. When read in conjunction with the rest of the statute, however, it becomes clear that this section reflects Congress’s understanding that RFRA claims and defenses would be raised only against the government. For instance, section 2000bb-1(b) of RFRA provides that where a law imposes a substantial burden on religion, the “government” must “demonstrate[] . . . that application of the burden” is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest (emphasis added). The statute defines “demonstrate” as “meet[ing] the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(3). Where, as here, the government is not a party, it cannot “go[] forward” with any evidence.[8] In my 115*115view, this provision strongly suggests that Congress did not intend RFRA to apply in suits between private parties.[9]

    All of the examples cited in the Senate and House Reports on RFRA involve actual or hypothetical lawsuits in which the government is a party. See S. Rep. No. 103-111 (1993); H.R. Rep. 103-88 (1993). The lack Of even a single example of a RFRA claim or defense in a suit between private parties in these Reports tends to confirm what is evident from the plain language of the statute: It was not intended to apply to suits between private parties.

    This could prove interesting if this issue comes before the Court.

    Other circuits (CA6, CA7) do not permit private defendants to raise RFRA as a defense in private suits.

    Other circuits (hereinafter “nondefense circuits”) have held that the language in the judicial relief section and in the remainder of the statute suggest that RFRA meant to provide a defense only when obtaining ap- propriate relief against a government and therefore cannot apply to suits in which the government is not a party.9 A nondefense view of the text would be modified to say, “A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government and may obtain appropriate relief.”10 By moving the “ob- tain relief” phrase to the end of the sentence, this rewriting clarifies that “government” is meant to limit the types of cases in which a “claim or defense” can be asserted. This modification limits applicability of RFRA to only those suits in which a claim or defense is raised against a gov- ernment party, thus excluding a defense in citizen suits.

    And wouldn’t you know it, Judge Posner wrote the leading 7th Circuit precedent holding RFRA can’t be raised as a defense. Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F.3d 1036, 1042 (7th Cir. 2006).

    RFRA is applicable only to suits to which the government is a party. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-1(b), (c); Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1120-21 (9th Cir.2000); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, 192 F.3d 826, 834-35 (9th Cir.1999). “A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c).

    It is hardly to be imagined, moreover, that in seeking to broaden the protection of religious rights, Congress, dropping nary a hint, wiped out a long-established doctrine that gives greater protection to religious autonomy than RFRA does. Indeed a serious constitutional issue would be presented if Congress by stripping away the ministerial exception required federal courts to decide religious questions.

    Judge Sykes did not dissent on 7th Circuit panel. And Judge Sutton did not dissent on Judge Moore’s opinion for CA6.

    In the Elane Photograph case, the New Mexico Supreme Court, interpreting its own RFRA, ruled that it could only be invoked when the government was a party, but not when private parties were sued by state law. The Indiana bill makes clear that the defense can be raised in any case, as have four courts of appeals covering nearly half the states in the Union.

    Interestingly, as noted in this amicus brief by the Becket Fund in the Elane Photography case, DOJ has taken the position that RFRA can be raised as a defense in lawsuits brought by private parties:

    In response, the United States has formally taken the position that religious organizations can assert RFRA as a defense in lawsuits brought by private parties: “[I]f plaintiff were sued by a plan participant or beneficiary in the future, plaintiff, in its defense of such an action, would have an opportunity to raise its contention that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (‘RFRA’).” Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 3-4, Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, No. 12-01169 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2012).

    So the most controversial aspect of the Indiana law was endorsed by the Holder Justice Department. [Update: I should stress that at the time, DOJ limited the applicability of RFRA to “religious organizations,” such as Wheaton College. But following Hobby Lobby this position is no longer tenable.]”

  • When there’s are so many states with similar with RFRAs and a Federal one, I have to wonder why single Indiana out? Could it be that this brouhaha is about politically destroying a conservative Republican governor? So that Mike Pence will never be a contender on a national Republican ticket? How better to do it than applying economic pressure on his state which in turns puts pressure on him. Standard Democratic M.O. to pull the race card or rainbow card. In this case it’s the latter.

  • When there’s are so many states with similar with RFRAs and a Federal one, I have to wonder why single Indiana out?

    Because that was then and this is now. Because Democrats need to do something to gin up hatred fear and paranoia in order to keep their donors donating and their voters voting. Because “gay marriage” is in front of the Supreme Court. Any number of reasons.

  • The Constitutional First Amendment: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” What part of “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” do these loudmouthed, dumber than doorknobs not read?

