Sacred Cow

Tuesday, May 9, AD 2017



In the current pontificate, Mary Jo Anderson at The Catholic World Report reminds us, speaking the truth about Islam is verboten:



A Catholic teacher in Florida remains under fire in his diocese, three weeks after the Huffington Post reported that he assigned “anti-Muslim” material to sixth- grade students. Mark Smythe, who teaches social studies and religion at Blessed Trinity Catholic School in Ocala, Florida, faces termination unless he signs a letter of reprimand. Theresa Simon, Human Resources Director for the Diocese of Orlando, in consultation with Henry Fortier, Superintendent of Schools, informed the school’s principal that Mr. Smythe “must” be reprimanded because he caused an incident that distressed Muslim community members and furthermore it was an “embarrassment for BT(Blessed Trinity)School, the Office of Schools, and the Bishop’s Office.”

Despite school principal Jason Halstead’s defense of his teacher—“It’s obvious from your comments that you are quite supportive of Mr. Smythe….”—Ms. Simon confirmed that “there is no way around” the reprimand. Should Mr. Smythe decline to sign the reprimand “he will still be held accountable for its contents.”

Mr. Smythe’s class read St. John Bosco’s evaluation of Islam. A mother of a student was surprised to see Islam described as a “monstrous mixture” of several faiths containing “ridiculous, immoral and corrupting” doctrines. She shared the material with a Muslim friend whose children had also attended Blessed Trinity. The latter contacted the Huffington Post’s “documenting hate” project.
When the Post contacted the Diocese of Orlando, Jacquelyn Flanigan, associate Superintendent apologized for the teacher’s “unfortunate exhibit of disrespect” and assured the Post that a reprimand had been ordered. Flanigan, who is not a theologian, pushed further in her statement to the Post, saying “the information provided in the sixth grade class is not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Ms. Flanigan had not met with the teacher, the principal, or the pastor, Fr. Patrick Sheedy, to determine the nature of the full presentation of the lesson or the context. Additionally, she gave no authority for her statement that St. John Bosco’s work isn’t “consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Blessed Trinity School uses the acclaimed series, All Ye Lands, by Catholic Text Book Project. Formed in 2000, the Catholic Textbook Project recognized a critical need for textbooks that avoid a secularized, sometimes anti-Catholic worldview. “But most importantly,” states the Project’s website, “our textbooks are Catholic; they proceed from the insight that mankind and history have been transformed irrevocably by Christ and his Church. Put simply, without the Church, history simply would not be the same. We tell that story fully and accurately.”

The introduction to the volume of All Ye Lands that Mark Smythe has in his class states, “Thank you for undertaking the education of the next generation of American Catholics in a century filled with perils and promise. Christ offers our youth a challenge and a hope that no other religion or philosophy permits. We, their teachers and parents, cannot allow our children to be ignorant of the origins of the Faith or of the beliefs of other cultures in an increasingly hostile world.”

The tempest
In his “final warning” memorandum dated April 28th, Superintendent of Schools, Henry Fortier, again reminded the teacher that the “incident has cast an embarrassing spotlight on Blessed Trinity Catholic School as well as the Diocese of Orlando.” The Superintendent concedes in his memo that Mr. Smythe did balance his presentation in class by citing the areas of faith that Islam and Christianity share: faith, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. However, the material from Saint John Bosco was rejected by Fortier as not currently approved thinking.
Mr. Fortier instructed Mr. Smythe to familiarize himself with “the Catholic Church’s position on the Islam faith” by reviewing “current scholarly Catholic faith-based analysis of the Islam faith… We especially note the writings and living witness of Pope Francis with all Muslims.”

Mr. Smythe was given a deadline of May 7th, to report back to the principal with a list of the documents he had read per the memorandum. Further, Fortier warned Smythe that he is “not to venture away from the approved teachings of the Catholic Church.” And, whether inside or outside of school, “a negative comment about or disparagement of the Islam faith” will result in immediate termination.

Finally, Smythe is directed by the memo to sign the reprimand. According to his attorney, Henry Ferro of Ocala, Mr. Smythe has not signed the reprimand because he does not think that his actions warrant the reprimand. Legally, a reprimand in an employment dossier can be grounds for termination and/or make future employment difficult. Smythe is married and has three children. Absent any prior guidelines or statement of policy by the Church, how is a Catholic school teacher, teaching in a Catholic school, to know that material from a canonized Saint, and one who is a patron saint of school children, is disallowed, much less grounds for reprimand that jeopardize his future?

The incident raises other serious questions. Was Mr. Smythe’s pamphlet by St. John Bosco a matter of correct and accurate teaching used imprudently? Did the diocese overreact in order to appease a powerful national media outlet? Are diocesan personnel under the misunderstanding that there is one official “approved” Catholic teaching on Islam? (Requests from CWR for comments from representatives of the Diocese of Orlando have not been returned.)

These questions and others merit a broad discussion within the Catholic education establishment. Is it not the mission of Catholic schools to prepare students to live out and defend their faith in a world increasingly hostile to the Gospel of Christ? If so, how so?

Fr. Peter Stavinskas is the executive director of the Catholic Education Foundation and holds a doctorate in school administration and another doctorate in theology. From his decades of experience as a teacher and administrator in Catholic schools Fr. Stavinskas observed that, as starting point, “There is no ‘Catholic teaching’ on Islam, as such. Don Bosco’s reflection is not ‘Catholic teaching’ but an historical perspective and a straightforward description of what that religion teaches.

Similarly, Vatican II has no ‘Catholic teaching’ on Islam, merely a one-paragraph summary of points of convergence between Christianity and Islam (as Nostra Aetate does for Judaism and even pagan religions).”

As for the diocese’s requirement for more “scholarly” presentations on Islam, and for an analysis more current than even Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (which Ms. Flanigan cited for the Huffington Post), there is the scholarly address given by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg in 2006. If teacher Mark Smythe is remiss for quoting 19th-century Don Bosco on Islam, what then of Pope Benedict’s quote from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor’s statement, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Sacred Cow

  • Is there such a thing as “accompaniment” of heresy now?

  • My goodness. Perhaps this Bishop is lucky not to be in Orlando.
    I realize that the Orthodox are in schism, at least on paper, but with Catholic bishops and the bureaucrats we have, Oy vey! The parable of the the son who said he would go work in the field (and then did not) and the son who said he wasn’t going to (and then did anyway) keeps running through my mind. Little wonder people have found other outlets outside of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church to try to labor in Vineyard.

  • Too much “Catholic” education is not Catholic. Truth has been a casualty for some time now in too many dioceses.

  • Such people are liberals first Catholics somewhere around tenth.

    FYI, liberals are dishonest, immoral, and stupid as bags of rocks. Act accordingly.

    In conclusion (Thank God!), the truth is an absolute defense. Those people deny the Truth. It is what they do. Again, act accordingly.

  • It was in Orlando, back in 2005, that Terri Schiavo was deemed
    “vegetative” and starved and dehydrated until, after fourteen days, she died.
    Robert Lynch, then Bishop of Orlando, received a great deal of criticism for his
    less-than-robust defense of Terri Schiavo, her family, and the Catholic belief
    in the Sanctity of Life until its natural end. Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother,
    said that he would never forget “one of (Bishop Lynch’s) boldest statements,
    issued in the weeks leading up to (Terri’s) death. He didn’t call for mercy for
    Terri, or for the continuation of basic care, but, unbelievably, for my family
    and those fighting for my sister to ‘step back a little and allow some mediation
    in these final hours’ with those seeking to end my sister’s life. They were only
    her ‘final hours’ because men like him regarded her right to life as negotiable
    rather than absolute.” As Terri’s death approached, Bishop Lynch arranged
    to be away from Orlando and far from reporters.

    I recall us to this shameful episode in the life of the Church — when the Bishop
    of Orlando abandoned a woman to be legally, cruelly killed whilst concern-trolling
    about how unfortunate all the fuss was — to pose a rhetorical question: in light
    of Bishop Lynch’s infamously pusillanimous response to Terri Schiavo’s killing,
    shouldn’t he also be forced to sign a letter of reprimand? After all, to paraphrase
    the HR Director for the Orlando Diocese quoted above, Bishop Lynch certainly
    “must” be reprimanded because he caused an incident that distressed members
    of a religious community and furthermore, it was an embarrassment for… well,
    pretty much all Catholics, everywhere, and not just a school and the chancery.

    Actually, it is stunning to hear that the Orlando Diocese is claiming that the
    embarrassment Mr. Smythe has allegedly caused the Bishop’s Office is reason to
    end the man’s career. After the wretched display Bishop Lynch put on in 2005,
    I’d have sworn that particular Bishop’s Office was incapable of feeling embarrassment.

  • When will some of the bishops carry a shepherds staff. To approximate Chesterton: if the truth is the truth then it is true in any time and place. St. John Bosco is the founder of the Salesians, second only to the Jesuits in number and a teaching order. Islam is what it is. Read the Qu’ran. It will only affirm what St. John Bosco said. This is not prejudice it is simply presenting what is there. Why should any Moslem be offended when their faith is presented for what it is. When Catholics face criticism for the Inquisition they do not deny it but express sadness that it is part of our history and we try to make sure it does not happen again. If I took offence every time the church was criticized I would live in a perpetual snit. How sad that PC is so powerful Catholic Saints are not permitted to be quoted in Catholic Schools. Rather than the diocese being embarrassed by this Catholic teacher, it seems to me the diocese should be embarrassed by the one who has the solemn duty to be THE teacher of faith in the diocese.

  • Perhaps, the Truth about Islam needs its latter day “Scopes Monkey trial.”

  • “or you will get it in the neck.” Gulp.
    …separating the brain from the rest of the body..
    Jesus is the head of His Body, Islam tries to separate Christ from the Father and to separate the head of Christ from His Body. Saint John tells us that those who do not have the Son don’t have the Father. If they say Jesus is a prophet are they saying He is a false prophet? The appeasers and tolerators want to find refuge from the dangers of a wild and violent religion in the lie that it is a religion of peace. They say peace peace but there is no peace in a lie.
    They don’t really have God, nor do we all worship the same God. It is silly not to admit that it is a false and dangerous religion

  • What a stupid and pernicious age we are cursed to live in: a faith that, from the top down, spends more time defending other religions than her own truths.
    It is the cult of “dialogue” that is the most poisonous fruit of the 21st ecumenical council. And it is the most jealous of idols, God save us.

  • Fr. Bob B.

    Thank you for speaking the truth.

  • There’s a common bourgeois type which is everywhere in the education and social services apparat (as well as corporate HR) and includes most clergymen. Catholic institutions should be vigorous and sure enough of themselves to contain and expel these types. Since Catholic institutions are run by and large by people infected with “bored-out-of-their-minds-careerism” (as Amy Welborn put it), you have scandals like this, and scandals like Charlotte Catholic High School, and scandals like Providence College, and scandals like the Patricia Jannuzzi affair. And, of course, the greeting card sentiments you’re served in a typical novus ordinary parish week after week.

    Fr. Paul Mankowski offered some years ago that the first six decades of the 20th century may have been something of a golden age re the quality of the clergy in the Anglosphere. Just sixty years later, we live in a time where the prudent course of action is to hope the rights are regular and stay the heck away from anyone currently on the Church payroll.

  • the rites are regular

  • Call most Diocese these day asking for the Head Teacher of the Diocese and you’ll get the catholic school superintendent.
    That speaks volumes doesn’t it?

  • Clinton.

    I remember Terri’s battle.
    Interestingly while we witnessed the Lynch, (appropriate name in this case)..the Bishop Lynch approach, across the pond our Holy Father was showing the world what dignity looks like in death. Spring of 2005. A case study in euthanasia for the former and true dignity in dying in the latter.
    God bless both recognized on earth while the other suffered martyrdom.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Noose Tightens Around the Necks of the ‘Rigid’ in FrancisLand – The Stumbling Block
  • qBishop Lynch ran the Diocese of St. Petersburg, not Orlando.
    I say that not in his defense. Lynch is not a Bishop you would want in charge of your diocese.

  • The entirety of Vatican Two was submerged, and subsequently drowned, in the anti-baptismal waters of Ecumenism and Ecumenism is the Universal Solvent of Tradition.

    Invisibilium within the Hierarchy is that prelate whose puissant possession of Tradition is such that it could be applied as a force against our Inertia Into Indifferentism and we are sheep with shepherds who, when they are denying there is such a thing as a sheep gate, are trying to drive us out of the sheep gate because the faithful are the new black sheep mucking up the putative peace

  • The Muslim teaching about Christianity is petty straightforward: It is a corrupted form of Islam. Unlike the Koran which is a literal copy of a heavenly book, the Bible text has been corrupted over the centuries and construed to teach false things about the Prophet Jesus, He was not the son of God; did not die on the cross, rise from the dead on the Third Day, and then ascend into heaven. He is not divine, and the doctrine of the Trinity is blasphemy. He did work miracles, and he will have a special role in the End Times, but what the Church teaches about him is false.

  • John Schuh,

    We don’t coexist/dialog with people that want to kill us, who respond with violence to generous offers.

    Intolerance. If all Christians are blasphemers, it’s ok to massacre them like they do with Coptic Christians.

    Muhammad obtained standard Aryan (gnostic) heresy from a heretical monk out of Damascus, not from Satan, as Salmon Rushdie posited, or from Gabriel as per M’s fabrications.

    Don’t believe me. Believe John Quincy Adams(noted American theologian?).

    “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

    “Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).”

    Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.

    A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam.

    Schuh, I hope you don’t believe Muhammad and his slanders against Christ. Do you know where Dante places Muhammad in Hell, and why?

  • Stuff like this is why a Catholic school isn’t an option for our family, any more than public school is.

  • I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware the Vatican had a Congregation or Dicastery or Office or any kind of portfolio whatsoever having anything to do with jackassery on the part of catholic school bureaucrats.

  • Clinton: we should never forget that Terri Schavro was also denied the sacraments by court order, a clear case of the demonic if there ever was one. Where was the local ordinary when that happened?

  • Why spend thousands of dollars to send your child “catholic” schools like Blessed Trinity to send you child to Hell while the Public Schools will do the same thing free of charge!

  • Why pay “catholic” schools like Blessed Trinity in Florida to send your child to Hell when the public schools will do the same free of charge!

  • 🙁 Why pay “catholic” Blessed Trinity in Florida to send your child to Hell when public schools will do the same free of charge?

  • I have only just seen this since I have spent most of the past week or so in bed ill. Now having read it, I may well spend the next week or so in bed ill!

Red Fascists Riot Tonight in Berkeley

Wednesday, February 1, AD 2017

It is beyond hilarious that the left calls their opponents Nazis.  A typical example of the left using violence to shut up a political adversary is occurring tonight at Berkeley:

Protesters with armed with bricks and fireworks mounted an assault on the building hosting a speech by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos Wednesday night, forcing the event’s cancellation.

Yiannopoulos was making the last stop of a tour aimed at defying what he calls an epidemic of political correctness on college campuses.

With masked activists joining the already large group of protesters gathered in the area between Sather Gate and the north end of Telegraph Avenue as night fell, campus police were holding their positions near the entrance of the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union building hosting the event.

Protesters began throwing bricks, lit fireworks and rocks at the building. Some used police barriers as battering rams to attack the doors of the venue, breaching at least one of the doors and entering the venue on the first floor.

In addition to fireworks being thrown up onto the second-floor balcony, fires were lit outside the venue, including one that engulfed a gas-powered portable floodlight.

At about 6:18 p.m., UC campus police announced that the event had been canceled. Officers ordered the crowd to disperse, calling it an unlawful assembly.

Police then announced that they would lock down the entire campus, though authorities initially remained stationed near the student union building and did not move to force the protesters to disperse.

Protesters began throwing bricks, lit fireworks and rocks at the building. Some used police barriers as battering rams to attack the doors of the venue, breaching at least one of the doors and entering the venue on the first floor.

In addition to fireworks being thrown up onto the second-floor balcony, fires were lit outside the venue, including one that engulfed a gas-powered portable floodlight.

At about 6:18 p.m., UC campus police announced that the event had been canceled. Officers ordered the crowd to disperse, calling it an unlawful assembly.

Police then announced that they would lock down the entire campus, though authorities initially remained stationed near the student union building and did not move to force the protesters to disperse.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Red Fascists Riot Tonight in Berkeley

  • Unless there are arrests, prosecutions, and serious sentences handed out, this has official permission. The ‘red fascists’ are agents of the school’s administration and the municipal establishment and the cops are simply there to limit the damage to physical plant not covered in the University’s current budget.

  • Doesn’t anyone realize that these protests are being funded by Russia and the communists are doing this unrest on purpose to get the country to be unsettled. We are americans and we love our freedoms. When you start hurting people and destroying property, then it becomes terrorism.

  • If you go to youtube and type in Milo, it will show you in the De Paul University case that when several black lives matter people stopped this man from speaking, security did virtually nothing and since the sponsering student organization couldn’t afford the security, Breitbart had chipped in a thousand dollars. The police never came and security guards were yelled at by the whole audience…” do your job…do your job”. And Milo eventually said he would talk to each person down at the bottom of the stage. Milo is politically conservative but morally he is way off the reservation being admittedly a promiscuous active homosexual….who oddly believes he is guaranteed to go to heaven.
    He is pro Trump and an editor at Breitbart. But I guess the left have a hard time linking him to a wider group that they hate since he also likes Trump but not republicans.
    My research at youtube simply leads me to pray for his soul. Because he is sexually no rules, perhaps he draws many college audiences and is an odd threat to the Left because the young attend his talks and thus break the left group think dominance.

  • They are Nazi brownshirts in every way. I’m watching it now live. They’re moving from bank to bank (and the occasional Starbucks) smashing and looting. And, yes, they’re even shouting anti-semitic slogans – “Fuck the Zionists!”

  • It does no good to arrest these hooligans. It does no good to bring them to court becaus the courts are stacked with judges who have the same mentality as these hooligans do. Civil war is coming. I write that not in advocacy but as a warning. And I advise everyone to stay away from college campuses and inner cities. Those places are where the rot resides.

  • I have seen this insanity before, in Berlin. Trump needs to add to his vetting of overseas travelers. He needs to look for problem children coming from Europe. TR.

  • Textbook liberal mob that Ann Coulter writes about in Demonic. Her comparison in the book is the American Revolution to the liberal mob of the French Revolution.

  • Another example of the “Left” and it’s form of tolerance being displayed.

  • Anyone who breaks the law should be arrested and tried. Arrest and trial is a deterrent. Not arresting lawbreakers encourages them. I firmly believe that the Trump/Pence Administration will clean federal judicial house wherever feasible. Locally it is up to the states. The flap over a Time story about Trump’s phone call with the Mexican president that he would send US troops to take care of the bad hombres is a leak from some Obama holdovers. In fact there are reports of a conspiracy of these holdovers in federal employment who will sabotage policies by stonewalling, leaking and work stopping to undermine the Trump Administration. This is the Obama/Sorros legacy. Pray!

  • Milo is politically conservative but morally he is way off the reservation being admittedly a promiscuous active homosexual….who oddly believes he is guaranteed to go to heaven.

    Well Bill, Milo does claim to be Catholic. (References can be provided later when I’m at my desk.)

    I admit to laughing at the thought of him and the Pope going on a speaking tour together. It might be good for Francis to get a look at how the young people today behave.

  • CAM…I agree. However there are other tactics. The West German Polizei took to arming certain Officers with tank sprayers that squirted a dye. A dye that marked the trouble makers for long periods of time. TR.

  • I’m watching FOXBusiness and every mother-loving Democrat is making excuses.

    If, God forbid, the fascists ever again get control, I know what I am prepared to do. Only no camera, no evidence and and no witness. Today, I am addressing my insufficient inventory (1,000+) of .223 cal. FMJ and honing my K-Bar.

