This is what the New Christendom looks like folks. Families living and working together in community with each other as stewards of creation. This is Distributism in action. I am fully convinced that if we are truly to return to a Christian culture, the majority of people need to be owners of productive property, and land is about as productive as property gets.
I particularly love what he says about getting to big: A large "factory" farm could not do what he does. Period. No amount of machines can do what he does. It takes bodies with brains. And bodies can only do so much, which means things can only get so big and still maintain the system as far as quality, and even viability. Sounds like a perfect way for a for a family to make a living.
Watch the short video below, and there will be more to come.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
"Hard Saying" in Today's Mass Reading
The first mass reading for today is one of my favorites. Although it was not always.
The Apostle James distills the debate about faith and works so well in his epistle, it is staggering. I remember as a Reformed Protestant having to sort of *wince* a bit at some of St. James' language. The book of James was full of what Protestants must call "hard sayings", which is another way of saying either "we dont like what it says", or "it doesn't fit in our interpretive paradigm, so let's shelve it".
Well, that's not good enough. And James calls you an "ignoramus" for doing so.
In Matthew 19 we also have a great proclamation of the gospel from Jesus. The rich young ruler asks what he must do to be saved -a question we all ask- and a question we all understand intimately. In my experience, Protestants discount or play down Jesus words here and/or disparage the rich young man for even asking what he must "do", as if he is trying to make it to heaven by his bootstraps. Or worse they relegate the passage to being a "hard saying" and flip ahead to Romans to cleanse the mental palate of such stumping statements by Jesus. But Christ is clearly telling this man that he must do certain things (works) to be saved. He is saying exactly what St. James (and St. Paul for that matter) would say: Only a living faith saves. A negative way to phrase that: "faith without works is dead". Or as St. Paul would say, a true faith is "faith working in love" (Gal. 5:6).
I think the fear of Protestants is that any talk of works *gasp!* will immediately devolve into a religion of "us seeking God" or a neglecting of God's grace. Or they may view faith and works as oil and water (respectively) in a glass: Pour more works in the glass and grace flows out. But I think the Catholic version of this analogy is that for the baptized Christian who has been washed in the Blood of Christ there is only oil (faith) in the glass and the entire glass gets miraculously bigger when we admit works into the scene. In this sense faith and works can be seen as one and the same thing.
Car and gas.
Lamp and oil.
Bread and yeast.
There is no antagonism between faith and works for Catholics. All is of grace, all is from God and for God. If I see myself doing a "good work", then praise God He has given me the grace to do that. The glory goes to Him.
And isn’t that "work" really another way of saying I have faith? According to James, Jesus and Paul it is!
The longer I am Catholic, the more I realize that the doctrine of sola fide is just dressed up antinomianism. And if you are a Protestant and don't know what that word means but you do know what legalism means, then you are probably an antinomian. As James would say, you are an ignoramus.
The Apostle James distills the debate about faith and works so well in his epistle, it is staggering. I remember as a Reformed Protestant having to sort of *wince* a bit at some of St. James' language. The book of James was full of what Protestants must call "hard sayings", which is another way of saying either "we dont like what it says", or "it doesn't fit in our interpretive paradigm, so let's shelve it".
Well, that's not good enough. And James calls you an "ignoramus" for doing so.
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.Thus the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God.
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. For just as a body without a spirit is dead,so also faith without works is dead.
James apostolic smack down just reached out from the 1st century and slapped the Protestant cheek.
I think the fear of Protestants is that any talk of works *gasp!* will immediately devolve into a religion of "us seeking God" or a neglecting of God's grace. Or they may view faith and works as oil and water (respectively) in a glass: Pour more works in the glass and grace flows out. But I think the Catholic version of this analogy is that for the baptized Christian who has been washed in the Blood of Christ there is only oil (faith) in the glass and the entire glass gets miraculously bigger when we admit works into the scene. In this sense faith and works can be seen as one and the same thing.
Car and gas.
Lamp and oil.
Bread and yeast.
There is no antagonism between faith and works for Catholics. All is of grace, all is from God and for God. If I see myself doing a "good work", then praise God He has given me the grace to do that. The glory goes to Him.
And isn’t that "work" really another way of saying I have faith? According to James, Jesus and Paul it is!
The longer I am Catholic, the more I realize that the doctrine of sola fide is just dressed up antinomianism. And if you are a Protestant and don't know what that word means but you do know what legalism means, then you are probably an antinomian. As James would say, you are an ignoramus.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Pain of Losing a Child
The following is a comment I left for online friend Brent Stubbs on a post he made about the loss of his child. I though I would share it here as well.
Brent,
Wasn't planning on crying this morning but you did it to me man. One of my family’s experiences was similar to yours. I will never forget how our joy turned to sorrow in the ultrasound room that day. Joy to see the baby, and then a growing dread as the ultrasound technician grew serious, and then said “the baby is not moving”.
