Facebook "Fun"

I was on Facebook and saw a post about a man named Tony Perkins. Here's the link to the entire article that was posted. The headline reads "Guy who says God sends natural disasters to punish gays has his home destroyed in a natural disaster." I never heard of Perkins before; apparently he's the head of Family Research Center, a conservative Christian lobbying organization, that was accused of killing "thousands" of LGBT+, forcing them to commit suicide, as said in the comment section. Now I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, Perkins' supposed statement or that pro-"equality" people thinking the Family Research Center drove people suffering from same-sex attraction to take their own lives.

Either way, let's investigate if Perkins said what the article claims he said. According to snopes.com Perkins, back in 2015, was on a radio show where he and a pastor were talking about the recent Obergefell vs Hodges decision. The snopes article states -

That claim stems from a 3 October 2015 interview that Perkins did with Pastor Jonathan Cahn. While Cahn was actually the one who tied Hurricane Joaquin (which ravaged the Bahamas in October 2015) to what he said was God’s anger with the United States for legalizing gay marriage, Perkins mused (starting at around 13:15 into the podcast) that God may have been “trying to send us a message.”

Here's my attempt at a transcript at the 3:15 mark.

Jonathon: Well now we have the striking down of marriage, and I shared with you one of the key, really, flash points of judgement, is that before judgement comes there's an act of desecration and if anything was an act of desecration is to take the holy vessel of marriage, turn it against its purposes and that's what happened. And then it was celebrated by the sign of the rainbow - the rainbow is a holy vessel of God, that's a second desecration, and thirdly that night the White House becomes a desecration as it is lit up in the colors of the rainbow. I have to ask, the rainbow is about judgement, mercy, you know, and the covenant, and you know, the question is how much more can we do as a nation in the face of God to provoke judgement.

Tony: Yea, it's, it's ... All of these things are quite amazing once you look at them collectively. I'll just say this Jonathon, because I know that there are those, on the left, that like to mock these things. America has a history, our leaders actually - our presidents, our governors - when these things happened in nature, like hurricanes, all of these external events that put our nation at risk, there's a long line of historical tradition here where we, uh, not so much in recent years, but they have stepped up back and said is God trying to send us a message, and they have called upon the nation to pray and that's your emphasis here and the emphasis that we put forth is that just as in Jeremiah time God was willing to spare the children of Israel if they would simply repent, and turn back to him.

So while Tony did muse about God's anger in the form of natural disasters, the content of his words proves the headlines false. Tony Perkins never said that hurricanes are God's way to "punish gays" but are a sign to humanity for legalizing same-sex "marriage." In fact, neither did the Jonathon fellow say natural disasters were to punish homosexuals. Whether or not you think the way Jonathon does (who, by the way, has a history of interpreting worldly events like 9/11 and natural disasters as a sign of God's wrath) the headline is wrong. Unless you had an agenda, purposely twisting Perkins' words, or just were a lazy listener I don't see how one could accuse Perkins wishing death upon homosexuals. But the damage is done and people have liked the FB post. It's similar to Romney's 47% comment or Trump's remark about Mexicans and criminals - the left will twist and publish, the naive will believe anything that feeds their biases and prejudices.

As I scrolled up to the latest post of the person who linked this article, I noticed he posted that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel "banned" Trump (Rahm just declared  the city a "Trump-Free-Zone" ... Whatever that means) from Chicago because of Trump's decision on DACA (which is highly ironic once you think of it). So an American citizen, let alone the President, isn't "allowed" in a city within the country he governs, but illegals are. Totally not virtue signally at all. The post has many likes with one response yelling "I LOVE CHICAGO!" The kicker? This poster graduated in the top five of his class - actually, I think he was the valedictorian - who is now attending DePaul University, the university that went full-retard by allowing BLM protestors to intervene Milo Y.'s visit. A+ in naivety and stupidity.

The great nuances of the left.

The left love to use the word nuance to describe how one should go about race relations, or when they talk about great art. Nuance. Ahhh.

When I first tried my hand at being a conservative, or at least espoused conservative stances, I was called the following:

racist
bigot
sexist
homophobic

All within an hour's time.

A year down the line someone took issue with me saying that Macklemore's music was entirely mediocre (on Breitbart.com). Red flags came up after reading a few lines, I can't remember what he wrote, but it made me quickly believe he was some liberal dick and sure enough this someone was. He then went on to frame my whole existence:

apparently I was white
toothless
I played the banjo
had parent-children (young parents)
had sexual relations with my sister
lived in the swamp

When I told him I and my family were  non of those things, quite the opposite actually, he said "something went wrong." I suppose if you're non-white and was raised in an urban setting you'd ultimately realize that Macklemore was on your side because he was a "conscious rapper" standing up for LGBT+ rights and whatnot. And it turned this someone was a homosexual who taught English to little Asian kids abroad. Go figure.