  • Feb 4 I ought to be scraping carrots for my chicken soup. “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”, in our First Amendment, guarantees a sovereign people the right and freedom to submit their needs, not their wants, to the people for ratification and change.
    Good will for the common good cannot include burning of the American Flag, the symbol of FREEDOM for all citizens in joint and common tenancy, unless informed consent is gotten from all citizens, the American people. Burning the American Flag as freedom of speech imposes the rioters force over the peaceable man. It must be proven that removal of the American Flag, that belongs to all persons, will benefit the common good. Burning the American Flag without the informed consent of the America citizens is NOT freedom speech, but terrorism against the people.
    Outlaws are ignorant. Causing fear and inciting to riot are crimes against the First Principle of peaceable assembly, required “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” How many riots were run amok at the signing of The Declaration of Independence?
    It is the presumption by the ignorant outlaws and villains that our civil rights, abused, will not be defended and good will for the common good as stated in The Preamble, is not a requirement of the citizen to maintain his sovereign personhood and citizenship.
    Civil Rights as specified in our Founding Principles are not being acknowledged, shared or inculcated in our younger generations, our Constitutional Posterity, by academia. This is the crime of dereliction of duty by the citizen of one generation to the coming generation, all future generations, our Constitutional Posterity.
    Rioting in the streets, life threatening situations and violations of private property are criminal, the result of ignorance and choreographed by Satan himself, a violation of peaceable assembly, the civil right to which all sovereign citizens are guaranteed by Government of the people.
    No, my carrots are still not scraped. I began to write that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,…” in moral and legal innocence, the standard of Justice for the state and sovereign personhood that institutes the sovereignty of the nation from the very first moment of existence…that our “Creator” and only our “Creator” gives life and existence…and the rest are lies and perjury in a court of law…that Dred Scott, baby Roe, 60,000,000 aborted souls, and Terry Schiavo are wards of the Court crying out for Justice…and ignorant communists are rioting in the street to impose their fraudulent form of tyranny.
    The chicken soup has no carrots.

  • From on the ground here in the SF Baytheist Area, it is important to note a few things, confirmed by direct witnesses at the 2/1/17 Berkeley ‘Milo’ Riot.

    Ken Bastida, long-time KPIX Channel 5 TV affiliate anchor, while watching the riots live, identified many of the violent protestors as previous participants in similarly threatening BLM and Occupy! protests in SF, Oakland, and Berkeley. However, having seen some of these–esp. the black-clad, masked, armed group called “Black Rock”, most of these people are not UC students at all. UC students don’t have serious time for rioting, and don’t want to endanger their status at the university. Most of these are much older, dangerous, violent sociopaths that many of us in the SFBA are very familiar with.

    So, I wasn’t at all surprised when one of the Black Rock people who bragged on Twitter about beating bloody a pro-Trumper, even showing photos confirming his “kill”, turned out to be a UC Berkeley employee, a long-time IT writer, and about 40-50 years old, “Dabney Miller”:

    There are a lot of people like him who seem to be well-situated in government and academic-complex jobs, who aren’t noticed when they aren’t at work, and have lots of time and money in this costly area to do nothing—but riot.

    If the City of Berkeley and the UC administration wanted to I/d the rioters, it would be very easy just by checking the Facebook and Twitter feeds of the Black Rock group—as Ken Bastida said, having checked, they all communicate on these sites. But little interest in the leftist ruling complex to find out these things.

  • Daily Mail UK, 2/8/17:
    “This week, another BAMN organizer proclaimed she had “no regrets” about the violent protest that took place last week.

    “Anti-fascists” started several fires, smashed windows and ATMs, looted downtown stores, attacked cars, and assaulted dozens of MILO fans, male and female, who they falsely accused of being “Nazis.”

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported that rioters caused around $100,000 in damages at UC Berkeley, while the damage to downtown Berkeley was reported to be around $400,000 to $500,000.”

    ““We are happy with the results,” the San Francisco Chronicle reports Ronald Cruz, a former student at the college, told them. “We were able to meet Mr. Yiannopoulos’ fascist message with massive resistance.”

    He went on to proclaim that his group and others “were united in shutting down the Milo event,” adding, “Everyone played a part.”

    “Some engaged in breaking windows — others held signs and made sure that the fascists and the police did not attack anyone,” he explained. “This was self-defense. Windows can be replaced. People can’t be.”

    After being made aware that the Berkeley College Republicans were attempting to invite MILO back to deliver his speech, which was shut down before it started after left-wing protesters set fires around the school, smashed windows, and stormed the venue, Cruz warned that his group would take action again if necessary.

    “I would be surprised if he tries to after his humiliating defeat,” he declared. “But if he wants to be defeated again, he will be if he tries.”

  • By the way Ronald Cruz’ facebook site is:

    BAMN means “By Any Means Necessary”, FYI, a guide to the perplexed.

  • In June 2016, BAMN initiated a violent riot against an alleged neo-Nazi group:

    ” In 2016, BAMN attended a counter-protest against a rally held by the Traditionalist Workers Party, a white nationalist group, outside of the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Violence at the protests resulted in ten people being hospitalized with stab wounds. According to police, and verified by video taken by BAMN members and bystanders, the violence was initiated by BAMN members.”

    Serna, Joseph (27 June 2016). “Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”. Los Angeles Times.

Gold Star Families Spat Upon by Anti-Trump “Protestors”

Tuesday, January 24, AD 2017


A Gold Star Family is a family that has suffered the pain of having a member of the family die in the military service of the nation.  During the election campaign we were told that Gold Star Families were above reproach when a Gold Star Family attacked Trump at the Democrat convention,  Over the weekend some anti-Trump rioters revealed what many on the Left really think of Gold Star Families, at least those who disagree with them politically:


Allahpundit at Hot Air tells us what happened next:


John touched on this yesterday as part of a longer round-up of “the Resistance” acting like dirtbags but it deserves an extra thread. Imagine the thought process involved in (a) setting out to accost people (b) at an event devoted to the military and their families, specifically, and (c) zeroing in on two women, knowing that chances were fair that they’ve lost loved ones to war. Which, in the case of Ryan Manion and Amy Looney, happened to be true.

Where was security?

We were an hour late to the event. First because we could not get around an angry mob in the street that was burning trash cans and smashing windows. When we finally got to the venue, a group of about 75 people separated us from the entrance. Amy and I stood there unsure of what to do. I finally said, let’s just walk. As we made our way through the crowd we were spit at and called some of the worst and most vile things I have ever heard come out of a person’s mouth. These people had such hatred in their eyes when they screamed at us. After leaving the event we walked outside and was first pushed by a man in a mask hiding his face, then told by 2 women that we ruined this country. They screamed this in our faces along as in the face of a little boy that could have been no older then 6. As the one woman screamed the other pushed up against me and colored all over my mom’s shawl I was wearing with permanent marker.

This was on Inauguration Day, when assorted degenerates were smashing windows and burning limos in parts of D.C., not during Saturday’s Women’s March. Mary Katharine Ham, who knows both women and has worked with the Travis Manion Foundation, went on CNN yesterday to ask the fateful question: How would this have played in the media if the ideological affiliations had been different?

“I don’t think this characterizes the march and the movement that we saw out here today,” she said. “I want to be careful about that because I think that that’s something people have unfairly done to conservative movements in the past and to Tea Partiers, where you pick one thing and you go: ‘Look at those awful people out there, their concerns should be dismissed.’”

“But this is part of the story, as is Madonna saying she thinks about blowing up the White House,” she said. “Those are not great things. If it were a conservative movement, we would hear a lot about it. If you don’t think that the left has some prejudices of its own that can lead it very astray like it did last night in that instance, then you’re wrong. And if you think that that’s not part of the reason many turned to Trump, then you’re also wrong.”

We missed out on some memorably stern lectures about the “climate of hate” on cable news this weekend just because this came from the left rather than the right.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Gold Star Families Spat Upon by Anti-Trump “Protestors”

  • Has Mrs. Clinton denounced these supporters of hers yet? Sen. Schumer? DNC chair?

    We now see who the truly deplorable are.

  • Despotism is two faced, it always comes in disguise, calling its opponents’ despots, while in control of information. It abhors reason and has no sense of humor.

    For goodness sake that’s not Trump, but the Left sure looks like it sometimes.

  • Assault and battery are crimes. Inciting to riot and riot are crimes. Peace on earth to men of good will for the common good.
    After the War for Independence, the Tories, those loyal to King George II (they liked to be subjects to a monarchy) shot the farmers as they plowed their fields. The Tories victimized people for wanting freedom, truth and Justice. Wanting freedom, truth and Justice gets you spit upon.

  • Mistreatment of Gold Star Families – shameful. Rioting, trespassing, destruction of property – the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted when laws are broken. Women’s March For Abortion -disgusting and vulgar. An insult to females. Secret service or FBI should pay Madonna a very public visit. Right of free speech and assembly does not mean one can threaten the president or trash/destroy property, public or private, with impunity. Law enforcement should react swiftly. The whole scenario reminds me of the 60s. The goal is anarchy. The puppet master and money bags is George Sorros (spell?)

  • Pissed off?

    Peaceful protest coming up Feb.11th.

    Two great activist groups are joining together to keep the pressure on these pathetic spitting punks.

    Pro life Action League and Citizens for a Pro Life Society. This is during the Forty Days for Life campaign.

    Saturday join in and Defund Planned Parenthood in your neck of the woods.
    Please consider it!

    It’s better than getting mad at news like the above example, but believe me, I’m pissed off. I’m going to pray it off which is even better. Find a city near you…Please.

    It’s better to ask Heaven for help, than getting even with these parasitic worms that live in turtle blood…Oh wait..”Obama” worms. Official name calling. Anyway please consider the 11th. We pray our Rosaries and take a public stand.

    Witness while you can.
    You’ll never regret it. Even if your spat upon.

Shut Up, They Explained

Friday, October 28, AD 2016


Kimberly Strassel for Prager University reveals the ongoing attempt by the left in this country to shut people up.  If Trump wins the election, and the polls are off, the left can thank their own brownshirt tactics in convincing many Americans that here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, keeping one’s mouth shut is the better part of valor if one’s sentiments are not politically correct.  I blog under my own name.  Partially that is because it is part of my nature to stand up for what I believe in, but partially it is because I have been self-employed for thirty-one years.  In today’s climate, if I were not self-employed, I doubt if I would be blogging under my own name, if I were blogging at all.  My ancestor, Major Andrew McClary, did not die on Breed’s Hill in 1775 so that generations later Americans would live in fear of expressing their heart-felt sentiments.  We can do far better than this, and we owe it to our honored war dead to do so.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Shut Up, They Explained

  • I use my own name here and on Facebook because I am an ornery soul. Intimidation tactics irritate me. (It is a prideful impulse that I work hard to contain.)

    Quite often, folks are surprised that I keep so much of my Facebook posts public. Really, the only ones I make private are ones that would identify my residence and the ones that include personal pictures. On occasion, I am looking for confined input that excludes interlopers but that is rare.

    I understand the impulse to hide what we think. We live in a world of ready access and that means ever increasing means for hurting others. There are seriously vindictive and mean people out there and they really don’t recognize that causing someone to lose their job over an internet post is both wrong and bad for society as a whole.

    I may regret my openness someday but I have such a viscerally negative reaction to being shouted down, silenced, cowed, that I can’t bring myself to do otherwise.

  • I have noted Dave that courage is infectious. Bravo for your stand.

  • For maximum irony… youtube tried to censor pragerU (or rather, I think people tried to use youtube’s system to censor them)

    But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube, a development PragerU announced this month. This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering—say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” Yet it’s easy to imagine a flood of users reporting a political video—microagressed college students have a lot of free time—and limiting a viewpoint’s audience.

  • God Bless you both, David and Mac.
    This is the essence of totalitarianism. – only thing they are not disappearing/murdering the opposition, YET.
    Orwell wrote an essay on the passing of Gandhi. In it he explained that Gandhi could not have succeeded against a regime (Stalin, Hitler, Hillary come to mind) where there was no freedom of assembly (and just as importantly association – fake Catholic groups subverting the Church) and no free press (the lying media is the statists’ ministry of truth – censors and vilifies opposition views). As such, the opposition can’t get out the “word” and has no chance to kick-start a mass movement. Also, feverishly working for totalitarianism are the ideologues that totally control public education and universities – 24/7 brainwashing young minds – a low to moderate IQ mind is a terrible thing to waste.
    Don’t forget, 19 November 2016 is National Ammunition Day – buy a hundred rounds of your favorite caliber.

  • Your making your honorable ancestors very proud Mr.McClarey..very proud.
    It’s Patriots like you and your love for freedom and neighbor, that is providing decency in a culture bent on immortality and deceitfulness.

    Keep these finely tuned posts going.

  • “Your making your honorable ancestors very proud Mr.McClarey..very proud.”

    Thank you Philip. To quote Tolkien, I am a lesser son of great sires, but I do what I can.

  • Oops…. immorality. However immortality is found in only two locales. Some in this day and age prefer the smoking section.. forever.
    Thanks for blowing the smoke away.
    The air is so much cleaner and the endless singing and praising of God is so worth this struggle in this valley.

    btw. Thanks for not putting me on “moderation,” due in part to my numerous grammatical errors. 🙂

  • Before I employed a pseudonym, the Red Guard (they are both in the Catholic Church and out) would regularly find out about me and contact my employer about my views and asking the CEO if they wanted to risk employing such a dangerous person. “DId they know the public relations impact it would have?”
    I finally was mysteriously let go from one position, because employing a person with such views on social networks are, well, “problematic and a distraction to our mission”.
    It would be wonderful to be completely autonomous and independent, but I have to think about Mrs. Phoenix and my brother who is my dependent, and “be smart”. Yes, one must “shut up” as they explain.

  • Thanks Donald for all you do to make the truth visible and understandable to all of us.

    I wonder, have you lost any clients because of your courageous actions?

  • No, not to my knowledge. I don’t discuss politics with clients unless they bring the subject up. I did have a deranged old woman call my office several years ago yelling how TAC was funded by Vatican gold. (I wish.).

  • Vatican Gold?

    Oh…. I remember now.
    Vatican Gold! aka..holy smoke.
    Boy. That was in the seventies man.
    Good stuff. ?

  • Steve, I use a pseudonym b/c my surname is rare. I’m easily found and I hate dragging off bodies from the front lawn. Plus, the village PD wouldn’t understand.
    More importantly, the warden ordered me to use the alias.
    I’d prefer Vatican ammo. And, it appears that they’re giving the gold to those on the other (in charity, I didn’t type “wrong”) side of Church teachings.

  • If Hillary is elected, forget the 19th…, shop when the stores open on the 9th. Barry will remember how ammo and gun sales soared after each of his elections and he may be emboldened to curtail supplies by executive order. In fact executive orders may be released fast and furious, since Madame President being of the same philosophy won’t rescind them.
    I have friends who as children escaped from Communist Hungary and Cuba. Their failed and successful escape stories are to be remembered. Life before and after the Revolutions. One friend’s mother is still living. Her mind is still sharp. She tell us about her freedom fighting husband and of the Castros’ “transition” of Cuba and how slippery the slope is becoming in this country.

  • TAC is the best! A variety of thought provoking and thoughtful posts. Some posts are just plain humorous , entertaining or prayerful. TAC attracts commentators from all over the world and from all walks of life. The comments are from so many angles of thought that they are never dull.
    Donald R. McClarey, obviously you are man of superior intelligence and talents. Thank you for taking your time in creating and maintaining this blog. In a time of strife world wide, in the Church and our USA, The-American-Catholic is much needed.

    “The person has no value except that he is a member of the Communist Party” Karl Marx.
    The sovereign person is endowed with innate and unalienable human rights that define the person’s civil rights. The person is irreplaceable. The person is self-determined.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,….”
    Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people. …THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and THE CONSTITUTION.
    Original thinkers glory in the reality of man’s existence as a sovereign person made in the image and likeness of God; in the image and likeness of “their Creator”.
    Pay your taxes. Shut up or you will be sorry for a very long time. What has changed freedom to communism?

  • Timmo Kaine makes the argument crystal clear why one can’t vote Democrat. Tim Kaine: “The Catholic Church Will Change Its Same-Sex Marriage Stance Or It Will be Banned From The U.S.”

  • He, Kaine, is in line with das Führer.
    “Religions must change……”

  • CAM: Right. I’m on a continual ammo buying spree. Already have a boat load of .223 FMJ., 30 cal., 12 ga 00 buck. Also, amassed some extra hootch. The Clinton gang will tax alcohol and tobacco to the skies to pay for rationed health care. And, when the entire corrupt house of cards crashes, it will be barter material.
    Also to your point, a fellow I worked with (RIP – 1992) escaped Cuba soon after Castro seized everything. His history was harrowing and awe-inspiring. Not a few of those who helped him get out risked their lives. His family owned a small coffee wholesale firm one day, the next day the Castro gang owned it. We all know how that has worked out.

  • The person has the freedom “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Our First Amendment. “Shut up and pay your taxes” is taxation without representation.

Special Snow Flakes Afraid of Democracy

Wednesday, March 23, AD 2016




I really wish this was take from Eye of the Tiber:


Students protested yesterday at the Emory Administration Building following a series of overnight, apparent pro-Donald Trump for president chalkings throughout campus.

Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad. Peraza opened the door to the Administration Building and students moved forward towards the door, shouting “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

After approximately ten minutes outside from the start of the demonstration, the gathered students were ushered into the Quad-facing entrance to the Administration Building and quickly filled a staircase to continue their demonstration. Pausing in the staircase, a few students shared their initial, personal reactions to the chalkings.

“I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” one student said. “But this man is being supported by students on our campus and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” she added.

A short time later, students moved into the Henry L. Bowden Board Room, surrounding the long table that dominates its center, the students themselves surrounded by portraits of Emory University’s former presidents.

“What are we feeling?” Peraza asked those assembled. Responses of “frustration” and “fear” came from around the room, but individual students soon began to offer more detailed, personal reactions to feelings of racial tension that Trump and his ideology bring to the fore.

“How can you not [disavow Trump] when Trump’s platform and his values undermine Emory’s values that I believe are diversity and inclusivity when they are obviously not [something that Trump supports]” one student said tearfully. “Banning Muslims? How is that something Emory supports?” asked yet another.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Special Snow Flakes Afraid of Democracy

  • This is my alma mater. This is why, no matter what, I would never give a red cent back to that school. The special snowflakes have never tolerated any dissent from liberal orthodoxy. I still remember Ward Connerly rudely being shouted down during a talk because he committed the sin of being African-American and anti-affirmative action.

  • I suspect one of the reasons university administrators tend to accommodate
    the special snowflakes, and knuckle under to their crybullying, is that the
    administrators share their politics. The snowflakes’ absurd protests give the
    administration the pretext it needs to treat campus conservatives the way
    it already wanted.

  • What a bunch of nincompoops. If one of my sons acted the way these ninnies act, he would get a boot up his keester.

  • The movie “PCU” comes to mind far too often these days.

  • “..we have nothing to loose but our chains.”
    Times Square is preparing for an era of “freedom,” snowflake style. Celebrate child sacrifice and bisexual hookups….celebrate Baal.

    Elijah is shaking his head, God bless him.

  • Phillip, your comment got me thinking and I tracked back the links. Forgive me for stealing your idea and running with it:

    Look, I oppose ISIS as much as the next guy. Their murderous rampages, their open war with Western Civilization, their direct assault on Christianity and Christians, rape, murder, child sex slavery… I mean, what is there to commend?

    On the list of ISIS evils is the destruction of cultural heritage sites and the destruction of Palmyra will rank high on the list of idiotic and criminal acts they have committed. One does not have to have an affection for the faith of a people to want to preserve the past. However, one must tread lightly in honoring that past, lest one end up worshiping the gods of the past, in the effort to preserve humanity’s history.

    This effort cuts awfully close to the line:

    I don’t see anyone involved in the project seeking to restore the devotion to Baal but it isn’t like Jews and Christians have no experience with or tradition opposing the worship:

    1 Kings 16:31,18:19-40, 19:18, and 22:53
    2 Kings 3:2, 10:18-25, 17:16, 21:2, and 23:4-5
    Jeremiah 2:8, 7:9, 11:13-17, 12:16, 23:13, and 32:29-35
    Judges 6:25-31
    Numbers 22:41
    Zephaniah 1:4
    Hosea 2:8

    Looking at the Bible as our story, Baal is no minor antagonist to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Baal was a sort of evil doppelganger to the God of the Old Testament for, like God, he was supposed to bring life or destruction to the world. Unlike God, his favor was bought through human sacrifice, particularly of infants, and sexual license.

    Worshiping Baal was the bane of Jewish life, it was the thing that tripped them up, time and time again. It was the reason that the Children of Abraham were commanded to drive the Caananites from the Promised Land. Failing to do so, made falling into sin all the more likely for our Jewish ancestors.