My regret is that we did not think to recover the body for burial after the D and C. No one said anything, and we didn't even think about it. I wish our pastor or elders (Reformed at the time) had said something, but I don't blame them. I do think that couple of childbearing age need to hear these stories though. And they need to hear that they can keep the remains of their children.
Then a couple years later in 2010, on the morning of Divine Mercy Sunday, the unimaginable happened. We lost a child at 17 weeks. Still born. Delivering a baby you know is dead in the delivery room is very painful emotionally for the parents along with the physical pain of the mother that will not be soothed by the joy of new life. As I held little Jude in my hands for the first and last time and gave him the fatherly blessing I give his siblings before bed, I don't think I have ever felt such pain. I was in the conversion process at the time and called for a priest who performed a baptism (of desire), which I found out later was perhaps not the right thing to do, but mentally I was in no condition to think about theology. Perhaps God accepts the baptism as a sort of baptism of blood and forgives my and the priests ignorance.
I visit Jude’s grave often and pray. I consider him to be our family’s prayer warrior fighting the battle with his parents and 5 sisters from heaven.
And the crack in your heart, it will never heal. But I think those cracks let some extra grace in also. Yes the pain is there, and will flare up at unexpected moments, as I am sure the pain of Christ’s mother did for the rest of her life. But that pain is not for nothing.
One mercy I thank God for especially in this situation was that in my studying about Catholicism I had just learned about redemptive suffering. Then we lost Jude. I very well may not have been able to handle the situation without that knowledge that our sufferings were being used by Christ as we offered them in union with his sufferings on the cross. That doesn't take the pain away, oh no… but it at least allows for a much easier “fiat” to occur in one’s soul when one knows there is a true purpose for their suffering.
If I had still been a Reformed Presbyterian when we lost Jude, I don’t know if I would have come out of this furnace closer to God than when I went in.
May God bless our little ones who are now safely in the folds of Our Lady’s mantle, and may they pray for us with her.
Brent,
Wasn't planning on crying this morning but you did it to me man. One of my family’s experiences was similar to yours. I will never forget how our joy turned to sorrow in the ultrasound room that day. Joy to see the baby, and then a growing dread as the ultrasound technician grew serious, and then said “the baby is not moving”.
My regret is that we did not think to recover the body for burial after the D and C. No one said anything, and we didn't even think about it. I wish our pastor or elders (Reformed at the time) had said something, but I don't blame them. I do think that couple of childbearing age need to hear these stories though. And they need to hear that they can keep the remains of their children.
Then a couple years later in 2010, on the morning of Divine Mercy Sunday, the unimaginable happened. We lost a child at 17 weeks. Still born. Delivering a baby you know is dead in the delivery room is very painful emotionally for the parents along with the physical pain of the mother that will not be soothed by the joy of new life. As I held little Jude in my hands for the first and last time and gave him the fatherly blessing I give his siblings before bed, I don't think I have ever felt such pain. I was in the conversion process at the time and called for a priest who performed a baptism (of desire), which I found out later was perhaps not the right thing to do, but mentally I was in no condition to think about theology. Perhaps God accepts the baptism as a sort of baptism of blood and forgives my and the priests ignorance.
I visit Jude’s grave often and pray. I consider him to be our family’s prayer warrior fighting the battle with his parents and 5 sisters from heaven.
And the crack in your heart, it will never heal. But I think those cracks let some extra grace in also. Yes the pain is there, and will flare up at unexpected moments, as I am sure the pain of Christ’s mother did for the rest of her life. But that pain is not for nothing.
One mercy I thank God for especially in this situation was that in my studying about Catholicism I had just learned about redemptive suffering. Then we lost Jude. I very well may not have been able to handle the situation without that knowledge that our sufferings were being used by Christ as we offered them in union with his sufferings on the cross. That doesn't take the pain away, oh no… but it at least allows for a much easier “fiat” to occur in one’s soul when one knows there is a true purpose for their suffering.
If I had still been a Reformed Presbyterian when we lost Jude, I don’t know if I would have come out of this furnace closer to God than when I went in.
May God bless our little ones who are now safely in the folds of Our Lady’s mantle, and may they pray for us with her.
 |
| Sorrowful Mother "O all ye that pass by the way, attend, and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow". Lam. 1:12 |
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Capitalists don't like Distributism
The following is a response by Bob to an audio clip about Distributism located here. I will intersperse my not-so brief [comments in red]. Also I read a great article by Ryan Grant titled Distributism in Popular Christmas Films that examines the 2 classic Christmas movies by Dickens and Capra A Christmas Carol and It's a Wonderful Life. I always knew there was something I loved about the way economics is presented in those movies. They manage to avoid the "phoney right-left paradigm" as Grant puts it.
Here is Bob:
...I'd also encourage you to re-listen to what he says, and read my comments at the same time. Of course, learning about Austrian economics might do you good too. [What makes you think I am not familiar with them?] To be honest, everything in this talk was easy to deflect / refute. [I am glad they made it easy for you.]