  • “Because Democrats need to do something to gin up hatred fear and paranoia in order to keep their donors donating and their voters voting. Because “gay marriage” is in front of the Supreme Court. Any number of reasons.”

    So true. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage is before the US Supreme Court in late April. The decision should be handed down in June. The PR campaign for gay marriages has started with lies, hysteria, paranoia and boycotts.

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Wednesday, January 14, AD 2015



A baker not wishing to be compelled to make a cake for a homosexual wedding might as well be a member of the SS according to Diann Rice a member of the hilariously misnamed Colorado Civil Rights Commission.   The Left merrily continues on its mission  to stamp out every one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights in the name of tolerance:

“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the last meeting [on Mr. Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust,” Ms. Rice said at the July 25 hearing.

“I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,” Ms. Rice said. “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use — to use their religion to hurt others.”

Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said in a statement that Ms. Rice’s comments reveal an “anti-religious bigotry” that “undermines the integrity of the entire process and the commission’s order as well.”

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Reductio ad Hitlerum

  • Down that merry road…If a proprietor of a business refuses to allow anyone into her countenance and personal space, there can never be an informed consent contract for any exchange of goods or services. Every individual has a right to privacy to her countenance and personal space. If this liberty is denied by the state, then every individual citizen is a beast of burden to the state and a taxpayer without representation.
    “Who am I to judge?”
    I judge that I am the person who judges my soul. I am the person who is conceived in liberty. I am the person who is denied his existence by atheism. How can I exercise my freedom when the atheist refuses to acknowledge my existence in body and soul with conscience and free will? If my conscience is negated, how then, can I exercise my free will to acknowledge my Creator, my talent, ability or desire to love my neighbor? Such judgment by the atheist is unconstitutional; …“or prohibit the free exercise thereof”.
    The individual must be allowed to define who he is and how he will proceed with his salvation. Atheists do not believe in salvation or God, for that matter, so why should the atheist care about my salvation when he has discarded his? The atheist has devoured his children and now the atheist is seeking to devour my children.
    The Patent leather relationship, or pseudogamy, as Athony Esolen describes gay-marriage, is a lie and perjury in a court of law. There is no legal power in heaven or on earth to define a woman as a husband or even a spouse to another woman, or a man as a wife or a spouse to another man.

  • Liar, liar, pants on fire…needs to be added.

  • “Freedon of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.”
    The only discrimination throughout history that freedom of religion and religion is used to justify is the denial of the human person as having a conscience, that faculty of a rational immortal human soul.
    Atheism is unconstitutional. The atheist must be tolerated. Toleration of the atheist does not constitutionally include the atheist’s denial of the human person, with conscience, as citizen,…as taxpaying citizen. If Obama gives a non-taxpaying citizen the means to survive, Obama does not under any circumstance automatically own that person. The taxpayers support the survival of their neighbor as the taxes Obama is giving, still are owned by the taxpayer.

  • I guess from a legal perspective, it is a rather odd situation. Suppose your sincerely held religious belief is that a second marriage after divorce where the first marriage has not been annulled and the first spouse is alive is not a valid marriage. Yet, it is a legally sanctioned marriage. Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage? Or even if you object that marriages outside the Church are nothing more than secularly solemnized fornication? Personally, I believe you should be able to object, but legally, I am not sure. Granted, I am not that well versed in the latest anti-discrimination jurisprudence.

  • I guess that argument for a baker objecting to a “gay marriage” might be stronger if said baker is consistent in his religious objection practices.

  • “Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage? Or even if you object that marriages outside the Church are nothing more than secularly solemnized fornication?”

    Yes, for two reasons. First, religious freedom is one of our highest freedoms as indicated by its presence in the First Amendment and it should be accommodated whenever possible. When a service is being rendered that could easily be supplied by many other vendors, there is no reason to compel the vendor to compromise his beliefs, since there is no rational basis to do so except in order to punish him for those beliefs. That should never be the objective of the government in this country, and that is precisely what is going on in these type of cases where a vendor faces fines and costs for not supplying a service or product that could be easily supplied by another vendor.

  • Miss Rice and all Cutural Marxists are what Isabel Paterson properly called Humanitarians With A Guillotine.

  • Yet, it is a legally sanctioned marriage. Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage?
    It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage. If the judges making these rulings want these people to have their bloody cakes, they can bake them themselves out of their own private resources.