    So, while those replicating the Baal temples are likely not worshipers of Baal, there is simething eerily familiar in their erection, at this point in Western History. As we turn, so decisively from the worship of God to the worship of licentiousness, to the abandon of human want and desire, there is something entirely appropriate about rebuilding places of worship to the god that our civilization buried in the sand.

  • +1 David Spaulding. The movie “Idiocracy” also comes to mind.
    The poor, little darlings can’t brook argument because they can’t win.
    Interesting insights from Edw. Gibbon (Decline and Fall . . .).

    “The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

    Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;

    Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;

    Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;

    Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;

    Increased demand to live off the state.”

  • People say a Hitler-like regime couldn’t happen here, but I expect that these snowflakes would have no problem locking up those who disagree with them.

  • @David Spaulding.

    Please don’t apologize.
    Your insights and the NYT article is interesting.

    As you say, “…least one ends up worshipping the Gods of the past.”

    That David, has been growing and growing in this Nation. O’bummer said it; “We are not a Christian Nation, but a country of many beliefs..” ( from memory, might not be exact.)

    Hold FAST as this storm that is bearing down is one for the ages!

  • I’ve read that the “young” demographic tends to be for Socialist Bernie Sanders. As a kid from the Cold War era – a true child of the sixties – I think THAT should frighten them — and everybody else.

Big Brother Twitter

Monday, February 22, AD 2016

Twitter Big Brother


Twitter is becoming a prime example of how contemporary leftists view George Orwell’s 1984 not as a cautionary tale, but as a how to manual:



On Friday, Twitter suspended the account of Robert Stacy McCain, a conservative blogger and dogged critic of feminism, apparently without warning or explanation. This has led, in true Twitter fashion, to protests under the hashtag #FreeStacy.

Only a few weeks earlier, Twitter had announced the creation of a “Trust and Safety Council,” to which it appointed Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for denouncing “sexism” in video games, a prominent figure in the Gamergate controversy—and oh yes, a frequent target of criticism from McCain. So it sure looks like the moment Twitter gave Sarkeesian the power to do so, she started blackballing her critics.

Go here to read the rest. Trust and Safety Council has the nice Orwellian ring for a group set up to censor conservatives on Twitter, the “Council” functioning in secrecy.  Then we also have Twitter shadowbanning conservatives:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Big Brother Twitter

  • For the last few years the science fiction community has been going thru its own “Gamergaate” type saga. The “Sad Puppies” are trying to bring back SF that is not dominated by SJW themes & are portrayed as a bunch of racist homo/transphobic of old white men.
    Some of the authors have been blacklisted on Twitter and their FB accounts have been suspended.

  • Another case of the tolerance camp defining their hypocrisy. 1984 as a “how to manual,” spot on!

  • Twitter’s membership numbers haven’t been growing much for the last
    few quarters. Twitter was trading at $51/share last April, but it’s less than
    $20/share as of this week. Perhaps any grownups who are still with that
    company might persuade the Twitter powers-that-be that now isn’t the
    time to alienate a chunk of their subscribers… Or not. Because if Twitter
    implodes, I feel that couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. Let
    Twitter become as irrelevant as MySpace.

    It’s not like Twitter has a monopoly– other networks are setting up to
    take Twitter’s place. FreezePeach, for example, is a Twitter-like network,
    but as its name implies, one committed to free speech and without the
    PC nannys and scolds enforcing groupthink.

  • Everything old is new again: nice to see someone resuscitated the Committee of Public Safety.

    Oh, and McCain’s account has been permanently suspended by the CPS. If you’re conservative, you’re a fool to remain on Twitter. You’re just an exhibit in their Diversity Zoo which helps them to rationalize their behavior.

  • The only useful function Twitter has IMO is the ability to provide real-time updates on breaking news or weather events. Other than that, it functions primarily as a platform for people to make idiots of themselves in 140 characters or less.

  • “Other than that, it functions primarily as a platform for people to make idiots of themselves in 140 characters or less.”

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

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

Tuesday, November 17, AD 2015

11 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: George Will

  • Atheistic liberal progressivism is as evil as radical Islamic terrorism. Both must be defeated and thrown into the trash bin of history. I fear, however, that neither will happen till Christ returns to Earth in the Parousia at the end of time. Indeed, while I am no theologian, in a certain way I can see the account in Revelation about the casting of the Beast and the False Prophet into the Lake of Fire being the final defeat of radical Islam and liberal progressivism (though which is the Beast and which the False Prophet is anyone’s guess). Of course, Sacred Scripture usually has meaning within meaning, so my little point of view is surely not the whole story.

  • Perpetual serenity is for livestock. Which, come to think of it, is what progressives treat people like.

  • George Will can be digested occasionally–like this time.

  • I can think of nothing less compatible with human nature than perpetual serenity. And, ironically, true progress is born of struggle – not serenity.

  • Grammy, you’re so right. Did we think he came to bring peace?

  • LQC, Ernest S, DonL and Grammy, All good comments.
    I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?That said, Will makes sense this time. I wonder if legalization of drugs in some states and the District is an attempt to have the populace, well, drugged? Mellow and addicted and pliable.

  • “I may be wrong about George Will, but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley, and gave us President Hope and Change?”

    No, Will has always had Obama’s number.

  • but wasn’t he in the same crowd of turncoats which included Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley,

    Buckley is a humor and travel writer (Editor of ForbesLife) who has written almost nothing for the starboard press other than his father’s publication. I think if you review a Reader’s Guide listing of his two dozen or so pieces he’s written for National Review, you’ll find its almost entirely composed of humor, diary, reviews of belles lettres, &c. Buckley hired Richard Brookhiser in 1978 with the idea that he might retire at some point and turn the publication over to Brookhiser because Christopher was unsuitable. CB did have a staff position in the pr apparat of the White House during the Reagan-Bush Administrations, but he worked for George Bush and did not stay long. He was much more his mother’s son than his father’s (his antagonism to his mother notwithstanding). He’s never uttered a serious word in public print and his endorsement of BO was of a piece with his usual oeuvre.

    As for the others, the Obamacon phenomenon was a mess of hype from the get go. Social survey research from exit polls demonstrate Obama was no more appealing to soi-disant Republicans than the Democratic candidate usually is, if anything a bit less; the same bloody 9% voted for him. David Friedman, Charles Fried, Kenneth Adelman, Kenneth Duberstein, Jeffrey Hart, and Douglas Kmiec, Bruce Bartlett, Richard Whalen, Scott McClellan, and Larry Hunter made very little sense while endorsing BO. If they don’t like the Republican Party as is, they can just stay home. No one was waiting with bated breath for them to weigh in. However, the media was not going to grill them about why they were doing what they were doing and offering such lousy reasons for it. (One wag offered an explanation which makes more sense than the perps did, “How many of these guys had liberal wives or girlfriends?”).

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

  • Thank you all for setting me straight on Will. I agree on the wives and girlfriends of conservatives…often the they are not pro-life like their husbands.

  • Art, you left off David Brooks. Speaking of whom, Brooks has always struck me as the nouveau riche version of Will’s blue-blooded variety of genteel conservatism.

    George Will was a small city bourgeois from Champaign, Illinois. Non-ethnic, but not blueblood or patrician. His father was a university professor. The first Mrs. Will grew up somewhere around Hartford, Ct where her father owned a diner. The second Mrs. Will grew up in a comfortable but normal range bourgeois suburb of Chicago. Will is the nouveau riche. Brooks comes from pretty much the same social stratum as Will, just that both of his parents were professors and he grew up 2/3 of a generation later in Manhattan and Philadelphia, so better off. Brooks ‘thinks highly’ of Obama. Will knows better.

Blatantly Unconstitutional

Friday, July 3, AD 2015


To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man – greetings!
― George Orwell, 1984   


It seems I made a mistake this morning and woke up in a foreign country where it is always 1984:


Brad Avakian, Commissioner of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries and acting Minister of Thoughtcrime, wrote that Sweet Cakes owners Aaron and Melissa Klein must “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation.”

The Daily Signal reports that the $135,000 figure took into consideration the couple’s physical, emotional and mental damages:

Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

How about we give you five bucks for the doubt, surprise, uncertainty and worry and call it even? That’s $5 more than the rest of us get for feeling the same feelings.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Blatantly Unconstitutional

  • The following is going to sound as though I want this response. I do not. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to this. But sadly the only response liberal progressive Democrats will respect is the Maccabean response. Further, there is a reason why God nuked Sodom and Gomorrah.
    I despise the Oregon Soviet Socialist Republic. Ever been there? Portland has a Che Guevara Avenue, that murderous Latin American thug. The largest Mall in Portland is like a small or medium size one in the Carolinas. Towns in the Willamet Valley are run down and dilapitated. The eco-wackoes won’t allow industry to invest. The dope smoking hippie drop outs of the 1960s come out to dance in the streets on Saturdays while pink shirted Planned Parenthood baby murderers pass out their leaflets. The phrase “flying spaghetti monster” came from a liberal addled nit wit out of OSU in one of the small towns to denigrate Christianity and the residents are proud of that. I got proudly told about that when out there. Over half the Catholics I met are die hard Democrats and extoll Jimmy Carter as a great President. By State law you are not allowed to fuel your vehicle, but you have to bring your own bags to the grocery store and bag your groceries yourself. What a backward hipppified enviro-wacko State!

  • Paul: You and I need to emigrate to America (a red state). A friend recently relocated to Wyoming from the Connecticut SSR.

    Liberal idiots (I repeat myself, again, and I need to be more charitable to idiots) are so stupid (total lack of self-awareness) they don’t recognize the totalitarianism. Liberalism/progressivism is either a crime or a disease.

  • The Leftist hysteria continues, emboldened by the rulings from our robe’d masters, their madness unabated by sense or charity.

  • When did we, a people born in a free land chartered to govern ourselves, become bored with God’s gift of freedom?

    Perhaps one answer –when we took upon ourselves to decide who lives and who dies in the womb. One cannot respect freedom when you are willing to deny the innocent of life.

  • People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have most to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.
    Edmund Burke

    ‘And do not listen to those who keep saying, ‘The voice of the people is the voice of God.’ because the tumult of the crowd is always close to madness.’

    It is impossible to suffer without making someone pay for it; every complaint already contains revenge.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
    George Orwell

    So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.
    George Orwell

    Liberalism is the Transformation of Mankind into Cattle.
    Frederich Nietzsche

  • This is an artifact of the corruption of a wing of the legal profession (and the problem professional people generally have in understanding where they really stand in the society in which they live). Either the lawyers involved get put in their place by non-lawyers, or it continues. (And do not rely on Addison Mitchell McConnell to be of any assistance).

  • There was no same sex marriage law in Oregon when the Kleins were prosecuted for discrimination. See the posts at HERITAGE FOUNDATION.ORG. The posts tell of Avakian being in collusion with the gay agenda. The atheists are offended, the homosexuals are offended, but the Christians have no innate ability to self-preservation, no constitutional civil right to self-defense. The Eighth Amendment criminalizes cruel and unusual punishment. $135,000 for an unbaked cake. The state never proved that the Kleins were discriminating and not following their relgious beliefs. The Kleins’ case is in the public domain. The media and the newspapers get to talk about the case. Silencing the Kleins of their freedom of speech is unconstitutional, as unconstitutional as not acknowledging the Kleins freedom to conscientiously object to threatening customers. This lawsuit only provides proof that the Kleins were denied the free exercise of their religion, Get the government out of my soul. Separation of church and state . Get the government out of the Kleins’ soul.

  • You know, not too long ago these good people of conscience would be able to take their fight all the way to the US Supreme Court for recourse to an unjust fine and punishment.
    That’s all in the past now, isn’t it? The mostly liberal activist judges are as anti-Christian as anybody in this once-Christian country, and they aren’t afraid to mangle to law to prove it. Scary.

  • If I were a cynical person, I would begin making contacts within the Muslim community and start talking a lot to them about how the “gay” agenda is going to attempt to trample on their rights as American citizens.

    Politics often makes strange bedfellows. As odd as this may sound, the fact of the matter is that American Muslims are our allies on this issue.

    Anyone who does not believe that should try holding a “Gay Pride” parade in Dearborn.

  • good post.
    Now compare your post to the following:
    “16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.”(Revelation 13 v 16-17).
    Now, people, the question?
    Is this what St. John the Evangelist was talking about or not?
    Its time-up, folks.

  • How about if law abiding citizens were to organize into specific interest groups with the objective of getting unjust laws, or interpretations thereof, changed. Their war strategy would be massive disobedience to the unjust law. It would probably be necessary to use this approach very selectively, where it would be clearly in the interests of the effected folks to fight it, as most business people are loath to rock for boat for any reason.

    Anyone wish to add to this notion? It worked when our country was formed (Tea Party). Are things that different today?

  • Committees of correspondence would certainly be easy to set up with the internet.

  • Like the idea Don. Seems to me we need a big issue or a small but intense issue to focus attention and gather support for creating a Committee of Correspondence.

  • Art Deco’s critique of lawyers in this drama strikes me as an oft missed piece. The reality of law school when I attended (Temple, 2008) is that the vast majority of teachers and students are intent on making their mark.

    They look back at Loving, Brown, and Roe and see immortality.

    Most will go on to more mundane pursuits. Some will become wealthy. Some will re-discover humility. Most will harbor secret dreams of tyranny that manifest themselves in support for extreme causes.


  • cthemfly25

    Your assertion is correct in my view.
    The loss of respect for life has desensitized and vandalized the human soul that is indifferent to God, leading the way to continued self loathing as a culture.
    This debauchery is increasing in popularity and acceptance. “What’s fair is foul and what’s foul is fair.” W.S.

  • We are suffering infallible ignorance ferociously (civil forfeitures, massive fines, lawsuits, taxation/confiscation) forced on us by feral fascism, beginning on the gore-dripping tines of the terrorist trident: the lying media, Obama and his gangsters, and the ideology-enforcing Supreme Court.

    They are strongest (in Spirit) when Christians are weakest (in the eyes of evil).

    The rewards of eternal life (which Christ purchased with His Life, Death, and Resurrection) far, far exceed all Earthly joys.

  • “IN GOD WE TRUST” , our American motto stands as a beacon for truth and Justice. If a person cannot admit to “IN GOD WE TRUST” , that person need not be trusted either.

  • With a found hour this afternoon, I went to Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. Tried to include the cyber people here in a request for fortitude renewal. In thinking of the triplet of colorful mention above, the last part of it wouldn’t surface- what was it? – and now there’s the realization that the depth of the betrayal of justice ‘for all’ is the ‘new normal’. Fast bypass.
    The other day in this crowded neighborhood, two hawks made a symbolic visit. There was a dead chipmunk ( think little and cute, rather than rodent) in the road across the street, courtesy of Tiberius the cat. A hawk flew down for the carrion, but was chased away by another. The first one sat on a service wire with wings remaining spread, a vision of power, and joined by the second after it was chased away by the cat. Later on the chipmunk remained in the road. These predators didn’t have charity for one another, and, no justice for the chipmunk.

Ban Gone With the Wind?

Thursday, June 25, AD 2015


As fellow blogger Paul Zummo noted yesterday:

Once upon a time it took months and even years for the next level of absurdity to be realized. In modern America it only takes hours.

Now the film critic for The New York Post wants to relegate Gone With the Wind to the museum:

Warner Bros. just stopped licensing another of pop culture’s most visible uses of the Confederate flag — toy replicas of the General Lee, an orange Dodge Charger from “The Dukes of Hazzard’’ — as retailers like Amazon and Walmart have finally backed away from selling merchandise with that racist symbol.

That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Ban Gone With the Wind?

  • The question regarding all this rush to judgment is; Is this really about offending some, or controlling most?

  • The professional aggrieved class will continue until someone stands up to them and tells them to shut up and go away. Politicians are cowards at heart, especially Republicans, so don’t expect them to do it.

    There has long been a campaign against the Stars and Bars. At University of Mississippi home football games it was de rigeur to bring the Stars and Bars and wave it. UM was embarrassed by this so they replaced it with a blue block letter M in a red background with stars in the block M. Unive3rsity presidents are the very definition of cowards.

  • . Mayor Giuliani and black youtuber Tommy Sotomayor may be the two major media voices smiling at this farce. Sotomayor goes too far in his immoderate feelings against his own people but his central point is very like Giuliani…ie 43 blacks were murdered in May in Baltimore by other blacks after the riot there and no one in the major media will be outraged about that nearly as much as about a lone white psycho killing 9 blacks. I call him psycho because his victims in no way matched who in the black community he was afraid of. Last week in Jersey City, a black woman was shot in the back by a stray bullet in the most dangerous neighborhood of JC and after she fell to the ground, she was robbed by passersby of her jewelry, phone, and medication. There has been no protest march in her honor because all involved were black. Had that happened to her by whites in a white neighborhood, JC would have become April’s Baltimore. Outrage in the US is furtively racial not really about blind justice regardless of color.

  • What’s wrong with some people over there?.

    It’s just a flag that represents a time in history. If there is anything that’s going to perpetuate what it stands for, it’s banning it.

  • Don, there is a lot wrong with us today. We have become hypersensitive over race. Criticism of Obumbler is labeled as racism by Obumbler supporters. Black on black crime is ignored but when a police officer defends himself against a black assailant, the media is all over it hyping it up for more than it is worth.

    Obumbler has done more to divide this country than anything since the Vietnam War. Blacks have not seen their standard of living rise and it is all someone else’s fault. Not the fault of poor blacks, not Obumbler’s fault, but everyone else’s.

    I love this country but I hate what is happening to it. Same with the Church. This is why I so often refer to those things that in the past that were clear cut and solid.

  • Memory tends to sweeten. The country faces enormous challenges today, but it has ever been thus.

  • All this banning and restricting seems to be coming quickly from the powerful, as if a concerted effort to do so, keeping racism on their front burner under the guise of protecting the offended. This seems to be a reaction to the dignity and compassion in evidence in Charleston, as if compassion should have been what was stirred up in other cities by activists. Shameful and ungracious.

  • The movie showed racial harmony and humanity. The country was mostly harmonious until the agitators began to defeat the peace and harmony of Martin Luther King with violence and division.

  • Can’t we still believe that all men are created equal in the image and likeness of God and live to love one another without finding offences that others who disbelieve are dictating? If not, there goes maturity and common sense.

  • Mark Twain would be next–including the Disney movies of Mark Twain’s books.

    Now we can’t have any Southerner portrayed in a sympathetic light, even in a work of fiction.

    A free society does not do this.

    In all honesty, the most racists people I know are my Caucasian cousins who live in the North.

    These folks’ hypocrisy is shown clearly by their not attempting to end slavery in their own time. Have u ever heard a liberal whiner say one word about the sex slaves in Muslim countries? I haven’t.

  • I have decided that most people use offense in the public realm as a weapon to get what they want. Taking offense makes one feel righteous, as the aggrieved, & powerful at the same time, as being a victim gains you sympathy.

    It is a very effective combination in todays world.

    I seem to be regularly pointing out to people that 1. In a free society, people have the right to offend you & 2. Just because someone chooses to be offended doesn’t mean that I agree to take responsibility for that offense.

Shut Up, They Explained

Thursday, June 4, AD 2015




I do love schadenfreude first thing in the morning.  A leftist college professor wails about the closed minds of his leftist students:

The press for actionability, or even for comprehensive analyses that go beyond personal testimony, is hereby considered redundant, since all we need to do to fix the world’s problems is adjust the feelings attached to them and open up the floor for various identity groups to have their say. All the old, enlightened means of discussion and analysis —from due process to scientific method — are dismissed as being blind to emotional concerns and therefore unfairly skewed toward the interest of straight white males. All that matters is that people are allowed to speak, that their narratives are accepted without question, and that the bad feelings go away.

So it’s not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period. Engagement is considered unnecessary, as the immediate, emotional reactions of students contain all the analysis and judgment that sensitive issues demand. As Judith Shulevitz wrote in the New York Times, these refusals can shut down discussion in genuinely contentious areas, such as when Oxford canceled an abortion debate. More often, they affect surprisingly minor matters, as when Hamsphire College disinvited an Afrobeat band because their lineup had too many white people in it.