My comments on Donald Goodman III
Backyard RadTrad Interview
around the 8 minute mark talks about unions protecting the middle class. This is an un-founded assertion, and incorrect under an Austrian mindset. Of course, people should be free to join / create unions, but unions do not inherently protect anyone, and are (in fact) a coercive force themselves. [Yes, a coercive force meant to counteract the coercive force of capitalists]
11:30 - talks about 'paying what the worker is worth'. The idea is to pay a worker enough to keep a family. The idea is nice, but at some point the wage is not worth the employee... the correct thing to do is to lay-off the employee. There is no 'correct' wage, as minimum wage laws prove. [the wage is not "worth the employee"? this is the capitalist mindset... to treat people as tools or machines -as means to an end. People are not tools. And a system that encourages us to think of them as such (capitalism) is flawed.]
I agree with what they are saying at the 17 min mark about the banks and bail-outs from government. Libertarianism also "doesn't want" this. The root cause (in my opinion) is the federal reserve system (or euro system for our idiot friends overseas) [from a Distributist mindset, the size of these massive institutions makes them de-facto goverments in themselves. They are big enough to make the rules, and they do. Federal Reserve or not, when corporations get massive, they get what they want. ] - a return to hard currency would help out a lot. [Agreed, but that would not be good for capitalism, which thrives on greed]
I disagree with his remark at 19:50 about the difference between capitalism and socialism. His view on socialism might be correct, but his view on capitalism is jaded by Corporatism (which is what we have in America). This is a common mistake that turns capitalism into a boogy man, even though most people wouldn't recognize true capitalism if it hit them in the face. Socialism = bad, Corporatism = bad, Capitalism = good. He is doing the listener a disservice by not identifying them correctly. [The problem with capitalism is it will naturally concentrate the means of production in the hands of a very, very few people. When this continues to happen, then you get what i think you are calling corporatism, which I take you to mean a sort of 'rule by corporations'. (You must be using a more modern incarnation of that word, because I dont think you can be meaning what the main meaning is)]
at 23:30, he again identifies capitalism incorrectly, calling it "the system where very few own productive property". [Yeah, that's what it is. It may not be the description you would like, but it does fit what happens under capitalism. And yes, even under "unbridled" capitalism. In fact it might be even more concentrated in some situations] Capitalism doesn't care who owns how much, or what. Slapping the straw man! Capitalism is about the unfettered marketplace (something that hasn't been seen in several generations). The invisible hand of the market knows where to best invest capital - weather that is human action, money, property - any kind of capital. Again, who owns what doesn't matter. [But it does matter who owns what. One man or a small group of men "owning" Wall mart stores matters. The fact that they treat their employees like tools matters. The fact that that few men are that powerful matters. Once such a small group is so powerfull that matters to me. It is a unacceptable concentration of the means of production.] At the very least, you own your labor, and can trade that labor for other goods. [If that is the way we view our labor, then that is slavery. What you say here is the capitalist idea though. Instead of viewing our labor as being productive, we view our labor as a commodity to make another man productive. One way is the way of freedom, the other of slavery.]
at 25 min, he talks about tax subsidies for the big stores. He is correct - that is a problem. It isn't a problem with Capitalism, but a problem with Corporatism (where corporations own / influence government). [Which is the natural result of capitalism.] The playing field isn't level. Buying in bulk, however, is not an unfair advantage. Subsidies are.
28 min - your ability to grow (and expand) is limited by 'what does the guild say'!!! Guild, meet invisible hand of the market. Invisible hand, slap guild in face. [The invisible hand you mention is not all that invisible. It is a very few men controlling a very lot of the world. A guild just gives people a share of that power proportional to what one man can properly control. One man cannot properly control Monsanto, nor should he]. This guy just loves bureaucracy and additional layers of authority (I guess that is expected of Catholics). [Cheap shot] Lets say your an innovative tailor - do you have to pass your innovation to other tailors so they can become more productive too? He then advocates the state control the 'important' industries? I could spend hours on the danger of that, and how it kills innovation, destroys jobs, and is an all round horrible idea. [So who controls the roads and airwaves in your ideal then? Somebody is going to control them. And with large enough and important enough things, the ones who control them ARE the government! See it in action in our current 'corporatism' right? I agree if that is what you mean by corporatism. Once they have that much control, whether they are a corporation or a government doesnt matter. They are the one in charge. Distributism just levels out that control.]
at 34 min mark, he uses the anti-competitive practice of binding iphone to AT&T. I agree - morally wrong (done for money). However, that isn't a problem with capitalism. That is a problem with collusion. All phones should be able to be used on all networks (its my phone and my contract = property rights / contract issue). This is not a capitalism issue.