  • The reason same-sex “weddings” are problematic whereas for the most part, adulterous male-female unions are not, is that the baker ordinarily has no interest in the specifics of the intended union, and has no reason or duty to inquire. However, in the headline making stories of same-sex events, the dear couple often make it a priority that the baker ( or wedding hall, or photographer) be well aware of what they are up to. And, considering the nature of wedding related businesses it would be hard in any event for the business owner not to know what he/she is being asked to participate in, at which point they have to make a decision of conscience; do I become a party to something that is gravely immoral or not? That likely will seldom be the case with other wedding scenarios.

  • Art Deco: “It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage.”
    “labor in bondage” would eradicate informed consent.
    Our informed conscience tells us two things. 1) people are not owned by the state. 2) people have a right of privacy to repudiate, rebuff and repel invaders and trespassers. Since self-defense from coercion does not come from the state but comes from our personhood, if a business proprietor needs self-defense, it is the duty of the state to enable self defense for the proprietor. Declining an informed business contract because of coercion makes the nation free for all people.
    chris c.: “That likely will seldom be the case with other wedding scenarios.” but if these scenarios becomes prevalent, will the adulterous couple have the legal ability to sue for their adulterous wedding cake, photos, etc.? I think not. In fact, the court will find for the proprietor.

  • Art Deco wrote, “It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage.

    Yet, the acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not if, in the one case a client and in the other the court, pleases to insist on it yet it is not believed that statutes were ever urged as inductive of slavery. Of course, “An Advocate in undertaking the conduct of a cause in this court enters into no contract with his client, but takes on himself an office in the performance of which he owes a duty, not to his client only, but also to the Court, to the Members of his own profession, and to the public…” (Batchelor v. Pattison & Mackersy (1876) 3 R. 914, 918)

    Similar rules applying to innkeepers, carriers and other public callings are as old as the Prætor’s edict (Nautae Caupones Stabularii) [D 4. 9. 0]. Like the advocate, they hold themselves out as offering their services without special contract to anyone willing to pay a reasonable sum.

  • Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The statisttotalitarians running amuck here have nullified the words “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our religion’s practice includes evangelizing the whole world, to paraphrase the Gospels and Ephesians, fearlessly proclaiming the mystery of the gospel to all nations. There is no pubic proclaiming if as the statisttotalitarians are attempting to enforce, if the exercise of religion is limited to proclaiming to others who already believe behind closed doors in our churches. And “Proclaimiing” is not simply speaking – we proclaim by our actions and our actions, to be virtuous, must be based on God’s Law, not the laws of any City of Man. Our forefathers guaranteed the free exercise of religion; our present rulers deny it. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” From Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Church.
    Thomas Jefferson placed his “wall of separation of church and state” after “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”…the First Amendment. Atheists are to be tolerated. Atheism is unconstitutional.
    “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience”.
    “…the supreme will of the nation was recorded “in behalf of the rights of conscience”. This criminalizes the HHS Mandate which was added after Congress passed the ACA, never voted on by the people, imposing business regulations to incite mob rule; to incite invaders, to prohibit the self-defense of souls to keep their morals, nothing less than soul murder.
    “I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
    “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”
    Thomas Jefferson
    The freedom to be American, “his social duties” and the freedom to be Catholic, “his natural right(s)” are not “in opposition”.

  • Guy McClung and Mary DeVoe.

    God bless you both.

    You have brightened this post.
    One could say that your patriotism and love for God has flavored a tasteless pot of rice. Good on ya!

  • . If the service can be seen as not essential, can I turn away a customer if I don’t like the cut of his job?
    How does this relate ( or does it) to sit ins at lunch counters

  • Ha- jib. Cut of his job…
    But to the reductio point. – shaming is so powerful as long as the errant person accepts the same standards as the rest of society and struggles under judgment . But it doesn’t work when there is no judgment, no standards. No worst.

  • Yet, the acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not if, in the one case a client and in the other the court, pleases to insist on it yet it is not believed that statutes were ever urged as inductive of slavery.

    We do not employ barristers in this country and I cannot figure why you would fancy anyone on this board would consider British guild law some sort of gold standard.

    An attorney and counselor at law is not compelled to take civil cases, and a great many attorneys have specialized practices. There are jurisdictions which have assigned counsel plans in lieu of employing public defenders. Assigned counsel can be troublesome for the accused. Those are criminal cases where the accused is compelled to retain counsel; the only alternative is what amounts to mandatory pro se representation.

    Unlike a criminal defendant, cake consumers are not under any compulsion, nor are they facing penalties more onerous than additional shopping time. As has been remarked in these discussions before, bakers are not monopolistic common carriers.