Go here to read the rest.  Most revolutions eventually eat their own, and that is what is happening today.  Case in point:

Laura Kipnis is a feminist professor at Northwestern University — and not just any feminist. She’s long been one of the few professors in American public life who are capable of making news with their scholarship, find their books reviewed by the most elite newspapers, and help start elite “conversations” about academe’s favorite topics: sex, power, and identity. She’s liberal, certainly (well known for her sympathetic views of pornography), but she’s a free thinker. And that is intolerable.

 Earlier this year she wrote an essay entitled “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe” for the Chronicle of Higher Education. In the piece, she decried bans on students’ dating professors, declaring, “If this is feminism, it’s feminism hijacked by melodrama.” Students were being taught to “regard themselves as exquisitely sensitive creatures.” Their “sense of vulnerability” was “skyrocketing” as a result of the “melodramatic imagination’s obsession with helpless victims and powerful predators.” She warned that “the climate of sanctimony has grown too thick to penetrate,” with any dissenter labeled “antifeminist, or worse, a sex criminal.

Predictably, her words prompted a campus backlash, with mattress-carrying protesters demanding that the university immediately and officially condemn Kipnis’s essay. They used adjectives such as “terrifying” to describe the traumatic effect of her words. Kipnis shrugged off the protests — after all, when you’re a feminist professor writing on pornography, you’re used to a bit of negative public attention. But she couldn’t shrug off what happened next. Two students filed Title IX complaints against her, claiming that she’d violated federal law with her essay and a subsequent tweet. In essence, they were claiming that her writings on matters of public concern constituted unlawful gender discrimination. What happened then should be familiar to anyone who has ever been embroiled in the Star Chamber that is academic “justice.” Rather than laughing the claims out of the university — which would have been the appropriate response — the university retained an outside law firm and launched an investigation. The university not only denied Kipnis legal assistance during the formal proceedings, but its investigators also initially refused to even describe the nature of the charges against her, insisting on interviewing her before she knew precisely what she’d been accused of doing. According to Kipnis, she’d “plummeted into an underground world of secret tribunals and capricious, medieval rules, and I wasn’t supposed to tell anyone about it.”

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Shut Up, They Explained

  • We should recognize contemporary liberalism/progressivism for what it is: fascism.

  • Do Title IX Coordinators have any discretion to dismiss frivolous claims? One of the complaint against Kipnis was brought by a signal student on behalf of the entire universtiy community. To which the proper response would be, “Nice try, kid.”

  • The whole procedure set up for these claims Thomas seems to be at war with any concept of due process that I am aware of. The below links to a satire which accurately reflects how these inane complaints are treated at most colleges and universities.

    Real courts are bad enough as the law and fairness and common sense are frequently not on speaking terms, but Kangaroo courts like these make regular courts appear by comparison to be tribunals of eternal light.

  • Laura Kipnis is getting what she created.

  • OK, it’s funny, to a degree. But when a feminism teacher defends the right of students to “date” their teachers, you realize what that’s really about, right? She’s not envisioning her female students finding nice young men in the faculty and building Christian families.

  • Interesting juxtaposition of two posts today. In the “Doublespeaque” post from
    Motley Monk we read about legal consequences facing those Catholic universities
    which have largely abandoned their Catholic identity in the name of “academic
    freedom”. And here we have a post about universities which have fallen over
    themselves to abandon academic freedom, where fundamentalist believers in
    various ‘pelvic issues’ can silence others and deny them due process, even
    drive them from their jobs.
    Seems to me that these leftist/feminist/LBGTQ fundamentalists our universities
    have been encouraging all these years are a far, far worse threat to academic
    freedom than maintaining a vigorous Catholic university identity ever was or ever would be.

  • “OK, it’s funny, to a degree. But when a feminism teacher defends the right of students to “date” their teachers, you realize what that’s really about, right? She’s not envisioning her female students finding nice young men in the faculty and building Christian families.”

    Who cares? On a college campus she should not be subject to a Title IX inquisition for this.

  • “but its investigators also initially refused to even describe the nature of the charges against her”…”I wasn’t allowed to tell anyone”

    Wow, I had a very similar experience in academia; ultimately it didn’t go anywhere, but in the hyper political world of academia, of course it had some ramifications. I feel kind of validated to see that this is commonplace though – misery loves company.

  • A possibly ‘final solution’ to all of this is for the Federal Government to stop giving money to colleges and universities as there is probably little free market demand for this nonsense.

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

Wednesday, May 13, AD 2015

MoS2 Template Master

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9



One advantage of studying history is that you learn the truth of Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun.  That is why when I was reading this morning the latest antics of the deranged campus Left it seemed so familiar:

Out in Washington State, some students at Western Washington University have come up with interesting new techniques in the field of debate. For example, one of their state senators, Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) was found by the upset underclassmen to be a heretical non-believer when it comes to the issue of global warming. Ericksen, as it turns out, is an alumnus of WWU, so rather than debating him on the hot topic, they have issued demands to have his diploma revoked.

This isn’t an election year for state Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, but challengers do seek to wrest something from him — not his elected office but rather one of his college degrees.

A group of students with ties to Huxley College held a meeting at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 7, on campus, to start what promises to be an uphill — if not Quixotic — battle to convince university administration to strip Ericksen of his diploma.

“We’re framing it in a more radical way,” D’Angelo said. “We’re not just trying to have a conversation with him or hold him accountable. We’re trying to revoke his degree and get people to pay attention.”

The Republican senator has been at odds with Democrats over how to craft policy on climate change and carbon reduction. He butted heads with Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, on the Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup. Ericksen removed language in the bill creating the workgroup that mentioned “climate change” and the threat it posed to the state.

While Ericksen may have stripped the phrase “climate change” out of a bill, upsetting the young Democrats, he had primarily worked to prevent any tax increases which were supposed to pay for carbon capping. But but does that make him a “climate change denier” in the full sense of the word? Not exactly.

The students refer to Ericksen as a “climate denier” on their Facebook page. He told this blogger a couple years back he was a “climate agnostic,” which may be more accurate. While he stripped the words “climate change” from the 2013 Climate Legislative and Executive workgroup bill, he at least conceded the possibility of human-caused climate change in 2015 legislation that would give utilities more flexibility in meeting state-mandated alternative energy goals. (Ericksen’s bill, SB 5735, passed the Senate on March 9 but has not yet made it through the House.)

In an amendment Ericksen introduced, the bill’s intent section reads, “The Legislature finds that climate change is real and that human activity may contribute to climate change.”

This is apparently the bar which must be met when dealing with college campus activists. Publishing legislation which says that climate change is real and human activity may contribute to it isn’t going to cut the mustard, folks. You’re going to have to do better than that. And if you don’t, your opponents will work with the university to strip you of your credentials.

Go here to Hot Air to read the rest.  The idiots behind this lunacy worked in the campaign of the defeated Democrat opponent of Ericksen.  While I was reading this, I knew I recalled similar measures taken against political adversaries before.  It took me a moment, and then it came to me:  Nazi Germany!

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

  • These same left wing lunatics wholly given over to the false gospel of goddess Gaia will not support the only other form of baseload electricity besides fossil fuel that would obviate the emission of so-called green-house gas CO2: nuclear. In fact, they single-mindedly oppose nuclear energy with the same vehemence and ferocity that they support the false notion of anthropogenic global warming. This isn’t about protecting the environment. It is rather about constricting the energy supply so that politicians can decide who gets energy and who doesn’t. It will be the same as it was before: Jews and Christians will be denied: first their college diplomas, then energy, then food, then freedom, then finally their lives.

  • Some scientists have said that as the ice cap on the arctic melts and shrinks, the ice cap on the antarctic grows in direct proportion, which means that only a portion of the globe is in warming. The global warming enthusiasts like to share only half truths to progress their agenda. Freedom of speech is only engaged through the truth, The rest is perjury in a court of law. This mob mentality, imminent death and death without purpose and death with out Divine Providence, death without God causes hysteria, and panic. The best place to run and or hide is in Church with Jesus as they did in H. G. Wells WAR OF THE WORLDS. Denying Faith from God is a terrible crime against our people. The mob needs to prove that global warming is not a normal occurrence to indict the senator. Otherwise imposing their dearly held beliefs is unconstitutional and scientific heresy.

  • Nazi Germany revoked the teaching license of every Jewish professor, including Lisa Mitner who discovered atomic fission and whose nephew, (cannot remember his name) headed up America’s construction of the atomic bomb which was planned to be dropped on Germany, but was precluded by the end of the war in Europe. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot or in Hitler’s case, in the head. Thank you Mr. MCclarey for remembering.

  • With this and every other “controversy” that involves vocal/extreme Leftist activism, the underlying truth is “The issue isn’t the issue. The issue is the Revolution.”
    The Revolution’s only real goal is the destruction of The Church; it’s a pretty short putt to discern then who exactly is ultimately behind the Revolution.

  • So, does that mean “conversation,” like “dialog,” is now officially newspeak for “shut up.”

  • We (real) scientists are currently fond of saying that this sort of thing shows how desperate the warmists have become…they grasp at any straw as their house of cards falls.
    However, Mr. WK is so very right. The issue isn’t the issue. After this ruse fails, they’ll just move on to some other big lie, to advance Satan’s agenda.
    A warm seat in Hell…


Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015
Ronald Reagan on Liberal Tolerance
Attorney David French over at National Review Online nails it in regard to the uproar over the Indiana Religious  Freedom Restoration Act:
Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Bingo

  • Exponential bingo!
    Indiana isn’t assaulting gays, liberal lying liars (I repeat myself again!) are viciously attacking religion.

    Because gays and florists are more dire threats to the Repuiblic than nucular Iran, Hillary destroying government documents in her email server, and ruinous Obama corruption and incompetence.

  • Did I miss the strong directives and response to this major issue coming from the USCCB? Shouldn’t theey of all persons have something to say of value about this very public abuse of religion?
    Perhaps they’re busy working on illegal immigration or even prepping for the coming Global warming events?

  • What these statutes seek to provide is small bits of protection against state harassment and sometimes private civil suits brought against merchants of various sorts for exercising what should be their legal franchise to refuse to do business with certain parties. They are favored by academics, who are nothing if not insistent on their absolute prerogatives in their own domain, and by lawyers, who are nothing if not insistent upon their prerogative to insert their sticky fingers into everyone else’s business. Freedom of contract and freedom of association is a necessity to protect us from the self-centered and the predatory.

  • WK Aiken.

    Viewed your link. Nice story she told of her brother’s use of contraception that failed, then the “choice” @ Murder Inc. to allow the fetus to live. Strange it is that she started her ( two second speech..her words.) with telling the crowd that the haters will always hate. Assuming a group of Ind. Pro-Life group was present. Strange to me is the probability that the only reason she has a new nephew IS BECAUSE of the “haters.” The haters presence in public throughout the state have been praying in front of Death Mills for years…and the sixteens year old mother may have been influenced by this “hate” group that teaches every life is precious and sacred.

    Ms. Katy is a hypocrite.

  • Religion is something you do in the privacy of your bedroom. And only then with the door locked, the shade down and the curtains drawn.
    Unlike, say, sex, which is always and everywhere to be publicly celebrated.

  • Ernst Schreiber.

    MacBeth Act 1 scene 1….Foul is fair and fair is foul. Old Bill Shakespeare. Visionary.

  • “Things have come to a pretty pass, when religion is allowed to invade the sphere of private life.”—Lord Melbourne, Prime Minister to Queen Victoria

  • God creates. Man procreates. Homosexuals do not know what they are doing.
    The homosexual hates God for creating him. The homosexual hates his parents for procreating him. The homosexual needs to blame someone for his hatred because the homosexual hates and calls his hatred love. The homosexual has begotten hemorriods for his beloved, not a very well liked expression of affection. Then there is the diverticulosis and the colonoscopy. Sometimes the expression of the homosexual’s love is a death sentence known as HIV/aids, but mostly it is wanton despair.
    The homosexual hates God. Therefore, the most appropriate person to blame for the homosexual’s hatred of God, God’s creation and himself, is the Christian.

  • In its opposition to being demonized this editorial does a pretty good job of demonizing “the Left”. Certainly some of the concerns are justified, but it’s much more likely that most of the opponents to the law are well-intentioned human beings that don’t want to discriminate against gay people and aren’t aware of widespread abuse of Christians that would justify this new legislation. Instead of promoting more spiteful rhetoric, perhaps this site would better serve the Lord by explaining why this law was so necessary. Have there been dozens of cases of Christians being forced to violate their conscience in Indiana? If so, then the public needs to be educated, not yelled at. If not, then are we guilty of the same fear-mongering and exaggeration we condemn in others? It’s getting harder to paint these kinds of issues as us against them, Right against Left, when what gave this story its legs was such quick and strong opposition from the business community. I’ve never really thought of the NCAA, for example, as a bunch of Leftists hell bent on persecuting Christians (though incidentally they happen to do a fine job of exploiting lots of minority Christian athletes). Anyway, if this isn’t about the right to discriminate against homosexuals in any way then it can easily be solved by making them a protected group against discrimination across the state. God bless…

  • Among the many depressing things about the past few days is the illustration of how corporate money, allied with mob hysteria, is able to trump the democratic process, in effect to nullify a law duly passed by a legislature duly elected by the people.

    As for Governor Pence, I’m sure his heart is in the right place. But as the poet says:
    A politician is an arse upon
    Which everyone has sat, except a man

  • “Anyway, if this isn’t about the right to discriminate against homosexuals in any way then it can easily be solved by making them a protected group against discrimination across the state.”

    Why should they have any greater protection under the Law than other Americans? What rights do homosexuals lack that other Americans enjoy?

  • Here is more food for thought on all this misery and control:

  • Why should they have any greater protection under the Law than other Americans? What rights do homosexuals lack that other Americans enjoy?

    If you’re persuaded you’re Special, you want the right to hire a lawyer and compel other people to be your bitch if they call B.S. on your displays of narcissism. Being an ordinary schlub participating in voluntary transactions in a free society is not good enough for the Special. As for the relationship between the Special and Anthony Kennedy, let’s just say its an exchange of ego satisfactions constructed around social class prejudice. (And manifest in interminable judicial opinions advancing what is a preposterous thesis).

  • Well, in fighting the good fight here in AR, I have found that folks I thought were my friends would run me out of the public square, get me fired from my job, call me a liar, tell me to never talk to them again, call me a hater, etc. because of my religious belief.

    I have found myself thinking, since I am not being buried alive, seeing my family killed/enslaved in front of me, being burned alive, being shot, being forced into slavery, or being decapitated–like those Christians in the Middle East are—U actually don’t have it that bad.

    Now that doesn’t mean I am not going to fight for our rights.

  • I have also sent a message to the LGBT crowd & the so called “Human Rights Campaign” on twitter. It basically says that if they want legislators to vote their way that they don’t need to spit on them (like they did here at the Capitol in Little Rock, yesterday. I didn’t warn them against yelling insults at legislators like they did here, yesterday, as well.

  • “Being an ordinary schlub participating in voluntary transactions in a free society is not good enough for the Special.”

    This statement wins my comment if the week award!

  • A couple of other things.

    It is downright scary to me how the average Arkansan, who is not of the conservative political persuasion, has completely mixed up the concepts of “public” vs “private” until everything in their mind is public. I tried, valiantly while taking abuse to explain to people that they have rights on public property that they don’t have on private property. For example: we can protest all day outside of a business as long as we are on a public sidewalk. As soon as we step off the public sidewalk & step onto the private property protesting, we can be hauled away by a police officer. The argument I kept hearing from those who disagreed with me was that when a private business is operating, it becomes a “public” business. I think a 3 year long friendship has been ruined over my telling one such person that what they described was Communism where the govt controlled all property. These religious freedom bills are not just about religious freedom in my mind. They are also about govt’s encroaching control of private property & the destruction of the concept of private property. Without a string concept if private property, there is no freedom.

    Some poor LGBT person somehow invited me to a Facebook page event organization page for a protest at our state Capitol this morning against the Religious Freedom Protection Bill that us now in its way to the governor of AR for his signature as of this afternoon. (He has agreed to sign it by the way.) Boy did I have some fun on that Facebook page. :-D.

    The moderator of the page let me know in no uncertain terms that if a business used the public sidewalks that “he” paid taxes for–that that private business “had Damn well better serve” him. He had no response when I pointed out to him that private dwellings as well as churches had public sidewalks running in front of them. I also got no response when I pointed out that those who did not want to participate in gay marriage also helped pay for those same sidewalks.

    One person yelled at me that she was a Christian, too, and wanted to know what sin was going to be picked on next to keep someone out of a private business like a bakery. She said us gay marriage was a sin, then so was over eating, and divorce. She got livid when I told her that eating & divorce were not religious rites and that marriage was.

    Another person told me that she knew that I was a (with emphasis) string Catholic, however she disagreed with me on the Religious Freedom bill b/c she had always taught her children to show respect for other people. Huh? I had never discussed my faith with this woman. I told her that completely apart from my faith that I had such libertarian leanings when it comes to personal property rights that I was livid when the state of AR decided a few years back that it should tell business owners that they couldn’t let people smoke in their businesses any longer. The business owners should determine those things for themselves.

    Then there was the “walking dead” look from the person that I asked, “Why should the govt be able to tell me that U have to violate my religious beliefs with my own private property, energy, & time.

    One person just could not deal with the concept of marriage being a religious rite. They told me if I believed that marriage was a religious rite that govt should get out if the marriage business all together. And I said, “Yes, govt should get out if the marriage business all together.”

    Well, I could go on. However, I’m sure y’all get the picture.

  • “I’ve never really thought of the NCAA, for example, as a bunch of Leftists hell bent on persecuting Christians”

    Welcome to the real world of amoral sports where all that matters is money and no moral judgement on sexual perversion. Let me give you a heads up. The National Foootball League is vehemently anti-Christian worldview as well.

  • It’s astonishing, the chutzpah of those crying #BoycottIndiana. I don’t
    recall any of them calling for a boycott of, say, Saudi Arabia, which actually
    does practice the sort of religiously-based anti-homosexual discrimination
    they’re trying to pin on Indiana.
    Corporations such as Apple, Nike, and WalMart are protesting the legislation in
    Indiana and Arkansas, and there’s even talk of “reducing or not expanding
    their corporate presence” in those states. Yet they all happily do business
    with markets like Saudi Arabia…

  • Below are links posted to the website of the most effective pro-life, pro-family, traditional marriage lobbying organization in the state of AR re: the Religious Freedom Bill that passed yesterday afternoon here in AR.

  • And 3rd article from the same group about Connecticut boycotting Indiana for having basically the same religious freedom protection laws that Connecticut had already inacted.

    Of course, the ironies on this stuff are endless.

  • The human being, the sovereign person, has a personal space, that you all must agree. If the personal space of a person must be transgressed to form a contract, that is criminal.
    Anyone who can read and has read the Constitutional First Amendment knows that the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” not by anyone in public office, not by anyone created equal who tries to impose a ban on the free expression of religion on any sovereign person, because every person who is a citizen constitutes government with his sovereignty.
    During the Democratic National Convention, God and the mention of God, was banned four or five times. The Democratic National Convention chose Barrabas. When Barrabas comes with his brutality, the DNC will blame God. God will then be banned anew for allowing Barrabas to murder and maim, rape and sack and plunder.
    Only “IN GOD WE TRUST” and our freedom to trust in God is one of our founding principles. For those who cannot read, they must learn. For those who hate God, too bad.
    “Lord, when did we see you naked and hungry?” “At the Democratic National Convention”
    If Governor Pence caves into political pressure and disavows our heritage, he will be inviting Barrabas and Barrabas will come.

  • Barrabas entered in 1963. Our nation has been kicking God out ever since.
    Kill the divine healer…give us the murderer! And the Father of Mercy said; So be it!

  • “Why should they have any greater protection under the Law than other Americans? What rights do homosexuals lack that other Americans enjoy?”

    Civil rights laws protect minorities based on past and present discrimination. They don’t necessarily create “greater” protection (though I suppose in cases like affirmative action you could argue that they do), but respond to discrimination that exists to explicitly prohibit it. If you think civil rights laws are unconstitutional or ineffective, fair enough. But if Indiana wants to clarify that this law is not meant to facilitate certain kinds of discrimination against homosexuals it can merely add them to the other classes of minorities that the state already protects. It appears that Republican lawmakers are planning to do something of the sort. This is relevant to your second question as well because right now (in many places) homosexuals lack the right to legal protection against discrimination afforded to others.

  • “Civil rights laws protect minorities based on past and present discrimination.”

