Why the diversity of, or freedom of, thought makes the US great and the rest of the world lame.

Usually when non-Americans list things they don't like, or things that they believe represent the worst of its people, they list the usual suspects. 

• Republicans
• (social) conservatives
• religious people
• Christians

Given that most of Western Europe is non-religious this comes to no surprise but even then these people don't have much traction in their hate (no pun intended). Historically Republicans were always thought of as selfish, bigoted people by Western Europeans. The religious Americans just freak them out. I bet the religious would be okay at a Pride Parade despite not supporting the debauchery presented than Western Europeans sitting in a Baptist church as a cultural experience in May somewhere in the South. 

They go on and list things they just can't believe Americans believe. 

• anti-vaccine
• Creationism
• flat earth believers

Again, these tend to be secular non-Americans who list these things. 

But who cares, really. Western Europeans "believe in science" since whatever stance they believe in was reached by a consensus, supposedly. I think I'm reasonable and fall into this camp to some degree, but I don't clutch my pearls if someone is skeptical of vaccines. I don't care much to debate Creationism or flat earth believers because people will hold different beliefs and theories than the "educated" or the "enlightened." Who cares. If anything, it adds to the uniqueness of ideas; it's not all "what does science say and I'll believe it" - that gets real old. A materialist worldview just doesn't much appeal to.

The great thing in the US is that such people can voice their thoughts and there's usually a decent engagement of ideas. It's still happening but it's become rarer because we have "I believe in science" extremists/snowflakes that cannot function online, let alone in a society, where people think differently than they do. 

I was watching a video about a British medical student who was reviewing her medical match in the US as an IMG (international medical graduate). She was very happy to be matched for internal medicine in NYC, but was nervous prior to knowing her match because she was very hesitant to be matched in upstate New York. She then showed a map of the state of New York -

This is probably the recent map of NY counties with its voting pattern. The red is Republican votes while the blue is Democrat votes. The British medical student apparently did not want to be too far up in New York because that would be mean she'd be in a Republican/conservative county. Oh the horror. A medical student who doesn't want to serve her community as foreign physician because she may encounter more Republicans/conservatives than she's willing to encounter. Isn't that bizarre? She's more than willing to put up with difficult patients in NYC during a night shift than deal with a conservative patient. 

Religious and/or conservative Americans may be more parochial where they live sometimes succumbing to tribalism towards outsiders, but that is the norm everywhere in the world even in secular populations. In the UK, people tend not to absorb new friends as much as their American counterparts throughout their lives as they get older; they like to keep their circle of friends as it is. Europeans want to distance themselves from the Yanks because they think Yanks are dumb, uncouth and in general bigoted people. They're too religious for them. After all, why should the sophisticated, progressive European be seen sitting next to a suburban American dad with white New Balance shoes on a train heading towards Lisbon or Stockholm or Antwerp? 

The issue with the "enlightened", ironically, is that they see no need to talk such people because they have a strong belief that they have nothing to learn from them. Their brains aren't as elastic or flexible or open-minded as they think it is. It's rather stuck in its ways. And with this, they view the religious American as a representation of what makes America embarrassing to the world. 

You know what, all of a sudden I wouldn't mind talking to that suburban American dad with his New Balance shoes that has tinge of green rising from its soles. I'd like to hear about his church, if the preacher had a good sermon last Sunday and if they have any social gatherings planned. And I don't mind if his he has some theories on evolution and Creationism. I'd like to hear that perspective too. 

When skeptics say they couldn't adhere to a religion because they can't be sure it's 100% bulletproof they're committing a double standard.

•  Why commit yourself to a person, whether within marriage or as just significant others, when there's always a possibly that one party could commit infidelity, either emotionally and/or physically?
• Further more why dedicate yourself to a romantic relationship when that person isn't perfect? After all, if you can't commit to a non-bulletproof religion why commit to an imperfect person?
• For actors, why take on a role that doesn't necessarily promise more roles - and better roles  - with prestige directors? Why even take on a project where as an actor you don't know how the final theatrical will be received? Faith, possibly? Trust?
• Why settle for a certain citizenship when the government of your country will commit crimes against humanity, no matter how small?

The hesitancy to not commit yourself to a religion because, in your view, it's not bulletproof is just pedestrian thinking. As humans we commit ourselves to imperfect systems and to imperfect people, so when some non-religious person says they can't become a Catholic because it has "holes" they're talking rubbish. If they're dating someone ask them if they're dating them because that person is perfect and has no "holes." Hold them up to the "not perfect" standard they hold Catholicism to or for their lack of belief. By their logic they should never be in a longterm relationship let alone a serious relationship - and that anyone who wants to be in a relationship with them, well, they shouldn't because they themselves are not perfect. Why commit yourself to an imperfect god? 