39 min mark - wage and price controls - excellent. This guy is doing a horrible job selling distributism to anyone who has studied Austrian economics. I'm guessing his market is the discontented masses who haven't studied economics at all. [imagine if every beef farmer in the counry was part of a beef guild Bob. Lets ay they vote to set the price of a # of ground beef for the next week/month/whatever. What happens next? Instead of beef being about price, it is about quality. So obviously there are immediately no more growth hormones being used, no more corn being shoved down half dead cows throats, and no more feed lots. Huge factory farms are no longer even desired because there are no more huge profit margins selling shitty meat to people. Instead quality is what becomes the reason I go to store A rather than B. Makes sense to me. The capitalist ideal is lower price=good. The Distributist ideal is Higher quality=good. You can see this in action when you buy your grass fed beef. You are getting a taste of Distributism: supporting a craftsman who is getting paid what his product is truly worth (grass fed beef farmers) rather than supporting a destructive capitalist system at wal-mart where wage slaves are used all the way from the farm to the cash register. ]
--thought--
distributism (as described in this podcast) doesn't have room for innovation. Take farming - larger tractors mean less people needed.[You are assuming that is inovative. It is not. Why is this a good idea? focus is off of quality and on profits and seeing people as tools] That frees up people to do other things - like inventing. Innovation happens because it isn't all 'at the local level'. Distributism also implies that there are certain percentages of people (determined by the guilds) who do certain things. If you want to do something else - go get permission. The invisible hand dictates that there is no 'right number' - rather the right number is the number that the market will bear. Permission isn't needed, just the will to change.
--end thought
44 min - distributism can't deal with the internet at all. It fails in the global economy too. Even basic questions of jurisdiction are avoided.
52 min - he just got done bashing on Tom Woods, then talks about commission being taken away. That's theft (breach of contract). [A mortgage is a contract too. Theft by contract. Why does a contract make treating people like animals ok?] He then complains that there weren't unions to back him up. I don't get it, the cure is worse than the problem. The solution is to stop stealing from your workers, not to hamper the work place with a union. Go to small claims and get your contract enforced! [The solution is not to think of peoe as "your" or "my" workers to be doled out goddies if they behave.]
Again just to clarify, Distributism is not Catholic dogma. There are many Catholic economic and social principals which it puts to the forefront however. Which is why I like it. The focus on the family being the highest unit in society and having the means to production in the hands of the family rather than the family BEING the means of production is what I like.
Here is Bob:
...I'd also encourage you to re-listen to what he says, and read my comments at the same time. Of course, learning about Austrian economics might do you good too. [What makes you think I am not familiar with them?] To be honest, everything in this talk was easy to deflect / refute. [I am glad they made it easy for you.]
My comments on Donald Goodman III
Backyard RadTrad Interview
around the 8 minute mark talks about unions protecting the middle class. This is an un-founded assertion, and incorrect under an Austrian mindset. Of course, people should be free to join / create unions, but unions do not inherently protect anyone, and are (in fact) a coercive force themselves. [Yes, a coercive force meant to counteract the coercive force of capitalists]
11:30 - talks about 'paying what the worker is worth'. The idea is to pay a worker enough to keep a family. The idea is nice, but at some point the wage is not worth the employee... the correct thing to do is to lay-off the employee. There is no 'correct' wage, as minimum wage laws prove. [the wage is not "worth the employee"? this is the capitalist mindset... to treat people as tools or machines -as means to an end. People are not tools. And a system that encourages us to think of them as such (capitalism) is flawed.]
I agree with what they are saying at the 17 min mark about the banks and bail-outs from government. Libertarianism also "doesn't want" this. The root cause (in my opinion) is the federal reserve system (or euro system for our idiot friends overseas) [from a Distributist mindset, the size of these massive institutions makes them de-facto goverments in themselves. They are big enough to make the rules, and they do. Federal Reserve or not, when corporations get massive, they get what they want. ] - a return to hard currency would help out a lot. [Agreed, but that would not be good for capitalism, which thrives on greed]
I disagree with his remark at 19:50 about the difference between capitalism and socialism. His view on socialism might be correct, but his view on capitalism is jaded by Corporatism (which is what we have in America). This is a common mistake that turns capitalism into a boogy man, even though most people wouldn't recognize true capitalism if it hit them in the face. Socialism = bad, Corporatism = bad, Capitalism = good. He is doing the listener a disservice by not identifying them correctly. [The problem with capitalism is it will naturally concentrate the means of production in the hands of a very, very few people. When this continues to happen, then you get what i think you are calling corporatism, which I take you to mean a sort of 'rule by corporations'. (You must be using a more modern incarnation of that word, because I dont think you can be meaning what the main meaning is)]
at 23:30, he again identifies capitalism incorrectly, calling it "the system where very few own productive property". [Yeah, that's what it is. It may not be the description you would like, but it does fit what happens under capitalism. And yes, even under "unbridled" capitalism. In fact it might be even more concentrated in some situations] Capitalism doesn't care who owns how much, or what. Slapping the straw man! Capitalism is about the unfettered marketplace (something that hasn't been seen in several generations). The invisible hand of the market knows where to best invest capital - weather that is human action, money, property - any kind of capital. Again, who owns what doesn't matter. [But it does matter who owns what. One man or a small group of men "owning" Wall mart stores matters. The fact that they treat their employees like tools matters. The fact that that few men are that powerful matters. Once such a small group is so powerfull that matters to me. It is a unacceptable concentration of the means of production.] At the very least, you own your labor, and can trade that labor for other goods. [If that is the way we view our labor, then that is slavery. What you say here is the capitalist idea though. Instead of viewing our labor as being productive, we view our labor as a commodity to make another man productive. One way is the way of freedom, the other of slavery.]