    Again, prior to about 1946 in this country, the default state was freedom of contract. Southern states abused their merchants and consumers by mandating all sorts of rubrics be followed in the course of service provision. More generally, there were legal provisions which allowed for the placement of covenants on property deeds binding on prospective owners (though I think in some circumstances you could have them removed). We did not just chuck the state compulsion. Since the objects of restricted custom were an impecunious minority routinely subject to abuse by law enforcement and local rabble, it did not seem contextually injurious. It’s not that we were not warned that legal provisions of this sort could prove metastatic. Look up the work of Gottfried Dietze.

  • By the way, MPS, segregation laws were not antique, Russell Kirk’s imagination to the contrary. My great-grandfather practicing law in Tennessee was of an age to see the whole edifice erected and the early stages of it’s demolition. His son my great uncle was an adolescent during the last stages of its imposition and lived a generation after its demolition.

  • Art Deco wrote, “An attorney and counselor at law is not compelled to take civil cases”

    Granted. The position of an agent [i.e. law agent or solicitor] is quite different from that of an advocate. There is a contract of employment between him and his client. The general rule may fairly be stated to be that the agent must follow the lawful instructions of his client (An advocate, by contrast, may conduct the cause without any regard to the wishes of his client, so long as his mandate is unrecalled). Accordingly, an agent can choose his clients.

    The law agent does not hold himself out as willing to serve all comers without special contract. The advocate does, as does the innkeeper, the ostler, the ferryman, the cabbie. Now, the question is, are these special cases, or does the edict Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii embody a general principle of “common calling”? The analogy between the lunch counter and the caupo is pretty close.

  • Philip: “Good on ya!”
    Good on ya, too. Honored to be on board.
    Art Deco: “labor in bondage.” is slavery. Free will and the execution of conscience in man allows him to submit himself to Justice, to profess Justice, to be called “Justice”. It is like marriage, a wedding of realities.
    Other professionals as bakers, cabbies, florists submit themselves to state regulations in Justice through the execution of free will and the execution of conscience. Imposing a deregulation on the exercise of conscience, evacuating conscience by the state regulation, here, is the problem. There are no vacuums in creation. Eliminating the free exercise of conscience denies the sovereign personhood of the individual citizen, who by his free will chooses to be and remain a citizen.
    In fact, bakers and florists who choose to exercise their freedom of conscience are the only true citizens as the state by its very vice has annihilated itself.
    In Justice, we, the people, deliver equal Justice. Equal marriage is not a duty of Justice. Equal personhood, equal citizenship is Justice. Those who demand equality of sodomy and the martial act cannot be serious. It has occurred to me that the state is using a faction of its people to impose tyranny over the mind of man. Brute force cannot contain the mind of man, nor his heart, nor man’s soul.
    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson.

    Again, equal Justice is not marriage equality. Marriage equality subsists in a man and a woman consenting to become a husband and wife as the child makes of a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. The Supreme Court is now being asked to redefine the human being, the whole human race, as having no conscience, nor free will, nor common sense.

  • Mary de Voe, Don’t know re: “whole human race”, but the majority of US voters, and alas the majority of US voters who call themselves “catholic” have proven over and over they have no common sense. All-have a fullofwonder weekend and God bless us, everyone. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Philip-right back at ya! Guy

  • Social Justice is giving a person what he needs to survive, a day’s wages to a day worker. When the vineyard owner gave a day’s wages to those whom he had hired at the end of the day, the vineyard owner was giving the day worker what he needed to survive until the next day. The workers hired earlier in the day thought that they would get more than the contracted amount and complained. The vineyard owner asked them why he had to answer to them for his generosity… because they begrudged the last hired workers what they needed to survive, they, they like the good son from the parable of the prodigal son who refused to rejoice but hugged his selfishness tightly to himself, ought to have been glad that the last hired workers were provided for and did not die on the way home bringing social guilt on all. That is social Justice: giving a man what he needs to survive and thereby sparing all of society for judgment at his death. Giving a man what he demands is not Social Justice. Giving a man what he demands only encourages delinquency, spoiled brattyness (sp) and chaos. Next he will come with an illegal gun.
    If man cannot fear God, then let him fear the stocks.
    Neither the vineyard owner nor the father of the prodigal son relented and gave in to the demands of either the complainers or the killjoy because by complaining they cast aspersions of unjustness on the vineyard owner and the father.
    Meeting the demands of another are simply another way to enslave a free man.
    Now, the gay agenda is to cast aspersions of unjustness on bakers, florist and photographers for not giving in to their demands. Equal Justice is not good enough for them they want equal marriage for not performing the marital act and without forming a union with the opposite sex. While the rest of us struggle to be good people, to love our neighbor as ourselves, the gay agenda incites perjury, (calling a man a wife or even a spouse is perjury in a court of law) character assassination and condemnation of everyone who cannot, in good conscience, cave to their demands.
    If the court caves to the gay agenda and persecutes decent, honest, hardworking business men and women, the court will have inflicted social unjustness on all of society. Usurpation of the culture, language and law will not turn a man into a woman, or sodomy into the marital act.
    So, the men opened the roof of the house and lowered the cripple man…to Jesus. Social Justice revisited.