Unpopular Catholic Thought #1

Those who are in the Latin Rite but want to convert to the Eastern Rite are really just rite shopping like Protestants do with their churches. In most cases this isn't about orthodoxy of the priest and/or seeking out a reverent liturgy, but "being drawn to" (whatever that means) Eastern Rites, which, historically, are Orthodoxy. "Being drawn to" is shallow in my mind, at least in the Catholic sense since instead of converting to another religion or denomination one makes a conversion within the Catholic Church. I call these people "meta-converts." Don't like the pope and all the legalism and clericalism of the Latin Rite? Well, I guess I'll seek out the Eastern Rite or even Eastern Orthodoxy. Have issues with the Church's view on NFP? Well I can't consider myself a Catholic anymore and become Orthodoxy instead! Don't like the precision, or imprecision, of a Latin Rite encyclical? Well heck, I'll just go to Orthodoxy cause I don't have to bother with my wannabe philosopher brain nitpicking on what some dead pope said!

If Catholicism is ever driven back underground I wouldn't be surprised if such meta-converts would be absent. When the going gets tough they'll back out. What a bunch of Judases. 

Youtube secularists.

It's entertaining when some secularist on youtube responds to a post appealing to Bible verses. One secularist said this in return:

"The bible says a lot of nonsense. Would you like to be executed for wearing 2 different types of cloth? I thought not. Or maybe you'd like to hear the bible's rules on slavery and that it's OK to beat them to death as long as they take over 24 hours to die."

So I figured that the person either picked and choose the "nonsense" or got his ammo from some anti-theist page. 

As I said before, a gnu atheist is a gnu atheist.

What I mean by this is that a gnu atheist will display the same bitter and dickhead attitude towards religion regardless of where his politics lie. He could be a centrist, or leftist, or a liberal or someone on the right. He could be apolitical.

In today's world culture wars are multilayered. There is a left-right divide and there is a secular-religious divide. I've concluded that even if the world "corrects" itself and stops his "global citizen" bullshit there is still secular-religious divide. This particular divide is what ultimately will define civilization. Take for instance the current lost of a Republican candidate to a blue dog Democrat in Wisconsin's special election this month. One poster thought it was due to the Republican's religious talking points that drove away voters (as if that ever proved to be the case of a loss in any election, local, state or federal). This is poster believes in a racial homogeneous America. But he's also a gnu atheist. In an America Thinker article the writer of the piece doesn't mention religion, but the poster did.

A poster named Spaghetti wrote -

"It would not surprise me if the repubs were also spouting off about religion and the evils of abortion, two issues that drove sane repubs (yours truly) away 2 decades ago. Also, it would not surprise me if an AT journalist failed to mention, or even recognize, that in their defeats. ( A la psycho Roy Moore... Religion in AL)."

Those who were "driven away" from the Republican side to wherever are either social progressives or believe the current GOP is filled with RINO's. The former seems to be the case of Spaghetti. He then later blathered more about religion.

"Sorry, but people who pray to and believe in imaginary beings are by definition, insane. And, just because those insane who believe in another stupid religion other than yours, does not make them any dumber than you. Pssst, keep preaching this crap and watch more democrats win elections."

This isn't necessarily new. Atheists who tend to be libertarian tend not to hide their loathing of the "Religious Right," believing that they are the reason for losses to Democrats. In the case of Spaghetti his politics are irrelevant now since he has demonstrated that he is the enemy even though he might not be a prog himself. It's not because he in not religious or a believer in a divine, but because his attitude is the same pure hatred that the left usually shows for religion. He is just one step away from being of the left.

The boogey-man that is the alt-right.

A Catholic blogger Haley who runs the Catholic blog called Carrots for Michealmas posted her thoughts on the alt-ight this past October. I have some issues with it, and much more with the comments that followed. It was the typical normie talk when it came to politics, believing the media and normie politic chatter that white supremacy is a growing issue in America. Here's what she had to say.

The title of the post: "Why Catholics Should Be Aware of (and Denounce) the White Supremacist Ideology of the Alt-Right." Okay, not a bad start. I would agree with this. Haley saw a drawing by an artist named Jinjer Zilla that pictured a family - white one. But it wasn't the color of the family that made her feel uncomfortable. She writes -

The other day I was scrolling through Facebook when I saw an image of a family. The caption added by my Catholic Facebook friend was the beautiful quote by Pope St John Paul II “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” This particular quote communicates a beautiful Catholic view of family, but the image accompanying it immediately made me hesitate.

It was a drawing featuring a dad, pregnant mom, and young children with a banner stating: “This Is How We Save the West” I felt that something was off immediately.

“This Is How We Save the West….This isn’t usually the way a Catholic describes the blessing of large families and openness to life,” I thought to myself.  “Where have I heard that rhetoric before?” Something in the wording made me uneasy. What is meant by “the west?” Are we talking about Christian Culture as preserved in the Catholic Church? I knew in the pit of my stomach that this was not the case. This isn’t an image in support of big Catholic families, I realized, this is about white supremacy.

That's quite the jump. As a non-white I will say that I will agree with the initial meaning of Zilla's picture - families are a key in "saving" the West. I'll even say that saving the West is vitally important to the world. But given how any alt-right or any meme not championing multiculturalism is deemed as ethnocentric if not racist, Haley's senses understandable if not wrong. She searched for his twitter account and concluded -

It was steeped in the most vile alt-right rhetoric and the thread with the image I saw was a string of his followers applauding the “white baby challenge,” bemoaning the existence of minorities, and speaking fearfully of the rate at which Africans are procreating and what should be done about it.