at 25 min, he talks about tax subsidies for the big stores. He is correct - that is a problem. It isn't a problem with Capitalism, but a problem with Corporatism (where corporations own / influence government). [Which is the natural result of capitalism.] The playing field isn't level. Buying in bulk, however, is not an unfair advantage. Subsidies are.
28 min - your ability to grow (and expand) is limited by 'what does the guild say'!!! Guild, meet invisible hand of the market. Invisible hand, slap guild in face. [The invisible hand you mention is not all that invisible. It is a very few men controlling a very lot of the world. A guild just gives people a share of that power proportional to what one man can properly control. One man cannot properly control Monsanto, nor should he]. This guy just loves bureaucracy and additional layers of authority (I guess that is expected of Catholics). [Cheap shot] Lets say your an innovative tailor - do you have to pass your innovation to other tailors so they can become more productive too? He then advocates the state control the 'important' industries? I could spend hours on the danger of that, and how it kills innovation, destroys jobs, and is an all round horrible idea. [So who controls the roads and airwaves in your ideal then? Somebody is going to control them. And with large enough and important enough things, the ones who control them ARE the government! See it in action in our current 'corporatism' right? I agree if that is what you mean by corporatism. Once they have that much control, whether they are a corporation or a government doesnt matter. They are the one in charge. Distributism just levels out that control.]
at 34 min mark, he uses the anti-competitive practice of binding iphone to AT&T. I agree - morally wrong (done for money). However, that isn't a problem with capitalism. That is a problem with collusion. All phones should be able to be used on all networks (its my phone and my contract = property rights / contract issue). This is not a capitalism issue.
39 min mark - wage and price controls - excellent. This guy is doing a horrible job selling distributism to anyone who has studied Austrian economics. I'm guessing his market is the discontented masses who haven't studied economics at all. [imagine if every beef farmer in the counry was part of a beef guild Bob. Lets ay they vote to set the price of a # of ground beef for the next week/month/whatever. What happens next? Instead of beef being about price, it is about quality. So obviously there are immediately no more growth hormones being used, no more corn being shoved down half dead cows throats, and no more feed lots. Huge factory farms are no longer even desired because there are no more huge profit margins selling shitty meat to people. Instead quality is what becomes the reason I go to store A rather than B. Makes sense to me. The capitalist ideal is lower price=good. The Distributist ideal is Higher quality=good. You can see this in action when you buy your grass fed beef. You are getting a taste of Distributism: supporting a craftsman who is getting paid what his product is truly worth (grass fed beef farmers) rather than supporting a destructive capitalist system at wal-mart where wage slaves are used all the way from the farm to the cash register. ]
--thought--
distributism (as described in this podcast) doesn't have room for innovation. Take farming - larger tractors mean less people needed.[You are assuming that is inovative. It is not. Why is this a good idea? focus is off of quality and on profits and seeing people as tools] That frees up people to do other things - like inventing. Innovation happens because it isn't all 'at the local level'. Distributism also implies that there are certain percentages of people (determined by the guilds) who do certain things. If you want to do something else - go get permission. The invisible hand dictates that there is no 'right number' - rather the right number is the number that the market will bear. Permission isn't needed, just the will to change.
--end thought
44 min - distributism can't deal with the internet at all. It fails in the global economy too. Even basic questions of jurisdiction are avoided.
52 min - he just got done bashing on Tom Woods, then talks about commission being taken away. That's theft (breach of contract). [A mortgage is a contract too. Theft by contract. Why does a contract make treating people like animals ok?] He then complains that there weren't unions to back him up. I don't get it, the cure is worse than the problem. The solution is to stop stealing from your workers, not to hamper the work place with a union. Go to small claims and get your contract enforced! [The solution is not to think of peoe as "your" or "my" workers to be doled out goddies if they behave.]
Again just to clarify, Distributism is not Catholic dogma. There are many Catholic economic and social principals which it puts to the forefront however. Which is why I like it. The focus on the family being the highest unit in society and having the means to production in the hands of the family rather than the family BEING the means of production is what I like.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
CBS News says "Dear Leader" finds cure for cancer!
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
CBS news reporters must dwell in this strange land. How else could they report so inaccurately?
Title of CBS News story:
Activists Hold Annual March For Life On Roe v. Wade Anniversary
Really? Really CBS? Is that what happened really? 7 pictures of a handfull of pro-choice people and NONE of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pro-life people? Each and every picture also says "Activists on both sides of the abortion issue are rallying on the 39th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs Wade case." Yes, we get it you fricking nazis, there are people on both sides of the "issue" (if you can call murder an "issue" that is up for debate). But guess what? If you want to talk numbers, both sides WERENT there.
