Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Monday, July 06, 2015

Let's all be vulnerable victims...

...because there is more of a pay-off in being a vulnerable victim these days than in being a responsible and capable sovereign.

//The therapeutic discourse is ruinous to public policy. It is bound to be, for each of its elements approaches public policy in the wrong way. The personal wants of a section of the community should never shape a policy that concerns the entire public. Nor should public policy be fashioned in favour of individuals who are able to claim a vulnerability. Such an approach rewards those who can claim to be vulnerable. And, when policy is shaped in this direction, it encourages individuals to look for and play up a vulnerability. Just as a policy that pays people to be poor will always create poverty, so a policy that recognises vulnerability will always create victims. Public policy should encourage individuals to see themselves as robust and resourceful.

But the greatest harm to public policy from the therapeutic discourse comes from its appeal to emotion. Emotion, unlike reason, should play no part in the development of public policy. Public policy needs to be formulated in the crucible of reasoned debate. And, in this regard, the gay-marriage discourse shows how, by using the language of therapy, and by appealing to hearts rather than minds, the therapeutic discourse seeks to close down debate.

As Chief Justice Roberts observed when quoting the words of the majority: ‘Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history… have [according to the majority] acted to “lock-out”, “disparage”, “disrespect and subordinate” and inflict “dignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors.’ This, he argued, was language that amounted to ‘assaults on the character of fairminded people’.

Justice Alito, in his dissent, made a similar point when he assumed ‘that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labelled as bigots and treated as such by government, employers and schools’.

By portraying its beneficiaries as vulnerable and in need of state recognition, and by appealing to hearts rather than minds, the therapeutic discourse seeks to close down reasoned debate. Public policy needs to expose and reject the therapeutic discourse. We need to inject public policy with ideas that are the antithesis of those espoused by the language of therapy. Public policy needs to focus on the needs of all rather than the wants of individuals. It needs to encourage individuals to see themselves as robust, resourceful and rational. And, in encouraging the rational elements of human behaviour, it needs to appeal to minds rather than hearts.

Obama can laud gay marriage as ‘a victory for America’. In truth, it is a victory for the therapeutic discourse and this can only harm public policy. What America and the Western world needs is a victory for reasoned debate.//


Sunday, July 05, 2015

In other news, not so good...

China's stock market down by 30%.


Saturday, July 04, 2015

Declare your independence from following the crowd.



Some good advice here.

10 Ways Catholics Can Save Marriage:


  1. Start using the term “Holy Matrimony” and always use that term. Yes, you don’t need permission. That’s capital H and capital M. Go there. The word “holy” is important and “matrimony” has its etymology in the Latin mater meaning “mother.” Matrimony brings about the procreation of babies and makes women into “mothers.” Holy Matrimony. Got it?
  2. We must encourage Catholic Church to officially declare ex cathedra that our Holy Matrimony is a sacrament between a man and a woman that resides above the natural order of government and that it is ratified and regulated by the Catholic Church alone. True, this is already Catholic teaching, but we need to be vocal about it and make it clear as day.
  3. The Catholic Church should consider all Western marriages “dubious” since most contemporary married people are generally lacking formal and material intent. Those who are not practicing Catholics enter into an arrangement called “marriage” that does not correspond to the traditional Christian definition that ensures monogamy, procreation, and heterosexuality. If Bob and Sue get “married” in the Episcopal Church nowadays, their view of marriage may and probably does include no-fault divorce in case “it doesn’t work out,” the “need” for contraception, and a definition of marriage that includes homosexuality. Their intent is lacking and thus the marriage is dubious and ready for annulment. (BTW, this is a theologically correct way for liberal (German) Catholics to grant more legitimate annulments and find a solution without changing the Catholic theology of Holy Matrimony)
  4. The Catholic Church has traditionally and charitably presumed that Protestant marriages are valid and even sacramental. The Catholic Church should rescind this presumption since most Protestant denominations believe in divorce and remarraige…and now same-sex marriage. What they call “marriage” is not what we Catholics mean by “Holy Matrimony.”
  5. All Catholic marriage prep should end with a video recording of the male and the female to be married in which both personally articulate the Catholic teaching about matrimony, monogamy, indissolubility, procreation and contraception, and heterosexuality. This will be useful in the future if one party seeks an annulment. The diocese can simply pull the video and say, “Well, here you are being filmed 3 weeks before the wedding and you are rationally describing the Catholic sacrament of marriage and articulating your full consent to enter into it with your spouse. So explain to us again why you think you aren’t really married?” This video also demonstrates that the deacon or priest adequately prepared the man and woman for Holy Matrimony.
  6. Casual pre-marital sex should be seen as an impediment to Holy Matrimony.Holy Matrimony is a holy sacrament and a spiritual vocation. You cannot be leading each other into mortal sin as you prepare for this holy state. What if a Seminarian started to celebrate Mass and hear confessions before his ordination? He would be dismissed. But what if the seminarian said, “Yeah, but I needed to try it out to see if it was a right fit?” Sorry. Still dismissed. He’s not worthy to be priest. Yet, why are we so lazy and lax when it comes to the other sacrament of vocation.
  7. Recapture Holy Matrimony as a church event and this means we need to distance ourselves from the pomp of the afterparty, flowers, cake, guests, etc. Holy Matrimony should feel more somber like a priestly ordination and less like a QuinceaƱera or debutant ball. Holy Matrimony is not a narcissistic parade for princesses and their mothers. It’s a sacrament. Rein it in.
  8. We need to decouple civil marriage from Sacramental Holy Matrimony. This can be done in two ways:
    First, can priests cease serving as ministers of the State in administering marriage, as this Eastern Orthodox priest is doing.
    Second, we need aggressive pre-marriage civil agreements that secure monogamy and traditional marriage. Why? Because the legal teeth of civil marriage have been removed. A woman can commit adultery against her husband with 50 different men, and then seek a divorce…and the poor husband still has to pay alimony to her! Why? Because American courts do not believe that marriage is a monogamous contract. In a study of 566 gay couples, only 45% had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. David Nimmons cites studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in open relationships. Oh, and the NYTimes are citing these facts as ways that homosexual married couples can help “innovate” a new view of marriage for heterosexual marriages. We need to stress monogamy in marriage if we are going to save the institution. There should be a pre-nup (that word scares people for good reason – let’s call it pre-matrimony or “civil marriage addenda”) for both parties saying, “This is a monogamous, exclusive, and sacred bond that is only dissoluble by the death of one of the parties. If you’re unfaithful and commit adultery, you get nothing from the other spouse if you file for a civil divorce. Nothing.”
  9. Hang on to your Catholic vocabulary. If you have a gay co-worker who is “married” don’t call his partner a “husband” and don’t call his union a “marriage.” You wouldn’t call a Protestant service “a Mass” and you wouldn’t call the Reverend Jesse Jackson a “priest” or “Father.” I also don’t call a Lutheran a “Catholic” even though he claims to be one. Sorry, I have to be true to my beliefs. If I get fired, so be it. If you don’t follow your conscience, you’ll be miserable.
  10. Do not attend marriages that are not really marriages. When the judge or minister says, “Is there any reason why these two should not be married? Speak now or forever hold your peace,” you are morally obliged as a patriotic citizen of your community and as a baptized Christian to speak up and say it. If you don’t want to be in that awkward situation, don’t go!