 I've searched for his twitter too and it seems he does hold views that are not necessarily mainstream conservative e.g. post about Obama and his supposed birth in Kenya not Hawaii, but then again I'm not sure how the Catholic friend reposting the artist's picture supports the artist's other political stances. Zilla's website and twitter says he's a patriot, well, maybe the Catholic friend is one as well so their interests align.

Now I do think Haley misses the point the artist's and those reposting with concern of minority babies outnumbering whites. Haley shows pictures of replies citing birth rates of minorities but she ignores what this means demographically, culturally and politically. In fact, every single post in agreement with Haley does not mention anything about it; they just talk about loving our neighbor (true).

The problem with the image is not that it’s a depiction of a white family. Images that don’t include people of color are not somehow automatically racist. My family is white. Do I have to be suspicious of the photographs on our home’s walls of my family? Obviously not. A drawing of a white family featuring Pope St. John Paul II’s quote supporting passing our faith on to the next generation isn’t problematic. But THIS image was because of what the artist intended to communicate.

Church teaching on sexuality sometimes leads Catholic families to be bigger than contemporary cultural norms, but that’s not the same message at the heart of white nationalism that promotes large families in an effort to preserve the white race as a form of conquest. There’s a gigantic difference between the Catholic view of family and vocation and this image advertising for large white families to “save the West.”

Here’s an example of another image of a happy family with the text “Healthy Parents, Healthy Children.”

 Haley continues -

Certainly no one is against smiling families or wellness! But a closer look at the fine print reveals an exhortation to comply with sterilization laws to prevent non-ideal offspring. This is an image created with the intention to promote eugenics: large, healthy Aryan families are the goal. You probably knew right away that this is WWII Nazi propaganda and could discern its REAL message without even knowing what the text says.  We have the cultural context to recognize it for what it is. But the language used by the modern alt-right may not be as familiar–hence why the image of the white family saving the west may not immediately be a red flag.

Whoa whoa whoa! This is the same lazy thinking of those who said Trump was literally Hitler because they compared his style of rhetoric and with Hitler finding similarities, hence Trump is Hitler. I don't know what Zilla's thoughts are about abortion, its types and if he is Margaret Sanger sympathizer, but Haley just drove off the curve a bit here.

My Facebook friend certainly didn’t know that the image he posted was created to communicate a white supremacist message and took it down immediately when I explained the artists ideology–something he wanted nothing to do with.

 Phew! Right? Not really.

But I was perplexed. Do intelligent, faithful Catholics not know about the alt-right? I sent the image to a few Catholic friends and asked, “would you have known right away that there was something wrong with this image?” Some said yes, but many said no. It wouldn’t have even crossed their minds that the image was anything more than support for openness to life.

 So your friend is just guilty by association and somehow is being subtly brainwashed into #WhiteCulture.  I don't believe not knowing the artist is a #WhiteCulture type renders intelligent Catholics not knowing what the "tricks" of the alt-right. I have sure Haley knows no more about the alt-right than Ben Shapiro (who think the alt-right is mostly about white supremacy) and the MSM (who really have no clue what the alt-right is).

What’s tricky is that the terms get crossed. My friends probably interpreted “the west” as “western Christianity.” They weren’t aware that the people who created the image were selling an ideology about the superiority of white people–what the alt-right means by “the West.” 

No, "the West" means Western civilization and western culture. 

But aren’t those white supremacists people just a few crazies shooting their mouths off in the cesspool of Twitter? No. I think it’s very easy for your average white person to be unaware of the prevalence of white nationalism today in the insidious subculture of the alt-right. But, my friends, I’m telling you about it right now. If you’re not aware, it’s time to become aware. I’m begging you to hear me out with an open heart.

The alt-right is often dismissed out of hand as a small group of fringe extremists rather than a growing and terrifying ideology. The neo-Nazis marching with torchs are dismissed as just a few nutcases rather than representatives of a real movement. And it’s not just the neo-nazis, the alt-right has many defenders and is creeping into more mainstream demographics.

  This sounds like fear mongering which is the product of a unsound understanding of what the alt-right is and sad lack of perspective of all things socially political.

Being aware of the warped and disgusting ideology of contemporary white supremacy would help you know that this image wasn’t advocating for intact families, or even large families, it was advocating for white families which for white nationalism are the only families worth having around.  It’s the context of the ideologies currently gaining traction that should make us skeptical of the twisted alt-right rhetoric.

Look, I don't support the alt-right white nationalists but it's not a concern of mine. Your suspicions are your own fear acting up. 

A lot of this is hard to see and the rhetoric is so subtle that it’s easy to miss, hence the confused response many of my friends had to this image and how easily it was accepted as promoting something good. Isn’t that the way evil works? Taking something that’s good and warping and perverting it? It’s nuanced. No one’s coming out and saying, “Look we hate the Jews and people of color.” Even the Nazi propaganda image I shared is speaking in positives: “healthy families!” Who can argue with that? The alt-right is far more subtle and dependent on predominantly true statements and good things slowly twisted into something incredibly dangerous and damaging. I find the idea that this could seep into Catholic culture positively terrifying. 

This is some paranoia taking. 