Comment I left on the CBS "news" site:
CBS reporting:
“In other news… North Korea just announced each of it’s citizens drives a BMW and has more food and luxury than they know what to do with. Also the Dear Leader has just found the cure to cancer. Film at 11. Back to you Ken!…”
Would CBS point the camera at the 2 neo-nazis at a Martin Luther King remembrance march? No. So why point the camera at a handful of pro-choice people when there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pro-life demonstrators?
Hat tip to the Crescat for this. She has a good post about this on her site.
Update: Even better post by the Bad Catholic Marc Barnes.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
I don't like Libertarianism
The following is my comments on an article forwarded to me. It is by a Libertarian who is explaining why he like Libertarianism.
By starting with this obviously false principle, Libertarians allow falseness to permeate the rest of their destructive philosophy. Of course we are not free to do evil, even to ourselves. And of course we all have the duty to obey the natural law and to honor and obey God. This is self evident.
Having said that, I would much, much, much rather have a Libertarian in office than many other alternative options, including our campainer in chiefOsama Obama. I would group libertarianism in the "more of the same" category as all the post French Revolution government styles that talk big about the "rights" of man. Yawn.
They pick and choose from the natural law what they like and what they don't. They talk big about rights, but then choose who gets them. They claim that everyone should be free from coercion of any sort. But their worldview is what the coercion is based on. And yes, my worldview is what my brand of coercion is based on. Mine happens to be correct though.
To them, my family growing up in a godless and wicked Sodom is something that I should not care about because it is other people doing the sodomizing and baby killing. Wrong. No one has the right to do evil. When your neighbor does evil, it affects the community. If possible, he should be prevented from doing the evil. What could be more obvious than that fact?
Libertarians like the guy in the article agree that evil should be coercively stopped in the case of certain crimes (car theft) but not others (sodomy, child-murder). They do this because they define evil differently.
It is not that they do not look to religion to define evil, they just look to their false religion, where man is the highest being, to define evil. So when they point the finger at judgy old Archbishop Dolan, they are pointing at themselves too. Both them and Dolan have a set of rules they wish to coersively conform society to. From my perspective, the difference between them is that Dolan's rules are easy to look up (in Scripture and Tradition), they are consistent, and they conform to the natural law. The guy who wrote this article is just making up his rules as he goes it seems. He states all his opinions as if they are the gospel truth, yet where does he get his opinions from and what authority does he have to impose them on my family? Who knows. But he certainly would love to impose his ideas on my family, that is clear enough.
In his criticism of Dolan he said:
The moral law tells all humans regardless of religion that things like sterilization and murder are wrong. So there can be no "right" or "liberty" to do these things. That would not be liberty but license.
I repeat: That would not be liberty but license.
We have libery to do good. But there can be no liberty to do evil. It is not up to man to decide to grant license to do evil anymore than it is up to him to make the sky green. This is a universal law that does not need to be defended. It just is what it is. Yet this Libertarian is defending people who wish to use abortifacient means of contraception which kill children who are clearly protected by the constitution. So here we have the same old Orwelian situation of equality. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". "All people have equal rights, but some people (women of childbearing age) have more rights than other (unborn) peopl"e. One person is murdering another person with different heart, DNA, fingerprints, brain, and blood type, but somehow in the Libertarian world this is not pissing on another human beings rights to murder them.
He also judgingly criticizes Dolan for judging ...*gasp*... something as immoral. But like I said, it is not Dolan who can declare anything to be moral or immoral. Dolan is simply stating the fact that murder is wrong. "Restricting the availability" of abortifacient contraceptives is akin to a society "restricting the availability" of child porn. Both things are gave evils that have no good use. Unlike an evil like adultery, where the sex is not an evil in itself but the context is evil, pornography and abortifacient contraceptives are evil every time they are used. Unlike something like a gun, which can be used for good or evil, they have no good purpose. Murder is always wrong. Lust is always wrong. Government should protect people from evil regardless of how weak (unborn human life) or strong (wealthy businessman) they are. Instead, what I see from Libertarians is just more of the same "some animals are more equal than others" mentality.
Worst of all, they wrap themselves in the flag of "liberty" and pretend they are not forcing their will upon others. Nothing could be more wrong. Having a society where unborn humans are murdered affects me! Having a society where evil is an allowable option affects me! Even in situations where evil is done seemingly by and to only myself or other willing participants, it is still evil. Allowing it affects the rest of society. Also, in almost every case, Libertarians overlook the unwilling participants. In the case of divorce, they overlook the children and the spouses themselves who are damaged by the divorce. In the case of abortion, they overlook the murdering of innocent children.
A moral society based on the natural law and Distributism is the way to go. Then we can all be, not free to do evil, but truly free.