  • Next slide down the slope?

    How about the need to widen the field of prey. Look for lowering the consent age. Once the vipers get their fangs into so-called Marriage Rights it may not to far fetched to see a push to expand the marketplace. Pedophilia will be the next disorder to be reclassified as a lifestyle choice.

    Well, this is one way to hasten the Day of the Lord. Let’s hope many will change their hearts and trade lust for life. Prayers are needed for all of us..humanity. These days are defining the masses. God be with us.

  • “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
    to furnish funds or cakes, photos and/or flowers

The End of Debate

Wednesday, May 21, AD 2014



A popular tactic on the left today, and for the past several decades in this country for that matter, is to strong arm adversaries and shout them down.  Faithful readers of this blog will recall the “feminist studies” professor Miller-Young who went berserk when confronted with a group of young pro-life women peacefully presenting  information on abortion at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  Go here, here and here to read about it.  The following is an account by one of the pro-lifers present, Mairead McArdle, a student at Saint Thomas Aquinas College:



One part of the story that is not as widely known is what happened prior to the professor’s theft and assault. I can tell you about it. I was there.

I was among 13 pro-life students who exercised our right to free speech on that sunny afternoon in March. I was actually the first one to speak with Professor Young.

When the incident began I was using the sign in the “free-speech zone” to start conversations with people passing by. I began a calm, rational conversation with Professor Young, asking her what her thoughts were on our position and our sign.

She immediately raised her voice and spoke condescendingly, accusing me of using “fear tactics” to coerce women.

“I have a PhD, three degrees more than you do!” she yelled, smiling. At one point, she threw the pamphlet I had handed her at me.

“Do you even go here?” she asked me. “There’s no way you have the right to be here.”

I told Miller-Young that she could ask the administration whether we had the right to promote our cause on campus. She refused, saying she knew we had no right to remain.

After about 10 minutes of Miller-Young talking over me and yelling obscenities, a group of about 15 students gathered around us and watched the spectacle, as the professor continued her rant.

Before Miller-Young had begun, some of the students had been having reasonable discussions with us, but now they joined the professor and, following her example, mocked us and our work.

Professor Young started waving her arms, and walked back and forth between us and the students, insisting to them that we were liars.

Each time I tried to speak to Miller-Young, she would interrupt to yell at me. I also talked to at least three of the students who had gathered around. Because the situation was already hostile, however, and they threw insults me.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The End of Debate

  • “I have a PhD, three degrees more than you do,” she shouted. Degrees from today’s liberal academia include:

    BS = bull s….
    MS = master s…
    PhD = piled higher and deeper
    DD = dirty diapers

    As my 2nd sponsor in a 12 step program once told me, “A thermometer has degrees and you know where you can stick that.”

    PS this is a commentary solely on today’s academia and not on those readers here who earned their degrees the old fashioned way.

  • This woman used her PhD as her license to have the right to impose her opinion judgement of how life a should be. People with or without PhD s use their position as justification. In some groups this self assertion just comes down to who is toughest. What this wrangling points out to me is that is not about ideas – more primal than that. It is just about dominance. And narcissism, no respect for others, God or man.
    Not about ideas so no discussion or debate.

  • and this is what the students are taught from the first day at secular college, that they are better than the rest of the community. Lord of the Flies by William Golding comes to mind. Beelzebub is translated Lord of the Flies.Unfortunately, when the students assume this posture, they miss truly being better than the community.

  • If Miller-Young, PhD were not a professor of utterly useless spucatum tauri, she would, as her students soon will be, intimately familiar with KFC as employer.

    Lower primates fling their feces at each other. Birds of a feather . . .