One reason some people are perhaps susceptible to this imagery is that it wears the veneer of “tradition.” A fetishization of 1950s white culture espoused by the alt-right overlaps somewhat with perfectly innocuous or positive things: prioritizing family life, cooking at home, and other things that my rather traditional Catholic family also practices. A perfect example might be some of the social media celebrities of the “tradlife” movement. If you take a look at @apurposefulwife on Twitter, for example, you’ll see a woman’s feed lauding 50s fashion, carving pumpkins with your kids, enjoying being a stay-at-home mom and…..white supremacy.

So a handful that use #tradlife also support white supremacy. Oh dear. I searched for #tradlife on twitter and, yes, the mentioned twitter account is the one that mostly uses it but so do others who give no mention or signs of white supremacy.

Her feed seems mostly harmless and silly until you see the posts that reference “our people” and conclude with bizarre racial claims promoting white nationalism. You’d think she’s just some crazy woman on the internet, but she had over 30,000 rabid fans following her bizarre tweets.

 Rabid fans? So you call her followers "rabid" because you strongly disagree with her views. It's sorta like Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable because they don't follow the "enlightened" view. 30K is small compared to public figures who have millions of followers that hang onto their word. I'm on twitter and follow people who could be deemed racist by the left but it doesn't mean I agree with what they say.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with appreciating a 50s aesthetic. However, we must recognize that this time period was chosen as the ideal age for white nationalists for a reason. It was a period of strong economic growth in this country but also a time when minorities were not yet appearing in advertisements.

And it was the time when traditional value and concepts were more accepted and respected.

White supremacists want to sell you their movement and what better way than the ready-made, whites-only advertisements of the 50s? We have to be careful not to idolize a 50s aesthetic if it’s warping into a toxic ideology. (As well as acknowledge that the 50s was no golden age for many Americans.)

See my statement above. Italicized my emphasis: speaking of "heard it before", I've heard this before from people who are prone to falling for the multicultural is grand rhetoric and who tend to be politically naive. No offense, Haley.

So if you love eating meatloaf as a family (hand raised), or covet Betty Draper’s wardrobe (hand raised again), be loud and proud about it! But be aware of how the alt-right is co-opting the rhetoric of traditionalism and worshipping the negative facets of 50s cultural mores (such as rampant racial inequality) that have no place in Catholic culture.

True. Finally you've said something that emotes reason.

Be skeptical of language that calls for the salvation of “western civilization.” Recognize that when these people are talking about saving “the West,” what they mean is preserving white power. We need to understand that when these people idolize large intact families, it’s not because they have really taken Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching to heart, it’s merely because big white families produce lots of white babies. And we must be aware in order to keep Catholic culture from becoming muddied with this toxic and dangerous anti-Gospel ideology in any way.

Given the birth rate in America is barely enough to sustain it in the next generation, as well as many European countries falling below replacement rates, I think the white supremacists have a very good point on having more babies in order to save the West, because let's face it, if there's one thing multiculturalism (the bad kind) has proven is that it has failed massively. If a given ideal ethnically diverse neighborhood has peace it's mostly likely because many members of the community have the safe values and are within the same economic bracket.

Equip yourself to know it right away and to reject any ideology that diminishes the dignity of each human being. When you hear someone talking about immigrants ask yourself is this is the same message the bishops are offering.

Depends on what they say. I'm  under no obligation to follow what the bishops say, especially if they support open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities. 

When you hear someone talk about “the west” ask yourself if they want to preserve the Book of Kells or if they want to perpetuate oppression toward people of color and the perverse gospel of eugenics.

 Better than the previous quote at least.

The same people urging white women not to abort their babies may be the same people pushing for sterilization of minorities, because it’s not the right to life that concerns them but the power of whites in the global sphere. Be aware and be wary.

 Where on earth do you even get this from?

After that very disheartening day that the white supremacist image crossed my path, I saw another image on Facebook. It was a beautiful image. A large family was gathered together praying the Rosary with that same quote from Pope Saint John Paul II. It was created by artist Rebecca Fuentes to represent her own interracial family. The juxtaposition was powerful.

 Oh puh-lease.

"Oh my, an interracial family! Isn't that just wonderful!"
"So what about an Asian family who prays around the rosary?"

May God grant that our brothers and sisters of every race and culture are cherished and given the dignity that God has endowed them with by making them in his own image. And let us not be taken in by lies that twist and pervert what is beautiful and true. The alt-right has no place in Catholic culture.

Given that Catholicism is pretty counterculture compared to embracing modern concepts and beliefs and actions, it's pretty alt-right to me.

Theodore Shoebat

Call him an extremist who doesn't represent the Christian world as a whole but he has some very, very decent points.

I remember stumbling upon his youtube channel a few years ago and now I can't find it. Apparently Right Wing Watch has interest in him - not because he's chopping off heads of non-straights, women who get abortions and atheists, but because he fits their bill of whacko Christian.

An atheist is still an atheist.

You will know a non-prog's an atheist when that person comments on morality and ethics. It's just the tone - you can smell it like alcohol on ones breath. To the left, someone who doesn't support homosexuality is equal to a racist. An atheist, regardless of their political bent, will equate you to a bible believer (pejoratively) if you do not support that morality, like humans, is being perfected by evolution.