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives"
By starting with this obviously false principle, Libertarians allow falseness to permeate the rest of their destructive philosophy. Of course we are not free to do evil, even to ourselves. And of course we all have the duty to obey the natural law and to honor and obey God. This is self evident.
Having said that, I would much, much, much rather have a Libertarian in office than many other alternative options, including our campainer in chief
They pick and choose from the natural law what they like and what they don't. They talk big about rights, but then choose who gets them. They claim that everyone should be free from coercion of any sort. But their worldview is what the coercion is based on. And yes, my worldview is what my brand of coercion is based on. Mine happens to be correct though.
To them, my family growing up in a godless and wicked Sodom is something that I should not care about because it is other people doing the sodomizing and baby killing. Wrong. No one has the right to do evil. When your neighbor does evil, it affects the community. If possible, he should be prevented from doing the evil. What could be more obvious than that fact?
Libertarians like the guy in the article agree that evil should be coercively stopped in the case of certain crimes (car theft) but not others (sodomy, child-murder). They do this because they define evil differently.
It is not that they do not look to religion to define evil, they just look to their false religion, where man is the highest being, to define evil. So when they point the finger at judgy old Archbishop Dolan, they are pointing at themselves too. Both them and Dolan have a set of rules they wish to coersively conform society to. From my perspective, the difference between them is that Dolan's rules are easy to look up (in Scripture and Tradition), they are consistent, and they conform to the natural law. The guy who wrote this article is just making up his rules as he goes it seems. He states all his opinions as if they are the gospel truth, yet where does he get his opinions from and what authority does he have to impose them on my family? Who knows. But he certainly would love to impose his ideas on my family, that is clear enough.
In his criticism of Dolan he said:
...but rather he is interested in restricting your liberty by attempting to declare various forms of family planning "immoral" and restricting their availability.
The moral law tells all humans regardless of religion that things like sterilization and murder are wrong. So there can be no "right" or "liberty" to do these things. That would not be liberty but license.
I repeat: That would not be liberty but license.
We have libery to do good. But there can be no liberty to do evil. It is not up to man to decide to grant license to do evil anymore than it is up to him to make the sky green. This is a universal law that does not need to be defended. It just is what it is. Yet this Libertarian is defending people who wish to use abortifacient means of contraception which kill children who are clearly protected by the constitution. So here we have the same old Orwelian situation of equality. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". "All people have equal rights, but some people (women of childbearing age) have more rights than other (unborn) peopl"e. One person is murdering another person with different heart, DNA, fingerprints, brain, and blood type, but somehow in the Libertarian world this is not pissing on another human beings rights to murder them.
He also judgingly criticizes Dolan for judging ...*gasp*... something as immoral. But like I said, it is not Dolan who can declare anything to be moral or immoral. Dolan is simply stating the fact that murder is wrong. "Restricting the availability" of abortifacient contraceptives is akin to a society "restricting the availability" of child porn. Both things are gave evils that have no good use. Unlike an evil like adultery, where the sex is not an evil in itself but the context is evil, pornography and abortifacient contraceptives are evil every time they are used. Unlike something like a gun, which can be used for good or evil, they have no good purpose. Murder is always wrong. Lust is always wrong. Government should protect people from evil regardless of how weak (unborn human life) or strong (wealthy businessman) they are. Instead, what I see from Libertarians is just more of the same "some animals are more equal than others" mentality.
Worst of all, they wrap themselves in the flag of "liberty" and pretend they are not forcing their will upon others. Nothing could be more wrong. Having a society where unborn humans are murdered affects me! Having a society where evil is an allowable option affects me! Even in situations where evil is done seemingly by and to only myself or other willing participants, it is still evil. Allowing it affects the rest of society. Also, in almost every case, Libertarians overlook the unwilling participants. In the case of divorce, they overlook the children and the spouses themselves who are damaged by the divorce. In the case of abortion, they overlook the murdering of innocent children.
A moral society based on the natural law and Distributism is the way to go. Then we can all be, not free to do evil, but truly free.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Christmas and Contraception
I just read a great article by Dale Ahlquist at the Distributist Review titled Christmas and Contraception. Lots of great quotes from Chesterton about contraception back in the day.
Monday, January 23, 2012
"Catholics are too mechanical"
Here is a comment I left on a great post titled Salvation Pinball & the Devotional Life of Catholics (Part 4 of Becoming Catholic) by Taylor Marshal on Called to Communion.
Great analogies Taylor. You have a knack for explaining things briefly and well.