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Disruptive searches seem to be a favorite ploy on the part of totalitarians to punish dissidents.


This is from "Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany" by Robert Krieg, p. 68:

//Most of Wurzburg's Catholic theologians covertly resisted the Nazi state and paid a price for doing so.  In February 1933, police conducted a disruptive search of each scholar's residence. Not intimidated by this action, Andreas Bigelmair, professor of patrology and pastoral theology, continued to criticize the new government throughout the winter and spring of 1933 and was therefore listed as an enemy of the state. Three Storm Troopers came to his residence at 3:00 A.M., on June 29, 1933, and searched in vain for seditious literature."



This is from Wisconsin in 2011:

//Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house. They barged into the bathroom where my partner was showering. I was told to shut up and sit down. The officers rummaged through drawers, cabinets and closets. Their aggressive assault on my home seemed more appropriate for a dangerous criminal, not a longtime public servant with no criminal history.

After they left, I surveyed the damage. Drawers and closets had been ransacked. My deceased mother’s belongings were strewn across the floor. Neighbors gathered in small clusters at the end of their driveways and the press arrived in force.

What had prompted the raid? My guess: As an adviser to Gov. Walker, I had played a lead role in drafting and implementing public-employee labor reforms that would propel him to the national stage.

The governor’s reforms, commonly referred to as Act 10, prompted angry union protests. The reforms also enraged many politicians, including, as I would later find out, Mr. Chisholm and members of his staff. My ties to Gov. Walker and Act 10 made me a prime target for Mr. Chisholm’s campaign to intimidate anyone close to the governor.

In other words, I was targeted because of my politics—in plain violation of the First Amendment and federal civil-rights statutes.//


Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Confederate flags are bigotry and must be banned.

Pictures of the Prophet Muhammad is bigotry and must be banned.

Pictures of the Pope Emeritus in condoms is not bigotry and the New York Times wants you to see it.

Spot the principle?

In case you are confused, the only principle here is that Secular liberals hate you if you are a Catholic, Evangelical or Jewish religious believer.


Your vote doesn't matter.

Why vote on important issues at all?

Let's just sit back and have 5 out of 9 lawyers tell us the way things are going to be.


Whatever happened to Katie Couric?

She is working for Yahoo and in this clip is interviewing Ted Cruz.

She is surprised to find that Hillary injected the "Birther" claim into the 2008 election.

Cruz is articulate and provides a cogent explanation about the American political system.


Because he knows who his enemy really is...

...and they are Americans who don't agree with him.

Hugh Hewitt back Ben Smith of Buzzfeed into a corner.

//HH: I know, but when you report, for example, on Saudi Arabia, you’re reporting on a state that refuses Christians to practice their faith. You’re reporting on a state that beheads people. You’re reporting on a state that embraces Shariah. Do you have an editorial judgment that that is an evil state? Or is that not within, is that again above your pay grade?

BS: Hugh, that’s not the business. I mean, the value that we add is the reporting, as I see it, and so that’s what we try to do.

HH: So can you articulate for me, and I get it, I think I get it, but can you articulate for me what is the different between the need to announce on LGBT equality and the need not to announce on Shariah-governed states?

[Long silence]

BS: That’s a really good question.//


Saturday, June 27, 2015

Remember how we were always told by the ACLU that we had to protect the rights of the most despised members of society, e.g., murderers, communists and perverts, in order to protect our own rights?

Hahahahahaha!

If you believed them, you were an idiot.

The enemy remains the same, but the principle change directions.


 
Who links to me?