    Well we can see that is untrue since women, a majority, are given “minority” status under such laws.

    “They don’t necessarily create “greater” protection”

    They most certainly do. Try firing a member of a protected class who works for the government.

    “If you think civil rights laws are unconstitutional or ineffective”

    Certainly unconstitutional in flagrantly violating the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. Ineffective, no, if the intent is to make certain citizens more equal than others in Orwell’s phrase.

    “lack the right to legal protection against discrimination afforded to others.”

    In short where they are not a protected class they enjoy the same civil rights as a heterosexual white male.

  • Of course the heart of the underlying issue, when one speaks of protecting minorities against discrimination* has been lost in the cultural wars of the political forces. What constitutes a protected minority? Is it their behavior? Why can’t pedophiles, rapists, or those who practice bestiality, be considered part of that protected group?
    *BTW; discrimination is both good and bad
    a: (Bad) I would not let any black person from Detroit marry my daughter.
    b. (Good) I would never walk a back alley in Detroit alone after midnight.

  • “Well we can see that is untrue since women, a majority, are given “minority” status under such laws.”

    Fine, make that “minorities and women” if that is a meaningful distinction to you.

    “They most certainly do. Try firing a member of a protected class who works for the government.”

    You’re confusing the prosecution of the law with the law itself. You may have also overlooked the qualifying word “necessarily” in my response. That said, anecdotally I’ve seen others “try” with perfect success. But if you can cite some studies indicating an unreasonable difficulty for government employers to fire incompetent women, racial minorities, elderly, or people of faith, I’d be interested in reading some of them.

    “Certainly unconstitutional in flagrantly violating the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.”

    Civil rights legislation may not have been the best remedy, but these “guarantees” were being ignored on a wide enough scale for certain minorities (and women) that further legislation was implemented to make them harder to ignore. This is a similar phenomenon to that which motivates the RFRA laws, despite already existing constitutional and other legal guarantees of religious freedom.

    “In short where they are not a protected class they enjoy the same civil rights as a heterosexual white male.”

    You can put it that way, although gender and race are covered under civil rights laws. Or you can say, they have fewer civil rights than we do as Catholics. I’m not particularly interested in semantic games, but if you want to say that in these places they technically have the same civil rights as heterosexuals because heterosexuals have no rights based on sexual orientation either, then I guess that’s true. Besides the point, but true.

  • “Fine, make that “minorities and women” if that is a meaningful distinction to you.”

    You were the one who claimed this rubbish was all about protecting minorities.

    “That said, anecdotally I’ve seen others “try” with perfect success.”

    Examples? At the University of Illinois library a few years ago it took three years to fire a black female staffer who made a habit of not showing up at work with no excuses for her absences. I am friends with her supervisor and followed that case with interest.

    “Civil rights legislation may not have been the best remedy”

    You do not get it do you? An unconstitutional remedy cannot be justified under a governmental system that gets its power from a constitution. Your citation of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts is not on point because those acts ban discrimination by government action.

    “You can put it that way”

    Which is the way to put it, because it is the factually correct way to put it. Sheesh, you are wedded to the whole concept of some animals being more equal than others aren’t you? Government sponsored discrimination is a truly foolish mechanism to end discrimination. Such an effort merely chooses the beneficiaries of government sponsored discrimination.

    Here is my civil rights policy, the same as Frederick Douglass:

    “In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, — your interference is doing him positive injury.”

Catholic Teacher Under Fire From Catholic School For Practicing Catholicism

Friday, March 13, AD 2015



Jannuzzi Facebook

I used to view as extreme those who predicted that faithful Catholics would face persecution.  Now such people every day are looking more like prophets.  What they forgot to note is that those doing the persecuting would often be fellow Catholics.

Mathew J. Franck at First Things gives this disturbing example of what I am talking about.


While Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone holds the line on the teaching of orthodox moral doctrines of the Catholic Church out in San Francisco, here in New Jersey a theology teacher in Immaculata High School in Somerville is threatened with dismissal from her position for . . . agreeing with orthodox moral doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Patricia Januzzi, the teacher in question, recently posted some remarks on same-sex marriage and homosexuality on her publicly accessible Facebook page. After remarking on the dubious proposition that protection of gays and lesbians as a class can be brought within the ambit of the Fourteenth Amendment, Januzzi wrote: “In other words they [advocates of same-sex marriage] want to reeingineer western civ into a slow extinction. We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity!!!!”

Of course—of course—a firestorm erupted over this. Even (whatever happened to) Susan Sarandon weighed in with self-righteous condemnation (it seems her nephew once attended Immaculata). The principal of the school told Januzzi to take down her public Facebook page, which she did, and the school issued a statement a couple of days ago assuring the public that its “investigation” had “determined that the information posted on this social media page has not been reflected in the curriculum content of the classes [Januzzi] teaches.” Then followed the rote recitation of the gospel of “respect and sensitivity.” As stilted and impenetrable as all this was—Januzzi had not posted “information” but opinion, and what, after all, was the school telling us was not “reflected” in the classes it offers?—at least it seemed for one brief shining moment that this little flap would go away.

No such luck. Now it is reliably reported that Patricia Januzzi is under pressure to resign, and threatened with dismissal if she utters a peep about the matter. This is rapidly becoming an outrageous assault against a person whose worst offense was to speak with what some (but by no means all) would call an intemperate passion, in favor of the Church’s teaching.

Continue reading...

40 Responses to Catholic Teacher Under Fire From Catholic School For Practicing Catholicism

  • The principal reports to the pastor of the Imaculata parish, Msgr. Seamus Brennan. The teacher under siege is a member of the parish and has chaired parish commissions

    Oh, and the self-dramatizing poof behind this controversy has referred to Mrs. Januzzi as a ‘nightmare dumpster human’. Stop the h8.

  • The silence of Catholic hierarchy is deafening. Does this mean that the Church’s teaching is null and void, something to be condemned ?

  • “Does this mean that the Church’s teaching is null and void, something to be condemned ?”

    It means that an important attribute of being a Bishop is courage and far too many of our “shepherds” head for the hills when the wolves come around. Time for the “sheep” to take matters into their own hands because most of the shepherds are worse than useless.

  • I can just imagine the wolves in sheep costumes also in the foothills opening a season on the sheep.

  • Ah, but that is when the really tricky sheep Patricia don wolf costumes and begin luring other “wolves” into ambushes by the sheep!

    It is pathetic when Christians are being beheaded rather than renounce their faith, that we have Bishops in this country who fail to stand up for Catholicism because they fear bad press and the intolerance of the deranged Left. I sometimes think that Bishops must have their spines, and other parts of their body, surgically removed before they are consecrated Bishops, because they certainly do not behave like men when it comes to protecting those in their charge.

  • When a voice defends or proclaims the teaching of our Lord as instructed by Him, such as Bishops Burke, Schneider, Sarah, Cordelione, the Sister who became incommunicado due to speaking in one of the Carolinas to students (of enraged parents), the blogger(s), a recent Pope, and more; there comes recrimination such as that recorded in the Gospels about what happened to Jesus on Good Friday.

  • I sometimes think that Bishops must have their spines, and other parts of their body, surgically removed before they are consecrated Bishops, because they certainly do not behave like men when it comes to protecting those in their charge.

    I have a hunch that it all boils down to a fear of causing open schism by telling dissenters that they can’t dissent fromX (see exhibit Pelosi, Nancy), because they know the dissenters will neither stop dissenting nor representing themselves as Catholic. So dissension goes unspoken –but also uncorrected.
    (n.b. I’m using schism colloquially)

  • Just to complete the argument, the reason faithful Catholics get cracked down upon, so to speak, is that you depend upon them to remain obedient and not cause a schism.

  • For the life of me I didn’t think the passage where Jesus tells us that “you will be persecuted and hated because of me…” ,would be from inside our own home, yet this is happening.

    Of course they are convinced that they are right and we are hate mongers. Interesting times is an understatement.
    These are definitive times. The Holy Bible spoke of a house divided, yet we know that the Holy Catholic Church will not fall.

  • I sometimes think that Bishops must have their spines, and other parts of their body, surgically removed before they are consecrated Bishops,

    If the institutional architecture is about as expected, there would be about five people in the chain of command between Mrs. Januzzi and the Bishop: her department chairman, the dean of the faculty, the principal, the pastor/trustee, and the diocesan superintendent of schools. It’s the principal who is causing the problem. Around her are two people to advocate for Mrs. Januzzi, one person who can alert the bishop and may have some command authority, and one person who can tell the principal to cease and desist. That Jean Kline paid any notice to Susan Sarandon’s self-entitled exhibitionistic sexual-deviant of a nephew is a canary-in-the-coal mine indicating that she’s unfit for the position she holds. The pastor should have had her in his office the next day to explain herself, and had the deans in his office one-by-one in order to ascertain who would run the school in the interim after he fired Mrs. Kline.

  • Patton said something to the effect that moral courage is an extremely (if not the most) important virtue and the one most often lacking.
    It is time to call out such evil advocates and push back twice as hard.
    A question for any priest or bishop: How is it merciful or charitable to silently stand by and allow a sinner to lose her/his eternal life, which Christ so dearly purchased for us with His life, death, and Resurrection.

  • And people wonder why many of us post under a “pen-name”.

    “Forward, comrades, always forward!”

  • Philip wrote, “For the life of me I didn’t think the passage where Jesus tells us that “you will be persecuted and hated because of me…” ,would be from inside our own home, yet this is happening.”
    καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ – Matt 10:36

  • As I read her statement, the teacher is imparting a valuable civics lesson: that the Constitution, laws, federal programs are being misinterpreted, and thus misused. The end result of this all inclusiveness is social engineering, e.g. the 14th Ammendment, and bankrupting programs, the economy and individuals, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.
    The Left are bullies. The students are watching this drama unfold. The weak principal must know that teens lose respect for those perceived as hypocrits. I hope this bishop realizes that if he caves, his power and moral authority will be greatly diminished. It’s a slippery slope.

  • They are vampires sucking the innocence and virginity out of our innocent children, Children who are born innocent and called by name into being.
    I moved from the Diocese of Metuchen in ’04 where +Paul Bootkowski resides. Paul Bootkowski is a Cardinal Dolan clone. It was no secret. It was heartbreaking then and it is heartbreaking now.
    Self-abuse as is sodomy must be called out by its true name and meaning or the devil with his lies will have us. Mutual masturbation in the name of love without counting one’s soul or the soul of the partner for eternal life with God is atheism. If Immaculata is going to support atheism, I suggest that no Catholic money be donated. Sending our partners to hell is not Catholic, not decent, not holy and not human.
    Did the teacher mention any person’s name or is it simply the agenda of the gays to confuse, conflate and argue that the crime has personhood? The devil incarnate?

  • Most of the parents who place their kids in parochial schools today do so
    not because they want their kids to have a Catholic education, but
    because the want their kids to have a private school education. A
    teacher with the stones to actually explain to his students what the Church
    teaches will be getting neither support nor thanks from either parents or administrators.
    Ms. Januzzi’s 33-year career with Immaculata is, sad to say, over. She’ll be
    silenced, placed on administrative leave, and ultimately resign or be fired.
    It’s that school’s loss, and the children’s loss, but it’s not a surprise.

  • Ms. Januzzi’s 33-year career with Immaculata is, sad to say, over. She’ll be
    silenced, placed on administrative leave, and ultimately resign or be fired.

    No, that only happens if Msgr. Brennan sides with an educrat he just hired against a parishioner he knows quite well.

  • Art Deco, yesterday (13th March) the school released a letter stating that
    Ms. Januzzi has been placed on administrative leave. I wouldn’t place any
    bets on her weathering this storm.

  • MPS. Thank you for the lesson. Enemies in his own household. Indeed.
    The battle is intensifying. It feels as though it is. The lukewarm will not stomach this one, and the enemy is brazen. Holy rosaries and weekly adoration we enter into the fray.

  • Ms. Januzzi has been placed on administrative leave. I wouldn’t place any
    bets on her weathering this storm.

    Who’s placing any bets, Clinton? I’m pointing out that the ball is in the pastor’s court. Either he makes this right or he’s a craven nincompoop. Personally, I do not think much of clergymen as human beings. We live in a decadent age and our clergy are fantastic disappointments. I’ve known some I respected, but not many ordained after about 1950.

  • Thank you Michael P-S

    Matthew 10:34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    35 For I have come to set a man against his father,
    and a daughter against her mother,
    and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

    36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

  • Art, I absolutely agree that the ball is in the pastor’s court. It’s just that it
    does not bode well for Ms. Januzzi that her FB post has even become an issue,
    let alone the fact that her superiors at that school and parish have pushed her
    2/3 of the way out of her job over it. It is a shame and an indictment of the
    decadent state of our so-called “Catholic” institutions in this country that
    her career at Immaculata is almost certainly over. If anyone was going to
    make this right, things wouldn’t have gone this far. She will resign or be fired,
    and very soon.
    What any employee of a Catholic institution in this country will take away from
    this fiasco is that their employer, the Church, will fold like a cheap suit when
    confronted over the expression of Catholic truths that inconvenience the
    zeitgeist. It’s less of a hassle for pastors and administrators and
    bishops and teachers if so-called Catholic education is kept as meatless and
    anodyne as possible, for fear of offending the Culture of Death.
    So-called “Catholic” schools might not be the sad spectacle they are, but, as
    i mentioned earlier, most parents are using the parochial school simply
    because they want their children out of the public schools, not because
    they’re interested in them becoming better Catholics. Academically they may
    be great (or the parents would be furious) but catechesis is not even close
    to being a similar priority, and most parents are fine with that.
    During my undergrad years I taught CCD at my college parish, an affluent
    parish with an elementary school. i taught high school kids, most of whom
    were graduates of the parish elementary school and currently enrolled in the
    city’s Catholic high school. They were good kids, bright kids, but they were
    bone ignorant of even the most basic tenets of Catholicism. These were kids
    whose parents not only sent them to Catholic school, but also put them in CCD,
    and these kids still had never heard of the Real Presence. No one had ever
    spoken to them about the Trinity. I asked the class to raise their hand if they
    thought Jesus was a man and not God. About half the hands went up. Was
    He God, but not a man? The other half went up. What about both man and
    God? One hand. I thought they might be toying with me, but no– they’d
    gone through 10-12 years in my city’s parochial school system only to be
    taught to be… Unitarians.
    Ms. Januzzi is currently the focus of a Two Minute Hate from our decadent
    culture, and her superiors at that school will probably throw her under the bus
    rather than experience her fate. It has suddenly become much less likely that
    any kids in any Catholic school will be adequately catechized, and even more
    likely they’ll end up ignorant of their Faith like those kids in my old CCD class.

  • I recall my own Catholic boarding schools (1952-1963).
    The religion taught was very like the Anglican “Public schools” [i.e. Independent boarding schools] described by Mgr Ronald Knox: “I think, then, it should be said at the outset that public schools are trying to teach the sons of gentlemen a religion in which their mothers believe, and their fathers would like to: a religion without “enthusiasm” in the old sense, reserved in its self-expression, calculated to reinforce morality, chivalry, and the sense of truth, providing comfort in times of distress and a glow of contentment in declining years; supernatural in its nominal doctrines, yet on the whole rationalistic in its mode of approaching God: tolerant of other people’s tenets, yet sincere about its own, regular in church-going, generous to charities, ready to put up with the defects of the local clergyman.”
    Very different this, to the religion taught on every page of the New Testament: “to renounce the world, and differ in every temper and way of life, from the spirit and the way of the world: to renounce all its goods, to fear none of its evils, to reject its joys, and have no value for its happiness: to be as new-born babes, that are born into a new state of things: to live as pilgrims in spiritual watching, in holy fear, and heavenly aspiring after another life: to take up our daily cross, to deny ourselves, to profess the blessedness of mourning, to seek the blessedness of poverty of spirit: to forsake the pride and vanity of riches, to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the profoundest state of humility, to rejoice in worldly sufferings: to reject the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: to bear injuries, to forgive and bless our enemies, and to love mankind as God loves them: to give up our whole hearts and affections to God, and strive to enter through the strait gate into a life of eternal glory,” would have been branded Jansenism or worse.

  • FYI- According to this Sunday’s (3/15/15) bulletin for the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Somerville, NJ [], Mrs. Jannuzzi is Director, New Evangelization/Stewardship/Adult Faith Formation for the parish. The bulletin also includes the St Thomas More Column (A defense of Marriage and Family: Defending Marriage, Family and Religious Freedom) which has a submission from Mrs. Jannuzzi. The previous two posted March issues of the bulletin also include the column by Mrs. Jannuzzi.
    Also, note that the announcement of her “administrative leave” (paid? unpaid?) posted at the school’s web page [] was signed by the school principal plus the pastor, Msgr Seamus Brennan.
    Personally, I am discouraged and depressed by the lack of support from the Catholic clergy for the “Catholic faith.” This is the third similar incident in recent times (NC, RI) where so-called RC schools have thrown church teaching under the bus in order to appease the gay/left mob. So much for integrity…. And we have a Cardinal Dolan leading a pro-gay St Patrick’s Day parade in NYC. Then there was the mixed(?) message of the recent synod (Part1). I fear that the upcoming year of Mercy will merely lay the groundwork for an end run around the family (it will be done subtly via a technicality using pastoral discretion). Time will tell.

  • Bishop Fulton Sheen once said: “If you want your children to loose their faith, send them to a Catholic School.” Wonder if he realized how correct that statement would be in 2015?

  • It seems that the Church hierarchy, here, as everywhere there are hornets’ nests is deemphasizing ‘healthy doctrine’ for ‘arbitrariness and conformism’; not ‘guaranteeing relentless fidelity to the Word of God’. Am sorry that I forgot Cardinal Mueller in the above comment.
    Cardinal Mülller: The Pope ‘like all believers – is subject to the word of God and the Catholic faith ”

    “At the level of the universal Church the special mission of the Successor of Peter is especially mentioned to strengthen his brethren in the faith (cf.. Lc 22,32). This is not the place to deal with the doctrine of papal infallibility, but the characteristic and ultimate responsibility of the Roman Pontiff emphasizes protecting healthy doctrine. In its “Considerations on the Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church “of 1998, the Congregation declared: ‘The bishop of Rome is – like all believers – subject to the word of God and the Catholic faith. He is the guarantee for the obedience of the Church and in this sense servus servorum. He decides according to his own will, but it is voice the will of the Lord who speaks to man in Scripture lived and interpreted by tradition. In other words, the episkope of primacy has limits, resulting from the law of God and contained in revelation in the untouchable divine institution of the Church. The Successor of Peter is the rock that against arbitrariness and conformism, he guarantees a relentless fidelity to the Word of God: It also follows the martyrological characters of his primacy.'”
    Quote found on The Eponymous Flower which has more, and I am able to copy only one thing at a time – so no link.

  • Personally, I am discouraged and depressed by the lack of support from the Catholic clergy for the “Catholic faith.”

    That’s a rather anodyne way of describing what’s in that letter. Were I Mrs. Jannuzzi, I would never darken the door of that parish again. Were I Mr. Jannuzzi, Msgr. Brennan might just be nursing a broken nose.

  • This story hits close to my home, as I think I have mentioned before. I taught religion at a NJ Catholic high school. Very popular with the students, orthodox and unafraid to take on the issues of our time, including sexuality. Nothing controversial, just simple Catholic theology and truths. This did not happen in the other religion classes, which might be described as “tolerant” or “progressive.” In any event, no one ever directly approached me – instead I would get quiet warnings from concerned teachers that this person (a nun) and her cadre did not like me and she felt threatened. They certainly did not like what I was teaching – nobody ever reviewed my class although the pastor praised my class. (He did visit but never would get involved.) In short, full Catholic teaching was not wanted by the order, nor any robust expression of what we truly believe. The students, on the contrary, were extremely engaged. And I was not to be rehired after 2 years.

  • Kevin: I have friends with the same scenario. Most religion classes are taught by divorced and remarried people who would rater not hear the truth. The truth of the matter is that we need good Catholic sisters and nus to teach our children about God.