And just yesterday something similar happened. I responded to a youtube comment, just saying that I wasn't in favor of the NFL kneeling protests. It garnered a poster to say that it was rich of me, as a white boy, to dismiss it. I responded back that it was utterly typical of his kind to assume I was white.

The funny part to this is that I sense - no, I know (like how I know water is wet) - that my interactions with the bottom-of-the-barrel leftists, their assumptions and accusations, are the same assumptions and accusations that pervade the staff room at NYT, CNN, MSNBC, the entertainment and publishing industry, and academia when anything with a lick of conservatism interjects their orgy of feelings, indignation and their worry for brown kids.

But no, it's those evil, mean racist conservatives that uphold the patriarchy and backwards social policies whom I should hold contempt for.

New link added.

It's called Badass Catholic. A millennial blogger who pokes at her generation, though with compassion.

Catholics do enjoy life.

And within these struggles - abstaining from sex, to not abort, to follow the doctrines of the Church - there comes great triumphs.

Those critical of Catholicism say that the faith has too many rules. Maybe so. Even if it does, it's the most balanced worldview, allowing Catholics, within good judgement, to partake in the worldliness of planet earth. I'll try to frame this post in a way that best represents some of the secular worldview on Catholicism.

1. Catholics don't like sex. 

A couple of decades ago Catholics were known to have large families, say three kids or more. Sex is encouraged and seem as something amazing - within marriage. So yes, Catholics do have sex - as seen by those Catholics who commit sin by premarital acts and out of wedlock babies (the all-female Catholic high school next to my high school alma mater was mockingly called Queen of Pregnancies due to a senior becoming pregnant every other year, though the amount of pregnancies dropped when I was in school), and as seen by Catholics who get married and have children.

2.  Catholics follow a puritanical system of beliefs.

See #1. So no. See #3. So no. Strict, yes. Puritanical, no. Keep reading #2.

I'm going to kick secular non-meat eaters between the legs because I can (it's my fallen nature). Vegetarianism abstains from eating any meat products. They believe meat is murder. Veganism goes two steps further and abstains from not only consuming meat products, but any products made from animals. This means no eggs and diary. It's encourage one to not wear clothing made from animals, so no real leather. Catholics can consume meat with no shits given unless it's Friday during Easter (or if they give up meat for Easter) or, if they truly want to, every Friday of the year. (If you haven't noticed, I have grave issues with the non-meat/sustainable/food movement bunch.)

There is debate that Christ did not want humans to eat meat, with followers of this particular belief saying it's found within scripture. This particular belief is made up of a very small minority (if we want to play the numbers game). For the most part there is no true "food movement" to abstain from any meat or animal products in the form of the secularized version of food purity. Catholics enjoy meat and they enjoy beer as well as a good cigar. Afterwards, if they're married, they can enjoy a good shagging with their opposite sex spouse. Please be aware that I did not use any male pronouns here because I truly believe that a Catholic/Christian woman can enjoy meat, beer and a cigar just as a Catholic/Christian man would. How's that for equality, eh?

3.  Catholics hate science.

This is a loaded statement. If being skeptical of climate change (read: anthropological global warming) makes one anti-science then you're full of yourself. If believing that a fetus is an actual human, and therefore the Catholic stands by the Catholic stance to be against abortion, makes him anti-science then you're an arrogant dick. If not supporting same-sex "marriage" due to natural law and just the innate reaction of "well this is messed up" makes one anti-science then you're a bigger idiot than Christian fundamentalists.


4. Religion is just something to hold on to because you're weak.

More false than true. I believe everyone is weak and we attach ourselves to secular movements to fill the gap in our life to have a purpose (see: veganism and the "sustainable movement"). Catholicism to me fulfills my thirst for truth and knowledge. That might've of made non-religious folks chuckle loudly because in their mind religion is anti-science and anti-knowledge, like "Catholics hate science" their belief is quit loaded and assumes many things. Catholicism encourages me to seek out the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. In many ways it's natural to me. Study astrology. Study the classics. Study architecture. Study sex. Study philosophy. Study different cultures. Why? Because there is truth, goodness and beauty in each. Be in the world, but not of it.