Even if leftism looses its power, atheists on the right are the new leftists. 

Faux equality is king. Darwin is king. Both are false gods.

Leah Libresco's data is questioned because she's religious.

A few days ago atheist turned Christian turned Catholic, Leah Libresco, wrote an opinion piece about gun control after the Las Vegas Shooting massacre. She confessed she was a gun control advocate but after looking at the data is now questioning her position. Leah concludes that gun control may not be the answer.

Now this has somewhat triggered people who support gun control if not an outright ban. In her piece she gives data supporting her new stance. One can refute her data and her conclusions, but some chose a different route. Some are looking elsewhere and that elsewhere is Leah's religious conversion. It's been a very common card to pull among secularists/non-believers/humanists/atheists (whatever you call them nowadays) to run down an opposing party's credentials or aesthetics. Here's that rundown:

1. Is the person fat?
2. Did the person graduate from a tier-1 university?
3. Is the person religious?
4. Does the person have well-fitting clothes?
5. Is that person white?
6. Is that person a man?

Now Leah is not fat. She graduated from Yale at the undergraduate level. I don't believe she's fashionable but she is religious. Religious. She's ethnically Jewish and she's a female.

But being a graduate of Yale and a former atheist won't get her off the hook though. There are those who see her religious conversion as a detriment to clear thinking. See below.

I believe the thinking goes if Leah was still an non-believer she would've supported gun control or bans. This is how the atheistic world measures their counterparts. If you believe in one form of hokus pokus then you're susceptible to believe in another.

Atheists should just have a banner saying: "If you're a Christian your thoughts may not be taken seriously even if your written or oral arguments do not mention your faith."

The left and the secular world will find something that they don't like about you in order to dismiss you.

When Richard Spencer showed up on national media he took some leftists by surprise because he didn't fit what the left thinks of a white supremacist: though white, he was well-dressed and well-spoken.

When Ryan T. Anderson was the hot topic among the same-sex "marriage" MSM chatter some couldn't dismiss him outright. One opposer acknowledged Anderson's fine academic credentials with nodding to his public speaking abilities, saying, and I paraphrase, "Though you may have stellar degrees .... ".

Same thing with Ted Cruz when he was slaying leftists. Cruz is a non-white, Ivy League graduate and attorney. But they did go after his kids where one political cartoonist portrayed them monkeys being "pulled" by their father.

Though not having a first-rate academic CV, the left was a bit confused by Marco Rubio. He's Cuban but is well-spoken and not fat. His suits are decent fitting.

Leftists and secularists will judge you on these things because it's what they want for their kids or what they are themselves. DC, NYC, Chicago, LA etc., if you can fit in aesthetically, as well as CV-wise, in those cities then the humanists are left scratching their heads. "How can a well-dressed, well-spoken and well-educated person be a hold stances that go against the current leftist beliefs let alone be religious?"

You know, being on the "right side of history" and a being "Bright" - all that good stuff.

Little steps made to restore liturgical dignity.

My grade school parish church decided to move the tabernacle in the center of the sanctuary after it was to the side for as long as I can remember. I may just stop in for a weekday mass to experience the aesthetic and rubric changes in the near future.

As long as I can recall it's been a post-Vatican II type of parish, but more on the reverent end. The group standing on the alter is par for the course for this type of flavor. Little steps.

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.

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.

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.

Quarrels over fish.

Over at fisheaters, the traditional Catholic forum when compared to the VII friendly CatholicAnswers, I've discovered all is not well, at least when it comes to those who are converting - to Orthodoxy. I've noticed more than few a posters express that if they had an Orthodox church near them it be very tempting to convert while a couple went through the conversion.

On a thread where the original poster said that she was thinking of leaving Catholicism due to her addiction to masturbation, one poster actually said to look into Orthodoxy. What's more disturbing is that no one actually really said to this poster that he was leading her astray from God, since it is the belief of the Catholic that Catholicism is the true church of God. Any other sect or denomination is a pale imitation if not an outright lie. So even in the trad community there is a little VII spirit, just in a different light. I suppose it's because Orthodoxy is seen as the closest thing to Catholicism in the eyes of the well-read trad Catholic. Still, I was expecting these types of Catholics to interject and say the famous belief that gets Protestants all in the piss: Catholicism is the one true church of God. Salvation outside of the Church is not possible.

Protestants take this as arrogant and their reading of "outside the Church" means those who do not believe in a God and/or live a very secular, sinful life.

What I gather from those on fisheaters, from those who converted to Orthodoxy, is that the Catholicism is riddled with convoluted apologetics, the issue with infallibility, the Church's dealings with sin (e.g. masturbation - in the Orthodox mind it's still a sin but it's much less serious when compared to a Catholic lens), and historical grievances. I'll confess I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy, but just on face value those who converted tend to act very Protestant when expressing their disagreement. I find this rather ironic.

Pacman, a poster at the site, posted a thread stating he was leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. The byproduct was 29 pages of debate on whether Orthodoxy is more "true" than Catholicism. I tend to read the entire thread to learn about his reasons for leaving and, ultimately, to learn a little more about his new denomination.

So instead of debating whether there is a God, at fisheaters the fight is over Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If there's one thing both sides over at the forum agree upon is this: VII effects suck and modernism can go to hell.