  • The Second Vatican Council, in its declaration on Catholic education Gravissimum Educationis, insisted on Catholic schools assisting Catholic parents in their primary duty of educating their children in virtue, holiness, and their ability to evangelize others in society (see especially nn. 3 and 8). Picking up on this theme, the U.S. bishops have affirmed that “Catholic elementary and secondary schools [are] invaluable instruments in proclaiming the Good News from one generation to the next” (see Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium, US Conference of Catholic Bishops [2005], p. 2). – See more at:
    ‘The U.S. bishops have affirmed’ that their schools are invaluable instruments in proclaiming the Word of God, but have found that when they don’t do so, the wind of the world does not disturb their comfort zones?

  • I think Fr. Paul Mankowski’s essay ‘Tames in Clerical Culture’ would be instructive here, as well as Leon Podles’ observation that people go into the ministry because they want to be den mothers (on salary). We have bishops who are incapable of functioning as leaders, clergy in general who went into the ministry for the wrong reasons and have remained in it for the wrong reasons, and women religious whose residual raison de faire seems to be a contempt for the lives of ordinary women in domestic situations (a phenomenon Andrew Greeley addressed in one of his short stories; Greeley admitted he did not like nuns).

  • Update: Bishop Bootkoski issued a statement regarding this situation:
    20 Mar 2015

    My dear brothers and sisters,
    We are a compassionate Catholic community committed to treating our students, faculty and parishioners with respect. We have never wavered from our traditional Catholic teachings.
    To that end we need to correct some misstatements with regard to the teacher in question.
    The teacher’s comments were disturbing and do not reflect the Church’s teachings of acceptance. However, she has never been terminated, as some media outlets have reported. She has been put on administrative leave. There has been no interruption in her pay and benefits.
    Pope Francis reminds us that we are to accept all of our brethren. We must ensure that our educators steer away from harsh and judgmental statements that can alienate and divide us.
    We regret that certain individuals and groups are using inaccurate media reports to push their own agendas.
    Apparently the “Church’s teaching of acceptance” Jesus’ message of Repent!
    I am very discouraged at how the diocese, the pastor, and the school have betrayed Mrs. Jannuzzi. The shepherds have turned over the sheep to the wolves. May God help and protect us.

  • “Pope Francis reminds us that we are to accept all of our brethren. We must ensure that our educators steer away from harsh and judgmental statements that can alienate and divide us.”

    The Bishop needs to go over that horrible John the Baptist fellow who was ever harshing the mellow of his contemporaries:

    “And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. [7] And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. [9] And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. [10] For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.”

  • They forgot to add, “we are an Easter people” (or perhaps only bishops are allowed to use that trope).

    You have to shake your head at our clergy. They can’t even get the easy calls right.

  • There is teaching of pc thought in that letter with a division lesson, but religion has been omitted. Matt 10:36 again ignored.

    Missing cites:
    especially “our” traditional teachings;
    comments disturbing v Church’s teaching of acceptance;
    must steer away from harsh and judgmental statements that can alienate and divide “us”;
    pushing “their” own agendas;
    John the Baptist, out there in the peripheries, living on bugs and converting followers was not slick enough to quote.
    Mrs. Jannuzzi did not keep her light under a bushel. The letter stating that her leave is paid must be what should console the “us”.

  • Bishop, you stated that the teacher’s “statements are disturbing?” No your statement that her statements were disturbing are disturbing. She should sue all the moral-phobic so-called Catholic “shepherds” for fraudulently pretending to be Catholic. Jesus was very judgmental (you would know it if you read the whole Bible). Jesus wrote in the sand the number of times the men consorted with the prostitute as the attempted to incorrectly (by Jewish standards of the time) to stone her. Jesus praised people who judged correctly. You Sir are guilty of being harsh and vindictive in the way you treated this teacher and being in service of Moral-Phobia. “…… teacher’s comments do not reflect the Church’s teachings of acceptance?” Sorry buster, but neither the true Church nor Jesus accepts sin.

  • The pogrom against a teacher, Patricia Januzzi, Sr Jane Laurel, OP, and even against Arcbp. Cordileone of San Francisco, is of course a specific focus of the much larger picture: the larger view is the chaos introduced into the Catholic Church and (as some of us predicted) a purge against those who hold Catholic belief. Whence originates the chaos? Well, who called for the mis-named “Synod on the Family”?

    1 Cor 14:31 in a few brief words summarizes the essence of the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits of the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius: “God is a God of order, not confusion.” Look around you at the fragments of the Church today.

    The internal war against P. Benedict XVI during his pontificate was not visited on the whole church, but now its material agent, the present pontiff, has spread this spirit of disorder and chaos through the whole Church, and as predicted here, he would facilitate and actually encourage a war on those Catholics (whom he pejoratively calls “Doctors of the Law” (Sermon, Mar. 17, 2015, Domus S. Martha Chapel). Januzzi, Cordileone, Burke, Pell and many others are bodies to be stepped over on the journey that PF insists is to “Go forward, always forward!” (Mar. 7th 2015 address, Ognissanti Church, Rome). Forward to what, Holy Father? 10% Mass attendance? Zero? European Catholicism, now in free-fall, to 15% identification? To “none”? Is that a measure of your success?

    As Card. Mario Luigi Ciappi, one of the few besides the post 1960’s popes who actually read the 150 single space lines of the 3rd Fatima secret (not the several pages released in the 1990’s), said: ““In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” Never before have I felt so compellingly has it been that I see this prophecy now fulfilled before our eyes.

  • Pingback: Make His Ears Ring | The American Catholic
  • Schism from those going down into the pit is a good thing.

  • Mary De Voe, “Schism from those going down into the pit is a good thing.” That’s a chilling visual. Well put.
    Regarding the quote of bishop Sheen, sadly so true for my sons and nephews on both sides of the family. They all attended Catholic high schools. The one who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is back and was married in a nuptial Mass.

Religious Test in California

Thursday, February 5, AD 2015


The California Supreme Court has just enacted a religious test for judicial office, something specifically banned by the US Constitution.  In a policy aimed squarely at the Boy Scouts, the Court bans judges from participating in any youth groups that practice discrimination.  Although the Boy Scouts were the target since they ban homosexual adult leaders, the idiotic ban would apply to any group that practices what the Court deems to be “invidious discrimination”.  Since the Court appears to view as “invidious discrimination” anything that runs counter to the beliefs of the loony Left, one can foresee problems for judges who participate in Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim youth groups.

Of course this nasty little exercise in identity politics runs smack into Article Six of the United States Constitution that bans any religious test for public office:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That this is a religious test no one should doubt.  In California the powers that be wish to punish those who have not fallen into lock step on homosexual rights and this travesty is but a small portion of this punishment.  Such attempts by government to coerce believers is precisely why the no religious test was placed into the Constitution.  One would trust that the “Justices” of the California Supreme Court would realize that what they have done is blatantly unconstitutional.  I assume they do, and they simply do not care, which is a fundamental betrayal of the Law and their function as Judges.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Religious Test in California

  • Californacators are everywhere…especially sitting on the bench. Waterfront property in Death Valley coming soon I expect.

  • As a point of clarification, the “no religious test” clause refers to federal office holders, not state. Indeed, several states had religious “tests” of varying kinds after the adoption of the US constitution. It’s only with the invention of the unconstitutional and highly-destructive-of-federalism incorporation doctrine by federal judges that these provisions are deemed applicable against the states.

    Ideally, California would be free to impose a religion test (or an irreligion test for that matter) on its officeholders; the people of that state would be free to express their view about the necessity of such a test without interference from the federal government, which, absent a clear constitutional mandate, really has no dog in the fight over how a particular state orders its affairs.

  • “As a point of clarification, the “no religious test” clause refers to federal office holders, not state.”

    Debatable. The language is unclear in meaning due to the sentence also making state office holders take an oath to the Constitution. Clearly the framers of the Constitution intended it to apply only to the Federal government, but the language is open to a broader interpretation. In any case, I have absolutely no doubt that the no religious test would apply to the states under current federal jurisprudence. Religion tests also run afoul of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution, as well as the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The religion test could also be attacked under the California Constitution and the religious freedom portion of the California work place discrimination act.

  • Cardinal George is right.

  • I have no problem if the CA constitution forbids a religion test, or has a free exercise of religion clause which its own state courts could interpret and enforce.
    But the feds only have the ability to interfere because of a profoundly unconstitutional “incorporation doctrine” which has wreaked havoc on various state laws, from abortion restrictions to porn restrictions, to various criminal laws, and last but not least, to state laws defining marriage.

    There’s no debate: if several ratifying states had religious tests for state offices in their constitutions, and did so for years after the US constitution’s ratification, then the only conclusion is that the ratifiers did not intend to interfere with those existing state laws. It was only in 1961, using the judicially-created incorporation doctrine, that the SCOTUS held these state law provisions unconstitutional. Sadly, the states in question rolled over to this usurpation, like they have to all the other incorporation impositions.

  • “I have no problem if the CA constitution forbids a religion test, or has a free exercise of religion clause which its own state courts could interpret and enforce.
    But the feds only have the ability to interfere because of a profoundly unconstitutional “incorporation doctrine” which has wreaked havoc on various state laws, from abortion restrictions to porn restrictions, to various criminal laws, and last but not least, to state laws defining marriage.”

    I find it hard to see how it is unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were clearly erroneous in their attempt to restrict the fourteenth to freed slaves.

    “There’s no debate: if several ratifying states had religious tests for state offices in their constitutions, and did so for years after the US constitution’s ratification, then the only conclusion is that the ratifiers did not intend to interfere with those existing state laws.”

    The intent of the ratifiers has zip to do with the Constitution. Of more interest is the intent of the Framers. Even then however, their intent does not prevail over the text of the Constitution,

  • Because texts are self-interpreting?

  • No, because the text controls in any statute or Constitution, absent a mistake in the text or an ambiguity.

  • Stacking the court, which of course is what is happening here – making the court a political operator in these culture wars
    (I hesitated to use the word culture– because it doesn’t seem like the war is between two competing cultures, but between culture and lack of it….just because secularism is so degrading
    Anyway, progressives taking the court into the political weeds-does that mean that conservatives have to go into the weeds too to try to wrest the court back to its natal dignity? Use the same kinds of attempts to manipulate the system? try to stack courts?
    hope for the day when progressives can be denied?
    A problem is that many Americans are like the personnel on this court in California- they don’t seen anything wrong with this.
    I guess we have to really work on the long range– for over a century they have been educating useful idiots– we need to bring up the competency of the average citizen to see hear and receive truth. We need miracles.

The Left Eats Their Own

Thursday, January 29, AD 2015


Well this is interesting.  Jonathan Chait, uberliberal, writes an article for New York Magazine decrying political correctness:

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. A year ago, for instance, a photographer compiled images of Fordham students displaying signs recounting “an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.” The stories ranged from uncomfortable (“No, where are you really from?”) to relatively innocuous (“ ‘Can you read this?’ He showed me a Japanese character on his phone”). BuzzFeed published part of her project, and it has since received more than 2 million views. This is not an anomaly.

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Left Eats Their Own

  • Q: What is public about NPR? It seems to be a sounding board for DNC. Are govt. funds commingled with the donations to support and propagate leftist views? If our tax dollars do support NPR then views contrary to the left should have equal air time.

  • Virtually all media discourse is liberal no matter the outlet. I now avoid all of it because it is so dull and insipid resulting from the base of lies on which it is based. The only media outlets I frequent are from an orthodox Catholic point of view. I just have no interest in engaging. My liberal friends miss fighting with me but I’ve passed through that phase thanks to the Holy Spirit. You really have to have a fourth grade mind to partake of mainstream media and find it satisfying at all, or the deluded mind of a liberal. Gotcha, name calling, made up “isms” and “ists” is all they have.

  • Back in November there was a bit of a kerfluffle where they found out one of their loudest voices was…well, just being a nasty bully against people who weren’t really doing bad-think. People who were on their own side. What the heck they expected out of someone called “Required Hate,” I have no idea. (Link is to Mrs. Hoyt’s reaction to some loon trying to shift the blame on to an acceptable target. Herself.)

  • Regulating discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate …
    to assume a towering presence in the psychic space of …
    ” Political correctness, like most forms of language policing, is all about winning debates not through persuasion and argument but by getting other people to shut up. ”
    The loudest, or most influential power, ‘wins’. It seems that ‘religious correctness’ can now be a phrase for some current discourse. This also seems to be a connection to writings about the Church becoming small and to Someone wondering whether there will be found any faith found on earth.

First They Came For the Bakers, And Then the Photographers, And Then the Ministers and Next….

Tuesday, October 21, AD 2014

Liberal Tolerance 2

Poor silly man, d’you think they‘ll leave you here to learn to fish?

Lady Alice to Sir Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons

Contrary to the popular idea that the success that the gay rights movement has had through the imposition of gay marriage by judicial fiat means the ending of a culture war, this is actually the beginning of a much greater one, as Robert Tracinski, a secularist, at The Federalist is wise enough to understand:


On Friday, city officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, informed Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers and proprietors of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, that they would be required to perform gay weddings or face fines or possibly jail time under the city’s “public accommodations” statute. Their religious views are expected to adjust to the edicts of the state.

So it’s official: a new religious orthodoxy is sweeping across the nation, imposed by government and backed by force. It’s a religious orthodoxy required by secular authorities for a secular purpose, but no matter. Heretics will be found out and forced to recant.

No one ever expects the Secular Inquisition.

Except that we actually did expect it. In fact, it’s inherent in the fundamental basis of the left’s arguments for gay marriage.

I’m speaking here of the argument for gay marriage. It may be hard to remember now, but not very long ago there were compromise proposals for same-sex “civil unions” that were legally equivalent to marriage but under a different name. Gay rights activists consciously rejected these unions in order to specifically demand the use of the term “marriage,” insisting that the state legally recognize and enforce the equality of these marriages with old-fashioned, outmoded heterosexual ones.

Personally, I have no problem with gay people getting hitched, having weddings, and saying that they are “married.” I don’t have any religious objection, on account of not being religious, nor do I think gay marriages, given their very small numbers, will have any particular impact on the state of marriage as an important social institution. (Which, alas, has all sorts of problems of its own.)

But the test of liberty isn’t what happens to people who agree with the intent of a particular edict. The test is what happens to people who disagree.

That brings us to the reason why gay rights advocates insisted on the government granting same-sex unions the title of “marriage.” The theory behind this was that homosexuals suffer from a lack of social acceptance, and gay marriage would put the government’s imprimatur on their status as social equals—along with the promise that this equality is to be backed by government force.

Continue reading...

51 Responses to First They Came For the Bakers, And Then the Photographers, And Then the Ministers and Next….

  • They (the intolerant tolerant) never rest. They never quit.

  • In England & Wales, the Same Sex Couples (Marriage) Act 2013 does not authorise the marriage of same sex couples according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England and any such attempted marriage would be void. This was designed to protect incumbents from a claim of discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), on the grounds that their position as ministers of the established church means that they are public functionaries.

    In Scotland, the same considerations do not apply. Parliament made clear in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 that ministers of the kirk are not state officials – “This Church, as part of the Universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of Church office-bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church… Recognition by civil authority of the separate and independent government and jurisdiction of this Church in matters spiritual, in whatever manner such recognition be expressed, does not in any way affect the character of this government and jurisdiction as derived from the Divine Head of the Church alone, or give to the civil authority any right of interference with the proceedings or judgments of the Church within the sphere of its spiritual government and jurisdiction.” Any application to the civil courts would be incompetent for want of jurisdiction.

    Other churches (including the Catholic Church) in both England and Wales and Scotland are voluntary associations and they are protected by the provision that only those bodies or celebrants that apply for authorisation to marry same sex couples are able to do so. They cannot be guilty of discrimination for refusing to officiate at a ceremony they have no legal power to perform.

  • I’d think that nay number of Constitutional forces can be brought to bear to shoot this idiot blob down. It may be that the venue must be open to all, but that non-Christian couples shall provide their own “ministers.”
    Or, if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.
    Yes, I know those are now theoretical concepts, but they existed in force once upon a time, and if now isn’t the time to punch back, hard, fast and accurate, then that time will never come.

  • WK Aitken wrote, “if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.”

    A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy. The notion is a very ancient one; the Roman law obliged nautae caupones stabularii, [shipowners, innkeepers and livery stables] to offer their services to all and the notion of “common calling” is derived from that.

    I imagine the authorities picked the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel as a soft target, on the grounds that it is as much as business as the blacksmith’s shop at Gretna Green.

  • “A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy.” – true, if it’s a licensed business which I suppose it must be. I know of places that are not but are “open” to people who simply want to avail themselves to the locations, but that’s a different story.

  • Mark my words, the tax exempt status of any church that will not perform, bless, approve homosexual marriages will be gone in a couple of years. That’s the next step for the “intolerant tolerants”.

  • “I imagine the authorities picked the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel as a soft target, on the grounds that it is as much as business as the blacksmith’s shop at Gretna Green.”
    You are precisely correct MPS. These people want to establish a precedent here that a ‘religious business’ is a business and that the anti-discrimination laws apply just as in any other business. Once done they will move on to sue a traditional church, and the ‘religious business’ will be transformed into a ‘church’ in their brief.

    However, one of the hallmarks of law regarding religion in the U.S. is that the government is deemed to be not competent in judging the relative merits of one faith against another. Hence, the legal standing of the Knapps is no different than that of any other minister in any other church. They as clergy cannot be forced by the government to do anything their beliefs proscribe. The city has an uphill battle ahead of them. I hope the Knapps sue the city for legal fees and court costs.

  • Our beautiful Muslim brothers would know how to react to this travesty.

  • TomD

    Of course, but if one wanted to pick a test case, it would be easier to use the Knapps than, say, an Haredi Shul, which has more exacting requirements, shall we say, of whom they will or will not marry.

    Perhaps, there is something to be said for the French rule of mandatory civil marriage (le mariage civil obligatoire) Only an officer of civil status (the mayor or his adjunct) can perform a marriage and it is a crime – an attack on the civil status of persons (un atteinte à l’état civil des personnes) for a minister of religion habitually to conduct marriages for people not legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21) “Habitually” is intended to make allowance for death-bed marriages and “marriages of conscience.” There can be no question of compeling a minister of religion to marry a same-sex couple, for the simple reason that they cannot marry anyone.
    Catholic wedding invitations typically invite one to “assist” at « Le mariage » (civil) and « La bénédiction nuptiale » (the religious ceremony) or only the latter.

  • Evil actions / sexual perversions will not have the last word! Disordered reality will be seen in the Light for what it is.
    Jesus, I trust in you.

  • “Of course, but if one wanted to pick a test case, it would be easier to use the Knapps than, say, an Haredi Shul, which has more exacting requirements, shall we say, of whom they will or will not marry.”
    But that’s just my point. The perception of ‘ease’ in the minds of the city is false, because U.S. law cannot make any distinction. How the Knapps became ‘ordained’ or even what precisely constitutes ordination, and who they allow or not allow to marry under their religious views is not material. At worst the city could prevail regarding their chapel’s fees and internal physical arrangements by arguing these are more ‘businesslike’ than a church, but considering that other churches often have fees and even gift shops (all major cathedrals do) the Knapps could easily circumvent any challenge by rearranging the furniture to match other churches’ arrangements, if necessary. The only way the city can win is if the Knapps’ attorneys are incompetent, or if the U.S. judiciary has been totally corrupted.

  • Never underestimate the power of a motivated Supreme Court to construct a test.

  • Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is involved in the Knapp’s defense, as I understand. They’re frequently on the front lines against militant secularist forces in the U.S. and generally seem to be competent.
    As for the French vs U.S. methods related to marriage, there’s two questions at play here. One is philosophical: from where do rights originate? The second is practical: how well is such philosophy understood and expressed in each country?
    Generally speaking, the U.S. tradition and original founding has declared rights to be pre-existing, endowed by the Creator…marriage, in this regard, was viewed as an institution which the government did not create but acknowledged. I grant historical caveats and the like, but as I said: “generally speaking”…
    I’m not as intimately familiar with how French philosophies of rights were originally articulated, but from Michael’s description of civil marriage, the government seems to be the ultimate grantor (if not absolutely, at least in practice) of rights at least in respect to marriage. It’s been my understanding that while French political philosophy mirrored / shared much from the American founding, there was a more secular interpretation of natural law and theories of natural rights.
    As to how well this philosophy is put into practice in France, I cannot say. I can say that the U.S. philosophy has become disconnected if not utterly forgotten from modern practice, in light of these types of lawsuits. This case is precisely a manifestation of the delta that has been created between practice and philosophy.
    I submit this: if we, as Catholics, are one of the few (if not only) Christian traditions that hold that marriage is a sacrament, and yet we will submit to the words “By the power vested in me by the [insert name of governmental authority], I pronounce you [insert politically correct term for two (or more) spouses]”…then whom do we call master? God or the world? Maybe I’m over-analyzing or possibly over-simplifying, but in light of this past weekend’s Gospel reading about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, I think it’s fair to ask in the intersection of Catholicism and political philosophy: does the sacrament of marriage belong to God or to Caesar?
    In that view, and in my humble opinion, I do not think that the French model offers a positive alternative to the U.S., even in light of the dissonance between U.S. philosophy vs practice with respect to rights and marriage.