  • For the defenders of Truth;
    $29.95 Liberalbegone Spray.
    When reason and manners are absent from dialog, and aggressive behavior ensues, break out your last defense…Liberalbegone!

    Fire a warning shot first. Spray at violent extremities that are flalling about.
    If aggressive behavior continues, one rapid spray in the red facial area should be enough to subdue the 3 x PhD in her tracks.

    To easy. I know. What is on the horizon? Hate speech crimes exist.
    NSA phone records infringement.
    The War on virtue decency and purity is taking place. St. Michael defend us in battle.

  • Here she is:

    Unless UC Santa Barbara is eccentric with titles, she’s been awarded tenure. Santa Barbara is a research university, not a lower-tier private college; you need to publish if you want to keep your job. This woman is 38 years old. Its a reasonable guess she began working on her dissertation 10 years ago. In the intervening years, her published work has amounted to…her dissertation edited for publication. At the liberal arts college I know best, a publication record like that gets you a pink slip; melanin will not help you avoid such a fate if you’re up short to that degree.

    Here’s a precis of her sicko research here:,d.cWc

    This history department in any institution is not the site of practical learning. It’s liberal education, which is to say education for leisure. People use their leisure-time viewing the smut she studied without the need for an academic guide.

    She was awarded a doctoral degree in “American History” for puzzling over disgusting mass entertainment products produced after 1966. What does this suggest?

    1. New York University and UC Santa Barbara, the sites of said travesty, should be reduced to rubble by aereal bombardment.

    2. The hiring committee who inflicted her on the students of UC Santa Barbara, the tenure and promotion committee who further inflicted her, her dissertation committee and she herself should be tarred and feathered and forced to run around Washington Square Park in Manhattan until they drop from exhaustion.

  • Miller-Young is being charged with misdemeanor theft, battery, and vandalism.
    Amazingly, she has pled “not guilty”. UCSB does not appear to have conducted
    an internal investigation of its own in the matter, and the Associate Professor has
    not been suspended from teaching, even though she is being charged with
    battery on a 16-year-old girl.
    It doesn’t surprise me that there are Miller-Youngs out there– the world is full
    of crazy, vicious people. What truly astonishes me here is that this university is
    so complacent about leaving this woman in her teaching position considering
    the nature of the charges against her.
    Back in March, Michael Young, the UCSB vice-chancellor for student affairs, issued
    an email to all UCSB students regarding the issue. In it, he denounced
    demonstrators who “peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims”,
    and referred to them as “anti-abortion crusaders” and “evangelical types”. In
    short, while he never mentioned Miller-Young, he seemed to blame the 16-year
    old girl she assaulted. But rest easy, the vice-chancellor assured students in
    his email that he cherishes open debate and affirms that “our Founding Fathers–
    all white men of privilege, some even slave owners– got it right when designing
    the First Amendment of the Constitution”.

  • She’s a real credit to her institution, her profession, and all the ideals they both purportedly stand for.
    By the way, Donald, what do you mean “is developing?” That totalitarian mindset is rather fully developed by now, don’t you think?

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Thursday, September 13, AD 2012

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

George Washington


One of the interesting fall outs of the rampages in Cairo and Benghazi is the calls by some on the Left for jailing people for exercising freedom of speech.  Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy blog pointed this out yesterday:

That’s what MSBNC contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch, the University of Pennsylvania’s Prof. Anthea Butler (Religious Studies), and of course the Egyptian government argue with regard to the movie that mocks Mohammed:

Prof. Butler: “Good Morning. How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid…” “And yes, I know we have First Amendment rights,but if you don’t understand the Religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked off.” “And people do go to jail for speech. First Amendment doesn’t cover EVERYTHING a PERSON says.” “[T]he murder of the Ambassador and the employees is wrong, wrong. But Bacile will have to face his actions which he had freedom[.]”

Mike Barnicle: “Given this supposed minister’s role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”

Donny Deutsch: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”

In a way this is an unsurprising development.  The Left in this country, with honorable exceptions, has not been overly fond of the concept of free speech for some time.  Speech codes seeking to hamper the free speech rights of conservatives and Christians have been a staple at many colleges and universities for the past twenty years.  Conservative speakers are routinely shouted down when they speak on campuses.  The recent attack on Chik-Fil-A by the Mayors of Boston and Chicago was merely the latest manifestation of the willingness of many on the Left to use government power to suppress views they hate.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

  • It is ironic and oxymoronic that the liberal left defends the very thing – radical Islam – whose adherents would slay them on sight. They prune themselves, whether by sterile sexual relationships or by inviting their own execution. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison.