In the end it's still sad. Not even the beloved Latin Mass, so revered in the trad community, was enough for these Catholics to Orthodox converts to stay. 

Which is more common?

A stereotypical Bible thumper talking about fire and brimstone who beats his wife and thinks blacks are sub-human or an anti-theist gay guy?

I'd put money on the latter.

"I'm just glad I don't have to believe that fairy tales and mythical creatures in the sky exist just to be good to others and to get through my day to day life lol. You religious people are pathetic."

"I long for the day when we live in a completely secular society, it likely won't happen in my lifetime but I hope that it will for future generations."

The sad evolution of Jenny Grace Makholm.

Over at collegefix.com I encountered a post defending her alma mater, Emerson College. Jenny is an actress who graduated from Emerson with a BFA and now is an actress living in NYC.

As she writes, she came from a devout Christian household where she was taught that homosexuality was a sin. She also had issues with what she was taught about the earth while attending Emerson; apparently whatever she was taught at her Catholic high school made her confused once she took science courses. Here's her entire passionate post that barely addresses how fellow Emersonians treated a conservative student -

 "Emersonian alum here.

No one should be bullied. I myself was a devout christian who had some conservative values when I entered Emerson College in 2000. I was met with nothing but love, acceptance, and a positive college expereince that I will cherish, as well as life-long friends.

The education alone is enough, but honestly, Emersonians have been some of the most wonderful people I've ever met. Almost without fail, if I happen upon a fellow alum in my travels, I make a friend.

I'm so sorry this woman had this experience. That was not my expereince there.

I will say that I entered Emerson knowing that it is among the MOST socially liberal schools on the east coast. Having been raised in a deeply religious household, I didn't exactly know what that would mean.

What that meant for me was meeting and befriending the first openly gay people (now gratefully of many) who taught me so much about LGBTQI rights. After having been taught it was a sin for so long, I actually met and befriended gay people and started really understanding LGBTQI rights from a personal perspective. I learned empathy and understanding. I learned tolerance and humility from them. I now am a happy advocate and ally for LGBTQI folks, and a better person for it.

It meant learning about evolution from the now sadly deceased genius Alan Hankin, who cradled my thirst for knowledge and answered all of my difficult questions (for the first time to my satisfaction in my academic career) with patience and enthusiasm, combating years of confusion I got from religious schools who taught that dinosaurs walked amoung us, or that the world was only 3,000 years old. He didn't shame me, instead he lit an intellectual fire in me that has burned even brighter in my adulthood; science used to hold dubious interest for me, now I am a enthusiast.

I sat in the student center, huddled along with all of my classmates the day the towers went down on 9-11. I watched a student body be shaken and traumatized by those events. We wept together, terrified and unsure of what the future would hold. Emerson has a great deal of foreign students. Among them was an Afghani princess who regularly spoke before 9-11 about the human rights atrocities going on in her country. Many muslim students were unsure what 9-11 would mean to their place at Emerson, tales of hate crimes against people who appeared to be Muslim were on the rise. They were embraced and defended.

I watched a student body argue respectfully about the war that we then entered, all opinions aired and debated. I went from an independant voter who had voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats, to a politically empowered citizen. I marched alongside my fellow students.

In class, I had the pleasure of being taught by the now deceased Rhea Gaisner. She taught me so many lessons, but among them was that all Art is in some way political-- Art is a reflection of the times; it can't help but comment on the world. I remember at her memorial an old classmate of mine standing up and telling a story about Rhea: "I was sitting in the hallway on the 3rd floor. Rhea walked past me with her ususal speed. She stopped, looked at me, and asked point blank: 'Did you vote today?' To be honest, I hadn't realized that the midterm elections were that day. I made some excuse about absentee ballots or something, which she waved away with annoyance. 'Not good enough! Voting is your duty as a citizen.' And she walked away. I have voted in every election, rain or shine, since."

I could give you story after story about Emerson and how it made me the more educated, more empathic, more creative, more informed, more progressive person I am today. I am sad for this woman's experience, but know that this was not my experience, and not the expereince of all of the folks I went to school with.

I have my qualms with Emerson-- the expense is a huge issue, and the then college President Jackie Liebergott's sometimes VERY contentious descisions.

I'll say this: if one goes to a highly progressive, highly liberal school, as I did, if one is religious as I was or more conservative, as I was, one cannot expect not to have those values challenged, as mine were. I greeted those challenges with some enthusiasm, and some resistence, but I did understand that I had chosen a place where those things would be called into question. In short I had chosen to have my opinions challenged. I had my pick of schools, but I chose Emerson, and I knew that meant I would have to really start thinking about my political and social values-- not change them, but be able to argue them.

If I wanted a place that did not challenge me or force me to evolve and grow, I would have chosen the Christian colleges many of my friends went to. I'm so SO grateful I did not do that."