  • Let me add that what Michael described as a civil marriage followed by a religious marriage seems to be somewhat analogous to the practice of marriage licenses in the U.S. While the requirements are different for different states and so forth, I’m generally under the impression that the license does not, in fact, confer the marital status until the religious ceremony occurs.
    Now, perhaps a lawyer from the U.S. perspective might offer a correction if I’ve mucked this understanding up.

  • No religious ceremony is needed. For example in Illinois couples can be married by judges or by the Circuit Clerk of Cook County. I can think of no place less romantic than a courthouse for the locus where a marriage is performed!

  • When Catholic clergy become persecuted in this country for refusing to perform homosexual marriages, will Pope Francis call them unmercifully traditionalist or will he have mercy on them?

  • PS, I like T Shaw’s comment about Muslims. Those fanatics for whose beliefs the homosexual-supporting left makes every excuse to give deference would behead both homosexual and his leftist supporter alike. On the other hand, because I insist on leaving homosexuals alone so long as they leave me alone, I am accused of the most heinous crime of all: intolerance. Darn straight I am intolerant – of liberalism, progressivism, modernism, hedonism and all the other ISM’s – the I, Self and Me’s.

  • Thanks Don, and agreed about the “marriage certificate” ceremony. My question is if one is having a religious ceremony, then am I correct in saying that the marriage license isn’t equated to the marriage certificate in a civil marriage?
    Let me put it this way… When I was in graduate school, a friend of a friend was married in front of a historic train station by the mayor…not something that I found appealing. I presume that this is entirely consistent with what Michael describes in France.
    However, I know from my own wedding, we obtained our marriage license a few days prior to the ceremony. And I know that the priest, my wife, our witnesses and I signed the marriage certificate, right after the wedding ceremony. So, I guess in that sense, the priest was acting as an official on behalf of the state. However, this order of operations (as well as the officiant) appears to be illegal in France.
    Further, the license had nothing to do with the official date of our marriage. This, to my point, would make the French civil marriage not analogous to a marriage license in the U.S. in the context of a religious ceremony. Also, as an aside: if a Catholic couple in France obtain the civil marriage first, are they considered married in the eyes of the priest and the ceremony is therefore nothing other than a blessing? I would assume they wouldn’t be married twice, as it were.
    Back to the discussion at hand: Idaho was one of the states which recently had their laws on marriage overturned by judicial fiat, by way of abstention. I am sure that a homosexual couple could pick from any of a number of venues, including some professing to be Christian, which could have performed the ceremony. I am in complete agreement with Michael and Tom that this was a trial balloon.
    If the couple really was there only because they loved the venue, then why are there no legal precedents of, say, a good and decent Southern Baptist couple suing for permission to have a Catholic priest marry them, despite not being members of the parish? I mean, I’m sure there are some Southern Baptists who would appreciate an old fashioned pipe organ, stained glass, and the occasional phrase in Latin as the perfect backdrop for their most special of days. And the only reason the priest would deny it, the tyrants of tolerance would tell us, is due to their religious bigotry. There’s surely no way the priest could oppose on sincerely-held religious convictions regarding sacramental theology.
    While some would point to the fact that the Knapps made their ministry their business as well, the Hobby Lobby decision by the same black-robed oligarchy should provide some precedent in their favor. And the Knapps aren’t what I’d consider unique…I know that, according to my wife (who used to help with wedding planning), some churches of various denominations do charge fees of some sort for weddings conducted in their facilities.
    But, yes, the next step will be a similar couple demanding a Catholic priest marry them. The only variable that I see is how long it is until that happens…and I suspect that the Knapp case will be the predictor of whether it happens sooner or later.

  • “My question is if one is having a religious ceremony, then am I correct in saying that the marriage license isn’t equated to the marriage certificate in a civil marriage?”

    In the US marriage is a two step procedure. First the marriage license, then having someone authorized to do so perform the marriage. If the marriage is not performed, the marriage license does not constitute a legal marriage. The fact that in the States a multitude of people can perform a marriage would weaken a law suit to compel someone to perform a marriage. When someone provides a service, the law in the US has traditionally not required someone to do so to all and any comers where there is no shortage of people providing the service. For example as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take. Anti-discrimination laws have weakened this traditional privilege of service providers, but if no reason is given for an unwillingness to provide the service, it would not be an easy case where a discriminatory reason would have to be proven. Of course, the first amendment protection of churches probably would render such a suit against a priest, minister, rabbi, etc, unconstitutional.

  • Meanwhile, Abp. Charles Chaput has suggested that maybe the time has come for priests to consider “principled resistance” to the imposition of same-sex civil marriage by, basically, getting out of the civil marriage business altogether:

    “In a lecture delivered Monday evening in Manhattan, Chaput also suggested that in the wake of the rapid series of court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage in more than 30 states, Catholic priests might consider opting out of certifying civil marriages as a sign of “principled resistance.”…

    “….By long-standing U.S. practice, a Catholic priest, like any licensed clergy, acts as an agent of the state when signing a couple’s marriage certificate.

    “It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’ ” Chaput said in his prepared remarks.

    “Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet,” he said.

    “Chaput said he wasn’t necessarily endorsing that move yet, but “in the spirit of candor encouraged by Pope Francis,” he said the American bishops should “discuss and consider it as a real course of action.”

    If that were to happen, then American Catholics would be basically in the same position as Catholics in foreign countries that only recognize civil marriage — they would have to have two weddings, one civil and one religious, if they wanted their union to be both legally and sacramentally valid. And though I understand what Abp. Chaput is getting at here, some of what he said is problematic:

    — If Abp. Chaput really believes that it is morally wrong or potentially scandalous for a priest to cooperate in or endorse a system of civil marriage that is no longer in conformity with natural law, then why is he “not necessarily endorsing that move (refusal to sign civil marriage licenses) yet”? Either it’s wrong or it’s not; if it’s wrong, then the practice should stop now.

    — If a priest or bishop cannot “in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’” what about the couple? If they fully believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, how can they, in good conscience, sign THEIR names to such a certificate? If they cannot, does this mean that believing Catholic couples can no longer enter civil marriages in any jurisdiction that allows same-sex civil marriage? This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.

  • Pingback: Syria: 17-year-old Christian Boy Crucified -
  • John by any other name

    Mandatory civil marriage was introduced in France on 9 November 1791, after 10 million tenant farmers (vassals) had been turned into heritable proprietors.

    The Civil Code contains no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001). This led one of the greatest modern commentators on the Civil Code (Carbonnier) to remark that “The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.” This is rooted in Roman law, with Paulus declaring, ” is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant. ” [marriage points out the father] (Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1)

    That is why the Pécresse Commission that reported to the National Assembly in 2006 insisted that “Mandatory civil marriage makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament.” [le mariage civil obligatoire, qui fait de cette institution un pilier de la République laïque au-delà du sacrement religieux]

    In other words, marriage is viewed primarily as a public institution that determines civil status. If a couple wish to have their union blessed, that is a private matter.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take”

    In Scotland, a solicitor may choose his clients, but an advocate may not. 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. This is sometimes referredd to as the “cab rank principle.”

  • Luke 17:34-37
    I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.” And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”
    Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists of the CI Scofield variety suppose this refers to the Rapture. They are mistaken. The person who is taken is the one dragged away into prison and torture by those whose banner is SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romae) above which rests the Eagle, and the person who is left behind is the one not taken into prison and torture.
    What is the American national symbol if not the Eagle? As liberal progressivism has assumed ascendency and we have become a national democracy instead of a constitutional republic, we should well remember what our Blessed Lord said:
    “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

  • Elaine Krewer.

    Great link….thanks. Abp. Chaput is making excellent sense in principled resistance. The timing is right however resistance to principled resistance will be evident, but so what! Jesus did not ask the money changers be fair in their exchange of coin for sheckel’s…He turned their tables over and took a whip to drive them out. Chaput’s idea is less violent and yet is bold enough to send the right message.

  • No more than radios and cassette disc players make a car, do flowers, cakes, pictures, and wedding receptions a “marriage” make. These things are peripheral accessories.
    The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony may be performed by a priest in the rectory, with two attendants as witnesses. It may be even that only one attendant is required. The good will and informed consent of the couple is the only necessary requirement for the Sacrament. The cost is nothing.
    Proprietors of bakeries, photographies, florists, and halls are not required to allow just anybody, but do have some control over whom they serve as their insurance may not allow persons with no shoes, shirts or ebola virus to enter their premises, because in the first place, the proprietors are the final arbiters of whom is permitted or prohibited into their personal space, allowed access to their face.
    When the proprietor denies access to his/her face, a contract cannot be signed.
    When the same sex couple is admitted into court, the first person they will meet is the judge who has the authorization of the state “by the power vested in…” him/her, to perform the fulfillment of the law. Therefore, the same sex couple is not denied or being denied any civil right required by the law and have no plaint against any other person/citizen.
    If, in the absence of good will, the same sex couple demands of another citizen certain amenities for himself, he is not acting in good will and his demands may be denied by the other person and not supported by the court since the same sex couple is not acting in good will towards the state. (and the court). (and the citizen).
    “GET OUTTA MY FACE” is more than slang. “GET OUT OF MY FACE” is the right of every sovereign person who happens to also be a citizen.
    (If the same sex couple tries to contract any amenities by lying or cheating or swindle; subterfuge, the contract is not valid and may not and will not be supported in a court of law.)

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:
    “Any application to the civil courts would be incompetent for want of jurisdiction.
    Other churches (including the Catholic Church) in both England and Wales and Scotland are voluntary associations and they are protected by the provision that only those bodies or celebrants that apply for authorisation to marry same sex couples are able to do so. They cannot be guilty of discrimination for refusing to officiate at a ceremony they have no legal power to perform.”
    The absolute mind of John Henry Cardinal Newman and Thomas Jefferson.
    John Henry Cardinal Newman said:
    “It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.”

    Thomas Jefferson said: Jan. 1. 1802.
    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & 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.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:
    WK Aitken wrote, “if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.”
    A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy. The notion is a very ancient one; the Roman law obliged nautae caupones stabularii, [shipowners, innkeepers and livery stables] to offer their services to all and the notion of “common calling” is derived from that.
    Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation. Sodomy is an act of man against God. Inflicting immorality on another person by scandal and calling evil as good is a lie and perjury in a court of law.

  • John by any other name: “I submit this: if we, as Catholics, are one of the few (if not only) Christian traditions that hold that marriage is a sacrament, and yet we will submit to the words “By the power vested in me by the [insert name of governmental authority], I pronounce you [insert politically correct term for two (or more) spouses]“…then whom do we call master? God or the world? Maybe I’m over-analyzing or possibly over-simplifying, but in light of this past weekend’s Gospel reading about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, I think it’s fair to ask in the intersection of Catholicism and political philosophy: does the sacrament of marriage belong to God or to Caesar?”
    “Render unto to Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” Caesar belongs to God. And Caesar must exist in the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Therefore, anyone entering into a covenant with God must be in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. God is living in every true marriage as a covenant. Anyone entering into a contract of legal marriage must also be living in the truth. Marriage consists in informed consent and the marital act. If either of these components or requirements is missing the marriage is invalid no matter when, where or whom does officiate.

  • Elaine Krewer wrote, “This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”

    It would also have a profound effect on the legal rights of their children. The father would have no parental rights or responsibilities; the mother would be sole legal guardian. It coud also have repercussions on succession; a great deal of land is held under special destinations – “to x and the heirs-male of his body lawfully procreate, whom failing &c” Here the children would be excluded from the succession, in favour, it may well be, of a distant cousin. Also, such settlements usually contain a power to grant a liferent to the surviving spouse, but not to a mere cohabitee, so the heir could turn out both the surviving spouse and the children.

    I am sure it could be argued that the couple’s signing the certificate would be a permissible remote material cooperation, which is permitted for grave reasons. That does not mean that a refusla by the clergy to participate would not be an excellent form of protest. It would be, in fact, the French system, with two ceremonies, a system that exists in most of Europe.

  • “This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”
    An interesting contra-position of the current norm, and, of course, subject to common-law statutes after a time.
    Nonetheless, it would be an interesting “principled resistance” on the part of observant Catholic laity to do so.

  • Elaine Krewer: “— If a priest or bishop cannot “in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’” what about the couple? If they fully believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, how can they, in good conscience, sign THEIR names to such a certificate? If they cannot, does this mean that believing Catholic couples can no longer enter civil marriages in any jurisdiction that allows same-sex civil marriage? This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”
    A state’s marriage license is an instrument, a vital statistic. The priest acts as an agent of the state in participating in the regulation of the state, but so is the priest’s citizenship. The state has legalized human sacrifice and decriminalized sodomy and is working on cloning a slave race of human beings. The state does not deserve the recognition of real persons. The priest signs the marriage certificate for the protection of the decent person and the priest’s citizenship in performing a sacramental marriage may be viewed as an act against such a criminal or plain ignorant state, as well as an act of religion and conscience.
    Your perception in this matter, Elaine Krewer, is great.

  • In old times, in Europe, the only records or vital statistics belonged to the church, who kept records of births, deaths, and marriage.
    Vital statistics kept by the state do not convey ownership of the person to the state. But it does convey some power to the state over its constituents, that may be used to the benefit of the citizen but never to the state against the citizen. FWIW

  • WK Aitken wrote, “subject to common-law statutes after a time.”
    Well, no. According to Lord Glenlee, “marriage is founded on consent, and there may be single facts so strong as to supersede everything else. But a man’s allowing a woman to take the station, and be called his wife, is a constant and continued declaration of consent, and after this has gone on for a considerable time is sufficient proof that they are married” [Elder v McLean 1829].
    But, in the case supposed, there would be a clearly expressed intention not to enter into a legal marriage. As Lord Curriehill explained, “A woman cannot grow insensibly from a concubine into a married wife by any natural process of accretion or of accession. Such a metamorphosis cannot be legally effected by such means. Marriage is a consensual contract; and although there are different ways of proving that such a contract is entered into, yet the thing to be proved, whatever be the nature of the evidence, is that the parties entered into a mutual contract accepting of each other as spouses.” [Breadalbane Case, 1867, L.R., 1 Sc. App. 182]

  • MP-S:
    “According to Lord Glenlee, “marriage is founded on consent, and there may be single facts so strong as to supersede everything else. But a man’s allowing a woman to take the station, and be called his wife, is a constant and continued declaration of consent, and after this has gone on for a considerable time is sufficient proof that they are married”
    May hap’s. In the Great State of Indiana where I live, the “considerable time” is seven years, after which a couple is considered “legally married” in every sense that would be if a civil function had been performed.
    The simple declaration during Marriage Mass should be the only requirement, but then lots of things “should be” that aren’t . . .

  • Other thoughts: The granting of or the refusal of a sovereign person to countenance another individual in his personal space or by proxy is a right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment. If the Knapps refused, as the new reported, “politely declined”, to countenance the gay couple, to refuse to allow the gay couple into their personal space, into their face, there is no contract, no sexual discrimination, no violation of the gay couple’s right to public accommodation. To demonstrate their good will, the Knapps could refer the gay couple to other accommodations (short of hell).

    Michael Paterson-Seymour: ““ Donald R McClarey wrote, “as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take”
    In Scotland, a solicitor may choose his clients, but an advocate may not. 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. This is sometimes referred to as the “cab rank principle.”
    If an attorney, as is Donald McClarey, is order to defend a criminal, it is because the defendant is a criminal. In civil court a person may act “pro se” for him/herself, to speak for himself. And it seems that, like jury duty, the attorney may be excused by the court for life situations, such as sickness or dependent’s sickness. A revulsion of sodomy may excuse an attorney from defending the sodomist’s claim as being a victim. A revulsion of sodomy may excuse the Knapps from supporting the sodomists’ demands to a countenanced contract.

  • The notion is a very ancient one

    The ‘notion’ may be an ancient one, but the practice in this country does not antedate 1946. None of these enterprises are monopolistic common carriers.

  • “Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation.” ? ? ?

  • My point in referencing whether marriage belongs to Caesar or to God was to ask whether it’s fundamentally a civil institution or something that predates society.
    If we start from a profession of faith that God, whether through theistic evolution, intelligent design, or young-earth creationism, created everything…we must assume that marriage predates society and therefore civil institutions. It is not incompatible that regulations, practices and other such things surrounding marriage developed or were grafted on to the fundamental notion presented in Genesis 1:

    27 So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours; take command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

    Now, while the “unitive” aspect of marriage wasn’t fully articulated until relatively recently, I claim it’s self-evident that without the “procreative” aspect of marriage, none of us would be here to discuss the nuances of legal tradition surrounding matrimony throughout the ages. This is why the family is regarded as the fundamental unit of society. Society came after the family, and, as such serves the family…not the other way around. It is only recently that the widespread availability of contraception has contributed to the transformation of marriage to only have a value for the “unitive” in the eyes of much of Western society, something that seems at least implicit in Paul VI’s predictions in Humanae vitae. It’s only this transformation which makes the argument “love is love” even viable for marriage revisionists.
    The only alternative to this that I can see is that somehow procreation was only what God intended in Genesis and was separate from marriage. Marriage is therefore merely an institution of man, and was, as modernists would assert, a “social construct”. But I’m not sure that squares with sources that have studied this, from an anthropological perspective I would tend to trust.

    We may say that the positive arguments in favour of the theory of primitive promiscuity seem insufficient to give it any degree of probability, while the biological, economic, psychological, and historical arguments brought against it by many recent writers, e.g. Westermarck (op. cit., iv-vi) seem to render it unworthy of serious consideration. The attitude of contemporary scholars is thus described by Howard: “The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).
    – “History of Marriage”, Catholic Encyclopedia

    Please do not misunderstand me that I’m claiming there aren’t legitimate roles of civic authorities. I understand that the need to establish paternity for the sake of inheritance has a role in the civic order. But it’s my understanding that these expressions are only legitimate when they are acting in accordance with or subordinate to natural law…which ultimately was authored by God. Or to put this another way: Is murder wrong because the government said it was or because God said it was and the government followed suit?

  • “I am sure it could be argued that the couple’s signing the certificate would be a permissible remote material cooperation, which is permitted for grave reasons.”

    Good point. The officiant’s abstention/withdrawal from participating in the civil marriage ritual is, as I see it, mainly for his own protection — so that he cannot be compelled by the state to not “discriminate” against same-sex couples. An opposite-sex couple that has every intention of entering a sacramental, valid marriage, faithful and open to life, however, wouldn’t be “protecting” themselves from anything by forgoing civil marriage; if anything, they would be doing exactly the opposite — depriving themselves, and their future children, of important legal rights and protections.

  • WK Aitken wrote, “The simple declaration during Marriage Mass should be the only requirement,..”
    Usually, of course, it is; but not always. As Lord Dunpark said, “Scots civil law has always applied the consensual principle to the contract of marriage so that, if it be proved that, notwithstanding the trappings of a formal marriage ceremony, the parties thereto did not exchange their consent for the purpose of obtaining married status, the ceremony must be denied the legal effect which it was designed to produce.” [Akram v Akram (1979 SLT (Notes) 87)]
    Likewise, in Hakeem v Hussein (2003 SLT 515) Lord Penrose, giving the judgment of the Inner House (Court of Appeal) said “formal compliance with the procedural requirements of regular marriage is not conclusive of the contraction of a valid marriage”

    The rule is thus .stated by Lord O’Hagan : “In all inquiries of this sort, I apprehend the true rule is not to regard singly and apart the one transaction on which reliance is placed as constituting the marriage. It is necessary to exercise “a large discourse of reason looking both before and after,” and from all the antecedents and all the consequents to ascertain the true mind and purpose of the parties whose intention determines the character of their act.” Robertson v Stewart 1875 2 RHL 80 at p 108

    Marriages celebrated in facie ecclesiæ have frequently been avoided on the ground of force, fraud or error and these are only so many ways of proving want of mutual consent.