  • Add to this that it was not about the movie but a well planned retaliation:

    The Devil lies in many ways. The MSM is his mouthpiece.

  • Of course if the MSM is truly upset about offending religious sensibilities they will oppose this:


  • “it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.”

    Justice is predicated on intent. If Bacile intended to incite the murder of the ambassador, then he is guilty of complicity. The prosecutor would have to prove conspiracy or intent to commit murder or an act of war. Again, there is the matter of the thought police. How could the prosecutor determine what any person has thought or is thinking unless the prosecutor owned the other person’s soul? Slavery starts with the denial of the other person, made in the image of God, and his freedom to not incriminate himself, especially if he is innocent of the charges, as inscribed in our Fifth Amendment. Citizens have become too indifferent to their own freedom, so that they will lose freedom by not recognizing it in others.

    No one can own my soul because God created my soul for me. Those who would take my life to own my soul, must realize that when a person takes my life to own my soul, he forfeits his own immortal soul.

  • It’s the same as always– free speech, unless someone is offended. Measured in terms of damage, not outrage. (see also: “protests” that involve burning things, flipping cars) I’ve seen people compare this to incitement to riot, or yelling fire in a theater.

    Sorry, no, saying that Mohammad slept with a bunch of women (since I’m not going to watch the youtube video, and that’s the only specific complaint I’ve seen offered) isn’t either of those things.

  • The video is so startling to me, I can’t believe it is happening. Can we all say lemmings!!
    Poor education and religious formation have sown a blight on our country. Bon Appetite!!

  • I will bet everyone of those individuals who signed the petition to silence the speech of Beck and other conservatives will begin to remember what, in fact, they did. The whole purpose of the video was to get people to think and it worked.

    America is the only sovereign nation on the globe whose founding principles guarantee the individual sovereign person FREEDOM.

  • Re: Mary De Voe

    That is why the HHS mandate has been changed—-RIGHT??? They have had adequate time to realize their mistake but haven’t offered to correct it. Your hope that these folks will see their mistakes is laudable. I’m from Missouri and they have to show me. Freedom of religion and speech are being attacked and one only need smell the coffee to realize it!!

  • “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire

    So I guess the left will defend the Catholic Church if we are so offended by Obama care that we start rioting in the streets and killing people?

  • Don, the interesting thing is that this actually seems to be “free speech for thee, but not for me”. I can’t think of a historical parellel.

  • There were Japanese and Germans placed in concentration camps by the U. S. government. Do we really think that this bunch of thugs cares about a few limits on free speech for Catholics. I doubt it.

  • Ray wrote, “There were Japanese and Germans placed in concentration camps by the U. S. government. Do we really think that this bunch of thugs cares about a few limits on free speech for Catholics. I doubt it.”

    If we carried this over as an exact analogy, then it wouldn’t be Catholics or other orthodox Christians who would be jailed, but Muslims. We have been at war with Islam sine 630 AD. Yesterday was the celebration of the Holy Name of Mary when in 1683 King John III Sobieski of Poland invoked her name to defend Vienna, Austria against the Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire. Remeber that at the time Japanese and Germans in the US were placed in camps, we were at war against Japan and Germany. While internment in hindsight was wrong, if the analogy were to be carried forward, it would be Muslims who should be interred, and history shows what happens when otherwise is the case.

    Disclaimer: I am not advocating for internment of Muslims. What I am saying is that today’s society is so topsy-turvy that the government recognies the enemies of Christendom as friends and condemns the adherents of Christianity as enemies. Where is good King John Sobieski of Poland when we need him!

  • The name of the good king for us is Benedict, our current Pontiff. What rights have our brother Americans of the Muslim persuasion have been taken away. The Catholics rights are presently being poached( if only bit by small bit). During that time during the 1600’s the Europeans had begun losing their Catholic faith. The Good King from Poland was a stalwart Catholic and it was his faith that allowed for his success.

  • There is no question that the First Amendment is under attack today. But while it is indeed appalling that so many Americans would so readily sign a petition to take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I do have to wonder how many people the video team approached who held firm and refused to sign for that very reason. We only see about 4-1/2 minutes of how long a tape? It is obvious by the way they jump around between petitioners that the tape has been edited. Did none of those approached refuse to sign? Or did 99% refuse? It’s easy to “prove” your point when you only include the data supporting it, but it’s not necessarily honest. We should always be careful lest we find ourselves guilty of the same tactics we abhor in others.