90% of it is saying how amazing Emerson is and how her encounters with LGBT people and her professors made her into an empathetic, compassionate, informed and progressive person. The other 10% is how the threatened student should've stayed and become challenged. That's all well and good, the encouragement of staying, but it's not entirely unbiased -



Don't let that first passionate post fool you. She's an actress who, when she has time, has decided to fight those anti-SJW, MGOTW, AllLivesMatter people - she's on their side. Now how does a devout Christian, from a deeply religious household, who attended a Catholic high school basically become an LGBT ally (and she's states her life is better because of it) and an atheist? It's a complex answer but I'm sure it's somewhat obvious in Jenny's case. She posted a link to a picture of her back in her Emerson days when another poster was skeptical of her proclamation of being an Emerson alumnus. This is what she wrote about her final year at Emerson:

When our BFA 2004 class graduated, Sara R. and Maragaret put up 14 of these fliers, one for each of us, as a sort of ad for our vacant spots. I changed a lot that year- chopped off all my hair, dyed it blonde, left my fiance, moved in with frat boys, started cussing like a sailor, and drinking like a fish- even smoking a few cigarettes when the mood inclined- the departure from my old habits was pronounced to say the least. I still have my BFA Vacancy poster, oh yes I do.

Left her fiance? Left? Not called off the engagement or broke off. Left. Maybe that's exactly what she meant, but given the "shedding one's old self" tone I doubt it. Moved in with frat boys? I wonder what happened there. Since she left her fiancee there's no need for commitment and dignity, right? Gotta cuss and drink like a sailor because dammit it's my senior year in college!

I'm not sure what age Jenny entered university life, but it's currently 2017. She said she graduated in 2004. 13 years. Let's say she entered college at 18. That would mean she's about 35 yrs old. I don't believe she's married. It doesn't appear she has any kids. After living in Boston for college she immediately moved to NYC and has stayed there ever since.

I also want to say that she appears to be cordial and reasonable when presenting herself. Clearly not so if we take into consideration her "WOKE FOLKS" FB post. I will guess WOKE means white. Or maybe it means "awoke" as is I'm a aware of the - isms that plague the world.

Jenny Grace Makholm before Emerson: devout Christian with some conservative values.

Jenny Grace Makholm after Emerson, 13 years later: feminist, LGBT ally & advocate, atheist, unmarried and childless.

Ms. Makholm is your typical garden variety "progressive" actress in NYC. All she left out is admitting she got her tubes tied.

Lent Update & Parish Issues

I will be absolutely honest: I have failed miserably with keeping up with my Lenten promises. I won't say what my promises were since I'm rather ashamed of them.

There's about two weeks left for this liturgical season, so that means there's two weeks to "salvage" my set standards.

To start things off "right", I need to schedule a confession with one of my local parishes. I've tried to attend confession for the past two months, but every time there's a line that barely inches forward. I wonder what type of sins the people are confessing - must be serious. Since I help out at Saturday mass I need to be ready once the mass starts; due to the slow confession line I'm forced to yank myself out of queue in order for me to get to my spot on time. It's frustrating.

I'm not scheduled to help out this Saturday so I'm planning on attending confession at another parish, with hopes that the line will actually move and that the priest shows up on time. My home parish is  Novus Order type, the type that borders on being a Protestant mass. I'm sometimes a little embarassed by it. The other parish I'm eying for confession is also a Novus Order type but they're more "serious", a larger congregation and probably has more than one priest scheduled to hear sinners.

"Listen, I was a Christian for these amount of years!" and Ed Feser's lack of peer-reviewed work.

Oh bless your heart. A Christian turned atheist says.

"I was born and raised in an evangelical Christian household and was one for 19 years," said A-Unicornist.

It turns out this atheist is a modern day liberal (totally supports the integration of transgenders into Boy Scouts of America) and even despises the Western philosophers (who ironically are majorly secular) for their narrow concentration, which he notes they're unfairly ignoring Eastern philosophy. Hmmm, well maybe because Western philosophy is probably the more influential of the two branches.

I don't really mind A-Unicornist since he comes across as well-read on the subject matter of arguments opposing the belief in a god, but his politics brings his delusion to a whole new level of SJW.

I discovered A-Unicornist's blog (it's been active since 2009 but his very first post mentioned he talked about religion vs science in a previous blog so I presume he's been blogging longer than seven years) when I googled Ed Feser and the cosmological argument. I won't talk about his rebuttal to Feser but I will mention the comment box. With much amusement I read one poster, named Mark, pointing out

"I think it's unfair to expect Mike [A-Unicornist] to address Feser's academic work on Thomistic metaphysics, because Feser hasn't really produced any quality peer-reviewed publications on Thomistic metaphysics."

 He goes on -

"If you look at Feser's publication list on his website, you'll see that he lists 98 manuscripts, in addition to 4 encyclopaedia entries. However, this list is considerably padded with a lot of works that would never be considered peer-reviewed academic works by any university that he sought employment at. Seriously, university staff run hiring workshops that teach us how to spot the tricks that guys like Feser try to pull in their CV's."

I can't believe he actually counted it all. It's like that one atheist confronting William Lane Craig of all the fallacies he supposedly committed. Anyways.

"Of the 31 "academic writings", 8 are books (which do not typically undergo any peer-reviewed vetting

. . . .

To put this into perspective, Daniel Dennett has published in journals with impact factors over 18.6 (e.g. Brain and Behavioural Sciences) with over 800 academic citations. Richard Dawkins has published in Nature (Impact Factor 42.3) with over 1000 citations."