  • John by any other name & Elaine Krewer

    Lord Stowell described the two aspects of marriage, civil and religious, very well, when he said, “Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes although no third person existed in the world, as happened in the case of the common ancestors of mankind. It is the parent not the child of civil society. In civil society, it becomes a civil contract regulated and prescribed by law and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilized countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded; it then becomes a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. Heaven itself is made a party to the contract and the consent of the individuals pledged to each other is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God.”

  • The state does not own the proprietor of the public accommodations that the state licenses and regulates. Therefore the state cannot regulate whom the proprietor allows into his personal space and allows to be countenanced by himself. As I wrote earlier, It is only the individual citizen who may decide who enters into his personal space even after the other has entered into his establishment, that establishment, regulated and licensed. As I wrote earlier, if a customer is not allowed into the personal space of the citizen proprietor, if the customer is prohibited from being countenanced by the proprietor of a public accommodation, a contract cannot be made and will not be made by fiat of the state.
    In the matter of the same sex marriage, if the state decrees that it must be done then the state can and may perform the ss marriage.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Heaven itself is made a party to the contract and the consent of the individuals pledged to each other is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God.”
    Only if or when the individuals, the couple, consent to make a covenant with God is marriage a Sacrament. When the couple admits to no belief in God, the state witnesses to a contract between two consenting adults. Atheism explains this better than I might. However, here we have a situation where a ss couple might not be able to consent to a civil, secular contract because of the inability of the ss couple to copulate, to perform the marital act, a necessary condition of marriage.

  • Anzlyne: “”“Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation.” ? ? ?”
    Homosexuality was once diagnosed as “arrested development” by the American Psychiatric
    Assn. that is, before the North American Man Boy Love Assn forced the APA to change their diagnosis to “normal”. NAMBLA practises medicine without a license.
    Being born African American or with arrested development is an act of “their Creator”. Acting out homosexuality in homosexual behavior and blaming God for having created a person with this condition is sodomy and blasphemy, both sinful acts of the free will that require consent.

  • Mary De Voe wrote, “The state does not own the proprietor of the public accommodations that the state licenses and regulates….”

    True, but as Rousseau says, “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • Rousseau:
    “but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
    So when the collective People is the sole judge of what is important, how is that not also tyrannical when it imposes that judgment upon those who disagree?
    I originally started responding to this equating Sovereign as “State” but then noticed the inclusion of “[the People]” in your quote…but I think the substance of my objection still stands.
    I think that when the People determine, in a democratic (here I mean the mob-rule aspect of the “tyranny of the majority”) sense, that a particular course is in order and they make no appeal to any moral foundation (either through God’s law or at least through natural law), they do so arbitrarily and, in my view, illegitimately.
    Put another way: murder is wrong not because the People deemed its prohibition important, but because, either through an appeal to God’s law or through an intellectual understanding of natural law, it’s wrong. The People are just restating a truth that precedes them and, thankfully, agreeing with it.
    However, when the People determine that it is important that anyone of any biological gender can choose to “identify” as whatever they desire, so as to use the bathroom facilities of the opposite biological gender…this isn’t consonant with at least natural law as it gives license for sexual predators to abuse the system…forget the plumbing questions, whether biological or facility. Further, when the representatives of the People, in the form of the city government of Houston, not only reject a valid voter petition on corrupt charges but also subpoena speeches and personal communications from pastors unrelated to the lawsuit brought against the city by the organizers of the voter petition, this is precisely a tyrannical situation…as it derives from no legitimate authority other than being created out of the whim of the People.
    Rousseau appears to suggest that the People is answerable to no one, as he labeled them “sole”. That’s clearly wrong, if I am understanding him. Rousseau correctly identifies the consequences of relativism with respect to laws, but his solution is just that the will of the People stands supreme…which is also tyranny absent any legitimate appeal to, at the very least, natural law. His solution invariably shifts the chaos of relativism from the legal realm to the moral realm; he hasn’t solved it.
    How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course? I would interpret that Rousseau would admit to no such appeal could exist in the first place and that the will of the People would overrule the protest of the Individual.

  • Getting into a person’s face without his admission is assault. Demanding a person’s countenance without his consent is slavery, piracy… tyranny. Hauling a person into court for denying his countenance and his personal space to another is legal assault…legal harassment.
    The gay couple pursuing the Knapps in a court of law are inflicting legal assault and battery; refusing to acknowledge the Knapp’s freedom to come and go in good will; the Knapp’s civil right to assemble peaceably and be secure in their Blessings of Liberty.
    We know that legal assault and battery in a frivolous lawsuit and being charged legal fees and the cost of defending themselves in a court of law and not being acknowledged as having any civil freedom, and being hauled into court to give a good account of themselves and their citizenship, the Knapps are being victimized.

  • John by another name: “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course? I would interpret that Rousseau would admit to no such appeal could exist in the first place and that the will of the People would overrule the protest of the Individual.”
    I am oversimplifying your great scholarship and I may even be mistaken. However, with atheism, the individual human person is overruled by the mob mentality. Without God and God’s natural law, the people become a mob of unruled mercenaries.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: “” This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; “”…in another person’s choice of freedom, not his own individual choice of freedom. We have here the right to choose, freedom of abortion or else…,
    People of Faith come together to constitute our nation through good will and the Holy Spirit of Peace. The people have good will towards one another, our neighbors. Atheism inspires anarchy: “You will be free according to how I tell you to be free.” The transparent Great Liar. Only God can make sense of freedom.

  • John by any other name asked, “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course?”

    Rousseau has already answered it: there is no common superior to decide between the individual and the public, no one who can arbitrate the question.

    Of course, Rousseau is thinking of democracy, as practiced in the cantons of his native Switzerland, “The idea was that the grown men met in the market-place, like the peasants of Glarus under their trees, to manage their affairs, making and unmaking officials, conferring and revoking powers. They were equal, because every man had exactly the same right to defend his interest by the guarantee of his vote. The welfare of all was safe in the hands of all, for they had not the separate interests that are bred by the egotism of wealth, nor the exclusive views that come from a distorted education. All being equal in power and similar in purpose, there can be no just cause why some should move apart and break into minorities.”

    He spoke of representative government with biting contempt. “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: when it is necessary to meet in council, they name deputies and stay at home. By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.”

  • Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “John by any other name asked, “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course?””
    Conscientious objectors are citizens who respect their neighbors, and who object to their neighbors’ views, and who cannot participate in or support human sacrifice, sodomy, slavery and human rights violations, in Justice. Conscientious objectors are recognized and respected by the government, and are given the freedom to conscientiously object.
    Only those people who are trusted are allowed admission to the personal space and countenance of each and every citizen. The government regulates and licenses public accommodation to secure freedom and safety for consumers. The Knapps have refused to countenance ss couples, thereby, the government regulation and licensing are not put into effect until such time as the proprietors open themselves up to any potential customer. Otherwise, the ss couple are invaders into the personal space and countenance of the proprietors of any business.
    Sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator” at the onset of existence guarantees conscientious objection through the human beings’ ability to reason. To reason that an action may be detrimental to one’s eternal life and decline participation is to exercise Freedom of Religion and conscientious objection. People who choose to have no religion may not infringe on the freedom of believers.

This Isn’t America

Wednesday, October 15, AD 2014





The late great Art Carney, who rose to fame for his comedic portrayal of Ed Norton in Jackie Gleason’s The Honeymooners television show, also had a flare for drama.  I recall one role in which he played a character being told by the police that they they had a right to search his house without a warrant.  His response has always stayed with me:  “Not unless I made a mistake this morning and woke up in Russia instead of the US. !” That is precisely my reaction to this story that Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports on:



The city of Houston has fought a pitched battle to enforce its equal-rights ordinance, but in an ironic twist, they may find themselves afoul of the First Amendment for doing so. The ordinance has come under fire from a number of quarters, but perhaps none more determined than Christian pastors who see the law as a threat to their ability to preach. They have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the law, and city attorneys in turn demonstrated exactly why they feared this in the first place:

Houston’s embattled equal rights ordinance took another legal turn this week when it surfaced that city attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

Opponents of the equal rights ordinance are hoping to force a repeal referendum when they get their day in court in January, claiming City Attorney David Feldman wrongly determined they had not gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”



Pastor Hernan Castano received a subpoena and believes his sermons are protected by the First Amendment.

“For a city government to step into churches and ask pastors to turn in sermons, it’s gone too far. This is not what America, the nation is about,” he told Eyewitness News. …

Some signatures were acquired at churches which make the sermons fair game, according to City Attorney Dave Feldman.

“If they choose to do this inside the church, choose to do this from the pulpit, then they open the door to the questions being asked,” Feldman said.

Again, that argument might work for issues about the petitions, and possibly even the mayor, if it was tied to their tax status and electoral activities, assuming the city could assert jurisdiction on those points. Those topics might be defensible in a discovery demand, too, although that would come from a court motion rather than a subpoena from the city attorneys. But when it comes to their positions on LGBT issues and “gender identity,” that’s a different kettle of fish.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to This Isn’t America

  • I do NOT judge the sinner for I am a sinner too. I do not discriminate against nor persecute anyone due to sexual orientation or other reasons, nor do I exhort for the same. In fact, I have worked with many persons of same sex attraction without one single instance of an issue or problem, and I once even lived with such a person (we shared an apartment many years ago, and no, I was never homosexual). I would be aghast and angry if anyone ever hurt my friend for any reason, whether because of his sexual orientation or not. I do not have to agree with his behavior in order to respect him as a human being created in the image and likeness of God.
    However, adultery, fornication and sodomy are all sins. Having been an unmarried submarine sailor on liberty in the brothels of the Caribbean some 25 years ago, I committed one of those three sins in my misspent youth. That behavior was sinful, so I cannot excuse myself. If I am unrepentant in any such behavior, then I prevent myself from going to Heaven. That is what the Bible says. That is what the Catechism says. All that had to come out at Confession. The other two sins are no different. Perhaps I should have been more explicit with my homosexual friend instead of being afraid to hurt his feelings. Perhaps the City Council of Houston ought to be given a Bible to read.
    Again, I do NOT hate or discriminate against same-sex persons. I just want them to leave the Sanctity of Marriage alone. I do not deny them the right to make contracts between themselves, or share health and life insurance, or to live in a place of their own purchase or rent, or to have the same job that I have. And if any of them asked for help in the normal things of life (e.g., to change a tire or move some furniture or whatever), then I would gladly do so. Nevertheless, I simply am unwilling to renege on what Sacred Scripture says. I may fail that Scripture, and often do. But my failure does not nullify its truth.

  • “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.” Mussolini 1937.

    Guess I need to go out and buy more ammunition.

  • Subpoenaed sermons!
    Pastor Castano is right, it’s gone too far.

    Cristeros war was not long ago or far away. Just southwest of Huston Texas about ninety years ago. The ruthless government hell bent on crushing religious freedom did meet with resistance.

    Deer hunters are preparing for another harvest. They can shoot straight. They still have their weapons Thank God!

  • @Paul W. Primavera
    Well said.

  • One of the downfalls of living in a city with a robust economy like Houston, is that it attracts job seekers from all over the country including blue states. Harris County has historically been a conservative stronghold in a very conservative state, but sadly this is no longer the case. Hence, we’ve had to deal with an incompetent, out of the closet lesbian mayor now for six years. I knew it would only be a matter of time before Mayor Porker and our flaming liberal city council went too far. Let us hope and pray these lawsuits are successful.

  • Pingback: The Four Sections of Hell in Video Explanation -
    Galloping ignorance, Robin, the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Ghost writers in the sky…unratifying the Fifth Amendment.
    The woman is ignorant of her peoples’ desire to worship God by sharing the word of God, hearing the sermons prepared about God and God’s design for his people. Conflating the act of sodomy with the person, any person, is really stupid, the expressed deed of a nincompoop or an imbecile, up one from the idiot.
    Hatred of sodomy is normal for a nation who will have their legacy of freedom handed down to their posterity and a nation of people, “We, the people” who will profess their gratitude for having been brought into existence by their ancestors, grateful for having been begotten in freedom and liberty.
    Speaking of God, writing of God, public and peaceable assembly for God, is the freedom and liberty “We, the people…” hand up to our yet to be conceived posterity.
    Free speech and free press, the writing of thoughts onto paper, for the intent to; first: worship God and secondly: to edify and inspire the worshippers to worship God and exercise their First Amendment civil rights is the finest expression of good will and patriotism. Condemning no person, the sermons are given to save the persons’ souls from addiction to evil and immoral acts. The priests’ sermons are delivered to the assembly in church and are public domain only through the assembly. In other words, If Mayor Annise Parker wants to censor somebody for hate speech, it has to be her constituency who attended the church services… IF she can prove that they exercised their free will hating.
    Also, there is the Fifth Amendment that frees any person from testifying against him/her inclusive self. The principle of separation of church and state so loved by Thomas Jefferson and John Henry Cardinal Newman is being trashed and trampled by the hooves of galloping ignorance.

  • ““We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.” Mussolini 1937.”
    Mussolini, Mr. and Mrs., were dragged through the streets by their feet and hung upside down in the public square where everyone whom they had injured took a bat their putrid corpse of fascism, communism, tyranny and subjugation of citizens and free men.

  • Fulton J. Sheen has chosen the better part and it shall not be taken from him…as truth is eternal.

  • Those topics might be defensible in a discovery demand, too, although that would come from a court motion rather than a subpoena from the city attorneys.

    Technically, that’s wrong – discovery demands would at least initially come from subpoenas from City attorneys. The court would only get involved if the persons subpoenaed objected to the discovery requests, and the City attorneys filed a motion to compel responses.

  • Yeah, likewise in Illinois the Courts do not get involved in either discovery or the issuance of civil subpoenas unless one side has an objection or seeks to compel compliance. I can’t even imagine the arrogance of the city attorneys thinking they can subpoena sermons and that there would not be fallout from an effort to do so.

  • Well, the Relatio did say that homosexuals had gifts and qualities
    to offer the Christian community. This fiasco appears to be one of them…

  • What do you want to bet that at some point, an attorney trying to gain access to conservative pastors’ sermons say that because churches are nonprofit, thereby keeping their tax monies, that churches are subsidized by the tax payer and therefore must abide by federal, state, and city laws.

  • These are fascists. This is what AmeriKa has become. When are the stupid people of this country going to wake up; when they start loading us into boxcars and tractor trailers to be taken to the crematoriums?

  • Karl is right. These are fascists. Joshua Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascists” makes a credible association between the progressives, fascists and even the communists and Nazis. They are all variants of a species of secular humanists with utopian aspirations or pretensions. And now this despicable political correctness has brought us to the brink of multiple disasters. Perhaps I’ll reread The Apocalypse again, more closely and slowly. Maranatha.

  • I have just read that the city’s subpoenas also included the pastor’s emails,
    including emails exchanged between the pastors and their attorneys. If that
    is in fact true, the city’s lawyers responsible should be forced to write the words
    “attorney-client privilege” 100,000 times on a blackboard before being disbarred.

  • Indeed. It looks like they adopted a “kitchen sink” approach to discovery. Bad lawyering and I hope that the trial court imposes personal sanctions against each one of the city attorneys involved.

  • As religious liberties continue to be attacked by government oppression, as well as oppression from homosexual and liberal groups, I cannot help but draw a correlation to the Crusades. What the Crusades boil down to is this: They were defensive actions fought to preserve the spiritual and temporal survival of Catholics. It occurs to me that if a man and his wife are somewhere, and she, or even he, is being stabbed by one or more assailants, that they have the right to draw firearms and use deadly force on those who are trying to murder them. The government, homosexuals and liberals are trying to spiritually murder Catholics in America today. If Catholics accept this spiritual murder, and capitulate, or just “go along to get along”, they may be allowing their immortal souls to be placed in danger of damnation. It seems to me that perhaps a “Crusade” in America is in order. Catholics must resist these forces of evil which seek the destruction of the Church and the souls entrusted to her care.

  • Has DiNardo made any kind of response? I can’t find one.

  • I just sent an email to the Archdiocese of Houston-Galveston asking that they publicly support these pastors in their battle with the city. Might I ask that we all do the same?

  • Good idee Tom. I just did it so now there are at least two of us!

  • TomD.

    Three of us. I just e-mailed my plea.
    Prayers are on the way as well.

  • …”Russia will spread her errors throughout the world”…

  • Barbara: “What do you want to bet that at some point, an attorney trying to gain access to conservative pastors’ sermons say that because churches are nonprofit, thereby keeping their tax monies, that churches are subsidized by the tax payer and therefore must abide by federal, state, and city laws.”
    Churches, parishes, and diocese are held in trust for all future generations. Churches, parishes and diocese are handed down from our ancestors to our posterity. Parishioners have paid their taxes as citizens. Our ancestors have paid their taxes. Our posterity have yet to pay their taxes. The Catholic Church in America was established before taxation was imposed.
    The church cannot vote. Only individuals vote. Two taxes, one vote is taxation without representation.
    Gifts, donations and behests are non-taxable. If as you say, Barbara, the state will tax churches because they have made laws to do so, the state will then tax your spouse for your Christmas gifts, birthday presents and wedding ring…and the tar and feathers needed to impress upon politicians the inviolability of “or prohibit the free, very, very free exercise thereof”…religion.

  • Clinton: “I have just read that the city’s subpoenas also included the pastor’s emails,
    including emails exchanged between the pastors and their attorneys. If that
    is in fact true, the city’s lawyers responsible should be forced to write the words
    “attorney-client privilege” 100,000 times on a blackboard before being disbarred.”
    “…before being disbarred.” and run out of town on a rail.
    Laws have been passed that make the medical and legal papers of patients and clients the property of the physician and/or attorney. This makes the privacy of the patients, clients, non-existent and violates the Fifth Amendment that states that a person does not have to testify against himself.
    Mayor Annise Parker ought to be impeached for embarrassing the city.

  • This has nothing to do with this post except that it has been opened to comment.
    “I recall one role in which he played a character being told by the police that they they had a right to search his house without a warrant.”
    Another human being, a sovereign person, murdered or kidnapped and murdered and hidden is warrant to search for them in the hope that they are still alive and may be helped and freed. The rule of thumb is that any law may be broken to save a life. The Sabbath was made for man.

  • Many, not all, gays have a deep desire to be regarded as “:normal” and will go to almost any length to force others, if they can, to adopt this belief. It goes by several different names, justification being one of the more common lay terms. A fuller treatment can be found near the middle portion of most Psych 101 textbooks and, yes, it comes with a diagnostic code.

  • on Huckabees program on Fox during this weekend he urged pastors throughout the country to send her all of their sermons and also urged his viewers to send their Bibles. Now I believe, they’ve changed the sermons to speeches. I think this is a terrible thing, but also believe that the petitions shouldn’t have been in the churches. It gives the IRS to claim “politics” at the churches, and sure as heck will be after them. We’re now treading a fine line in this country. Any little thing like inserts in the bulletin and maybe even religion classes could be attacked if they’re not following the secularists way of thinking. I’m also afraid now that priests and Bishops won’t be speaking out as much in fear of retaliation. We need another Bishop sheen now who’s not afraid to speak out, and bless those Protestant ministers who had this courage.

  • Does the government have the legal authority and or competence to define and redefine what is sermons and what is political speech. The only way the sermon can be political speech is if there are political persons named for their politics. It may be that the issue of co-ed toilets has very moral and ethical implications for the souls of the parishioners. Unless the petition named people, instead of issues, the petition is innocent.
    The First Amendment protects religious speech as well as political speech, anywhere and anytime. Who gave the IRS power and authority to prohibit the free exercise thereof?…or to burden the free exercise thereof? Nobody.
    Atheists do not believe in the immortal human soul and therefore have no problem with separating the human body from the human soul and bringing about human death.
    Let Annise Parker be criminally liable for any criminal assault in co-ed toilets. That must be written into the legislation.

  • Lawyers for the ministers should subpoena every record of the city officials’ meetings. conferences,conversations,phone calls, emails, thoughts and plans,whether in written form or from memory, whether just considered or carried out, which relate to this issue. After all.”turn about is fair play”- per Abe Lincoln. Also. they are PUBLIC officials.