  • I think the point of the tape Mike was not how many people signed the petition but that those who signed, while they were seeking to take freedom of speech from others, blithely affirmed their support for free speech. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living and that was the tragic element in this humorous video.

  • “Yesterday, was the celebration of the Holy Name of Mary when in 1683 King John III Sobieski of Poland invoked her name to defend Vienna, Austria against the Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Thank you for remembering, Paul, and I do hope you regain your health and strength. King John Sobieski mustered the fighting men to save Vienna. The Encyclopedia Britannica tells that King John Sobieski’s baker invented the bagel, trying to make the bread look like the stirrups on John Sobieski’s saddle. A new and wonderful way to eat bagels.

    Where is King John Sobieski today? King John cavorts with Lech Walesa and Gov. Mitt Romney.

    Tomorrow is the Exaltation of the Cross.

  • Some people will sign anything.
    Reminds me of the people at a greenie gathering, who were raising a petition to ban Di-hydrogen Oxide, because it kills people if you immerse yourself in it, it can kill if you ingest too much of it, babies drown in it etc. etc.
    Almost everyone approached, signed to ban it.

    Di-hydrogen Oxide = H 2 O = water.

    What a bunch of chumps.

  • Just had some of your islander folks visit for 18 days. They are from Timaru. We love you folks down under but you only have thousands of whackos. When we have an equivalent percentage here in the states it is millions. It is easy to disavow a few but here the numbers are much larger. Stay with us brother and keep up the good fight with your cousins in the states. Thanks for being interested in our wayward form of democracy.

  • Mike-
    it doesn’t matter that some folks hopefully didn’t sign, other than in a it-could-be-worse, everyone-could-be-lining-up-to-sign way.

    It’s a bit like going “Hey, Libya isn’t so bad– over 99% of them were NOT involved in beating our ambassador to death!”

  • Slight thread drift…I named my first son John, in part, because of King John Sobieski. You didn’t want to mess with the Polish Husaria. There is supposed to be a movie coming out in October that is about the events of the Siege of Vienna (Victoria). Don’t hold me to that, as it was something I read on the Internet (YouTube). It has been planned for a long time.

    The Left is hypocritical and obnoxious. Mike Barnicle was suspended from his job at the Boston Globe (or fired from it) because of plagarism. The rest of that bunch is beneath contempt.

    Should Obumbler abscond with the election, I will look into moving my family to Poland.
    No Democrat Party, no radical Muslims, they are not destroying their currency and Catholics are the majority.

  • “How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? … I know we have First Amendment
    rights, but if you don’t understand the religion you hate, STFU about it. Yes, I am ticked

    Why do I get the feeling that Professor Butler is a lot more complacent when the object
    of some ‘artist’s’ ridicule is not Islam, but rather Christianity? Was she this upset when
    Andres Serrano was publicizing his photo “Piss Christ”, which shows a crucifix submerged
    in urine? Where was her outrage when Chris Ofili received federal dollars to exhibit his
    work at the Brooklyn Museum of Art? One of his works depicted the Virgin Mary using
    elephant dung and cutouts from pornographic magazines. The New York art world and
    academia in general both praised the works, snickered at the objections of Christians,
    and reminded everyone of the primacy of the First Amendment.

    If Ms. Butler doesn’t have similar outrage for Messrs. Serrano and Ofili, perhaps she
    should take some deep breaths, review her copy of the Constitution, and then ‘STFU’.

  • Ray.
    6.54 pm.
    Thanks for your kind remarks. Pleased to be with you.

    “.Just had some of your islander folks visit for 18 days. They are from Timaru”

    Islanders? we call the people from Fiji, Samoa, Cook Islands, Vanuatu etc. Islanders.-)
    Still, NZ in relation to the US is small in land mass, so fair enough.
    Timaru is a port town on the east coast of the South Island, and I’m sure your friends said they were Mainlanders. I’m from the North Island, and we do have a North/South rivalry, particularly in the game of rugby at this time of year. 🙂

  • Pingback: William Saletan, Meet Christopher Johnson! | The American Catholic
  • 54 days until the election. There is a 54-day Rosary Novena starting (some people started yesterday). Please join!/events/499344486760072/?notif_t=plan_user_joined

  • Cardinal Dolan Go check out what The good Cardinal is worried about. I guess I am not really a Catholic after all. Muslim? Islam? WHATEVER!

  • Lefties are enamoured of political correctness; hence, the assault on free speech…