But what does this have to do with whether or not Feser's stance on metaphysics are worthy of dismissal? Brain and Behavioural Science, and Nature, are not commenting on metaphysics. Whatever books Dennett and Dawkin wrote on metaphysics, let alone religion itself, probably weren't vetted by a committee of academic philosophers before it was published. It gets better.

I traced down more of Mark's comments. Apparently Feser's book is well known in the atheist community. Mark writes

 "Although rarely reviewed, The Last Superstition has actually been read by a large number of atheists like myself. I found that it was constantly recommended to me by theists during internet chats and I make an effort to acquaint myself with the best theistic arguments. It was billed to me as a "deeply intellectual and confronting challenge to atheistic beliefs, although the witty snark may be off-putting". But when I purchased and read it, I found it was the complete opposite; a shallow and poorly argued text that tried to convert arbitrary impressions into metaphysical principles. The snark, although unimaginative, was rather enjoyable (although Feser will never get a job hosting the Oscars)"

Mark continues on belittling Feser's work. By the "rarely reviewed status" are Dennet's and Dawkin's books about religion innately better because they're more reviewed? If Mark is trying to paint Feser as some insignificant player in the metaphysics realm due to a lack of peer-viewed articles (oddly Mark fails to mention the publish or die in academia) he's failing. If Feser is some wannabe major player in metaphysics why the involvement of trying to discredit his CV (the man took the time to actually count how many articles Feser listed)? It's an interesting question.

I'll tie in A-Unicornist in this as well. A-Unicornist is not a trained philosopher, not that it truly matters in giving an educated opinion on matters of religion, yet Mark takes A-U more seriously than Feser. If Dennet and Dawkins are intellectual and academic giants compared to Feser then A-U is a mental midget compared to Feser. No offense to A-U, but A-U states he is a personal trainer by day.

If we're strictly talking about academic penis measuring then A-U should not be even in the picture. He's an amateur like me just commenting on topics we find interesting and worth discussing. But, in Mark's mind, there's something more. It's, again, as I mentioned in previous posts, about elitism (lack of quality peer-reviewed articles, now this is key - that Mark mentioned quality, and the lack of book reviews by major academics). But as I said before if Feser is such a hack he wouldn't be taken nearly as seriously by atheists like Mark. Yes, Mark takes Feser seriously. If he hadn't he wouldn't have gone through the trouble of counting all of 98 Feser's articles.

How many philosophy professors teaching at community colleges have the CV Feser has? Not many. It's tough to get published. It's even more tough to get published holding the views Feser has with the status of a junior college professor. But this is all par for the course.

Those on the right must be perfect. Strangely enough (secular) Left is acting like a god and The Right as the unwashed masses. If you want to have an ounce of respect from The Left you must be perfect. This is why The Left does not attack Ryan T. Anderson's academic credentials (Princeton undergrad, Notre Dame Phd) - but they will call him a bigot. Same thing with Ben Shapiro. Both are articulate and don't have a twang. Sarah Palin? Butchered. Her accent and lack of prestigious CV were targets of The Left. Trump? UPenn. But he's an ass, right? Cruz? Stellar academic pedigree but he's a religious nut! With Feser, it's his lack of "quality peer-reviewed " articles. If you don't have the stellar CV you must present yourself at the podium with articulation. Even then you aren't safe from The Left's judgement. Case in point Milo Y. I don't know his academic pedigree but he pisses The Left off by attacking their church - academia - stepping onto their grounds and making their disciples (SJW's) cry, throw tantrums and worry - alot. What to do? Character assassination.

What Mark is trying to do with Feser is to paint him as an academic nobody.

Who are the purists and hypocrites again?

Note: I and another person agreed that Feser should be teaching at a university. This is not to say that teaching at a junior college is not worth one's time, but I feel that if he had the status of a professor at a 4-year institution being peer-reviewed would probably come easier and he'd be under pressure to as well (JUCO professors aren't nearly as pressured, if at all, to publish or die; they're there mainly to teach). Christendom College. Ave Maria University. Wyoming Catholic College. Franciscan University of Steubenville. Grove City. Hillsdale College. Heck, even Notre Dame. Get Feser a tenured track position at any of these places.

Dating and religion (or lack thereof).

Simply put: I will not date an atheist who says religion is a "fairy tale."

Reasons being:

1. At least for Christianity, it's not even a fairy tale in terms of what constitutes a fairy tale.
2. There's a certain amount of arrogance in someone who actually has the gall to to think, let alone say, such a thing.
3. It's rather childish. Ironic.
4. There's no intellectualism behind the insult.
5. There's a certain amount of insecurity as well. Again, ironic.

My heart sinks a little when I find the atheist is rather attractive as well.

The typical Gnu.

Gnu: Religion is cancer don't separate it in extreme and moderate, cancer is cancer dude.
Someone: Oh really? Got anything that isn't a cliche because using that cliche is just sad on your part.
Gnu: If you want to defend irrational beliefs you got no leg to stand on, that's the real sadness here.
Someone: What's irrational about religious beliefs? Be specific. Take one from Islam, Christianity, Jewish culture, Buddhists ...