Catholicism is a complete worldview. It's the Ivy League of faiths steeped in history and culture. It's the Big Ten school with its fervent pride found within its followers. It's the liberal arts school where personal, quiet attention can be found. It's the University of Chicago where knowledge, and even wisdom, is nestled, waiting to be discovered, though many are not aware of its grandeur and uniqueness. And just as varied as these academic institutions, there are elitists, obnoxious frat boys, artsy, bohemian folks and intellectuals found within Catholicism.

Hey White folks, if you need lecturing on your "whiteness' here are some books.

I was on instagram going through some pics that was filtered through a hashtag of one of my favorite clothing brands. One account had various posts that were very appealing when it came just pure interior design. But there was one that made me raise my eyebrow. It was entitled Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America by Micheal Eric Dyson. I heard of Dyson before when he was Bill Maher's show when he was guest alongside the late Andrew Breitbart. The discussion was about race and Dyson came across the typical "angry black man", hate to say it. When Breitbart was critical of the intelligentsia Dyson became offended - he thought his words were insulting black intellectuals and Dyson retorted "I can read you know." His newest book comes to no surprise. 

As I looked up the book on Amazon I was met with a list of recommendations that could be described as "angry blacks moan and b_tch." and "white people who believe in white privilege literally are cucks."

Here's a curated list I made made up of books that seem to be the go-to for white guilt -

Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America
The New Jim Crow
White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide
Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America
I Am Not Your Negro
White Awake: An Honest Look on What it Means to Be White
White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son
Between the World and Me 
Waking Up White, and Finding Myself in the Story of Race

Now, I'll probably read some of these via library loan. 

EDIT: I was stifling my laughter when copying and pasting these titles. You cannot get anymore crazy than an "angry black man" with beta whites who swallow the concept of white privilege like it's a green smoothie. 

Even in circles were Christians are thought to be tolerated, atheists still are gunning for them.

I was reading youtube comments on a Ben Shapiro speech. He was answering a question that intersected at abortion and black crime. Within the comments I found an atheist who said this:

 "Man, I'm just too smart for all that hocus pocus!"

The curious thing is that Shapiro only mentioned religion in the form of churches since the black community tend to be church goers, were the church encouraged people to get married. He believes that a two parent household is the best resistance to neighborhood crime. And his yamaka was in clear sight.

But they have feelings too.

A sympathetic meat-eater wrote this when someone jabbed at the "animals are sentient" line, a popular line amongst non-meat eaters.

it would be nice if more meat-eaters stopped to think about the sentience of the animals they eat.  Yeah, they're not as smart as humans.  Their level of awareness probably doesn't come close to ours. 

Animals are smart for being animals. Animals are nowhere near as smart as humans; in fact they aren't the same besides both being mammals.

But their bodies still feel pain.  Their brains still produce the hormones that cause them to feel fear.  However they experience pain and fear, it's real to them.  And as dumb as they may be compared to humans, they're unfortunately smart enough to know that they're about to be slaughtered.  Their behavior changes completely, and it resembles what humans do when we perceive we are in a hopeless situation and resign ourselves to it.  They feel fear, they know what's coming, they fight for a little bit, and then they give up.  

This sounds familiar. Wait, it does. Like when a LGBT same-sex mirage supporter or sympathizer saying that same-sex attraction to those who have it is "very real to them." 

Westerners have the luxury of not having to mentally confront death every time we eat meat - out of sight, out of mind.  Just like the homeless person begging at our car window.  If we drive down another street, we won't have to feel all this guilt for not feeling any compassion for the less fortunate.  I don't mean to equate the lot of animals to the lot of the homeless, but in some ways, it is similar.  

It's not similar. What I'm getting is if I hunted my own food and "confronted death" every time I ate (like the caveman saying, "I'm sorry, boar, but I have to this." Gets out knife. "Arrrgghh!" Said no caveman) I'd be pondering about its sentience. Hmmm. I have family members who kill pigs for food. They don't give a shit about the animals' sentient nature; sure they do it quickly as possible but they aren't feeling damn sorry about it.

And for me, there's only guilt when I've done something wrong. When a homeless man approaches my car there isn't any guilt. There's hope he'll find some place to stay, but guilt? Nope.

It's kind of appalling to hear meat-eaters revel in their lack of compassion for the animals they're eating.  I'm not saying give up eating meat.  But it is sad somewhat that Americans have forgotten how to have a solemn gratitude for the animal that died for us so that we wouldn't have to.

What's appalling is thinking humans should poke at their chicken dinner and think oh you poor chicken.The poster is alking about animals like they're soldiers who died overseas for their respective country.