One on my pet peeves even when I became Reformed was the way low church evangelicals see liturgy/sacraments as mechanical, yet they choose to ignore the dozens of "mechanical" things they do at their Sunday service and during the week. How many times as a Pentecostal did I pray before a meal and not even have my mind on what I was saying? How many times does the worship band play the chorus to Our God is an Awsome God "one more time" in supposed free movement of the Spirit? When it happens every week, it is just as much a "mechanical" liturgical action as the most rigid liturgy. The altar call that happens every service is an obvious replacement for sacraments. It can seem very forced and mechanical after you’ve seen it hundreds of times. And the spontaneous prayers as opposed to the more formal liturgical ones? As far as the potential for being "mechanical", what is the difference between starting out each and every prayer with "Father we just thank you..." and winging it for 10 minutes, and with making the sign of the cross and saying a beautifully written formal prayer? Either way we can be engaged or not, either way we can touch the divine or not. It is up to us whether it is mechanical. And when a dark day comes when we simply don't have the words for prayer and feel empty, those memorized "mechanical" prayers like the Anima Christi or the Act of Contrition come in real handy. We can say the prayer and ask God for the grace to conform to the words. A spontaneous prayer in that dark moment can often simply fizzle for lack of clear vision.
The point of liturgy is not "if" but "which one". The point is for us to get involved with what is happening. Taylor's waltz example is a great one. We can sit back and mock the dancers for turning romance into something cold and informal, or we can learn how to waltz and take romance to the next level. This is why every woman in America loves Downton Abbey right now. They see that a high level of social "liturgy" can produce a higher level of human respect and romance.
Of course we can always decide to mechanically join the dance and not really enter into the experience at all. But I believe this can happen far easier for a non-Catholic low churchman than it can for a Catholic.
Friday, January 20, 2012
"Why I Hate Jesus, by Hating Religion"
Lame lame lame.
There are lots of dumb statements in that new video about loving Jesus and hating religion, but the one that really put the cheese grater to my ear was this:
"Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook."
Er uh, you aint judgin? Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining dude! If there is one thing you are doing it is judging. Not that that is necessarily bad. If your attack on "religion" is valid, then preach on. But it isn't.
Why? Because you are one of the most religious people I have ever seen!
I would love to follow you to whatever you do on a weekly basis for involvement with "Jesus". I don't want to presume it is "going to church" on Sunday morning or anything so religious as that, I mean that would make you a hypocrite for doing something external, right? Riiiight. Perhaps it is a weekday bible study or prayer group with some of your Jesus loving, non-religious friends. If that is the case, what should we best call this experience of yours? ...That's right... R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N. What songs do you sing during "worship" at your gathering? Hmm, what to call that... oh yeah there's that "religion" word again. When the guy with the ripped t-shirt playing the guitar plays the slow song "one more time", what do we call that? It is liturgy, AKA religion. (Yes it is bad liturgy, but liturgy nonetheless)
Do you have the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist once in a while where you (non-religiously of course) eat bread and drink
Sorry, but the fact that you are quite religious is...
...unavoidable. It is your destiny.
What about baptism? Are you paedo-baptist, credo-baptist, or no-baptist? What occurs during baptism? Is it a sacrament which gives grace and forgives sin or merely a outward sign of those things already having happened? Whatever you answer will be a description of your religion.
Even your video is a religious video. You are telling the world about your religion. Could it be you don't like religion because you see it is other people telling you what to do and believe? Could it be that you would much rather tell them what to do and believe in lame videos?
Also how do you know who Jesus even is? Oh wait, from a religious book collected by Catholic bishops in the 4th century, that's right.
And did Jesus hate religion?
You said in the video:
"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion"
My answer: If you told me that I would call you a liar. This is hilarious because it is almost word for word the EXACT OPPOSITE of something Jesus said!-
Matt. 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
If there is one thing the law and prophets were it was religion. And Christ specifically said he did not come to abolish it. For a Protestant, this guy isn't too well read in scripture.
And that's not all! Jesus had plenty more to say about religion:
Matt. 28:18-20 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Just in this verse we have Jesus saying "go", "teach", baptize", He tells them how to do it, tells them what to teach: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That is religion if I have ever seen it.
John 14:15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.
Again, that is religion. The guy in his poem says:
"religion says do, Jesus says done."
Jesus says "do" all the time! The problem he finds with the pharisees and scribes is that they do not "do"! They are all talk and no "do". It is not the doing that is the problem, but the not doing. It may sound corny, but it is true: Love is a verb. The "doing" of religion is exactly what Jesus wants us to do. He wants us to love Him and each other. When we do that, if we do that, it is going to look outwardly like we are holy people. But guess what? There are holy people! There are people that obey Christ by "doing" what he commanded most of the time and confessing their sins the rest of the time. Are these "religious" people part of the problem because they obey Christ? No way. Hypocrisy is bad. But there can be just as much hypocrisy in someone claiming not to be "religious" as someone who claims to be. Obeying Christ is the difference, not religion. Both hypocrites and non-hypocrites are religious. THAT is why they can be judged in terms of hypocrisy! Because they are measured by their professed religion.
Lastly, I find it sick how many hits this video has on Youtube. If the video was titled "Why I hate Hypocrisy, but love Jesus" do you think it would have more than a few hundred hits? No way. It just goes to show how anti-"religion" and antinomian American Evangelicalism is. The Reformed can complain all they want that there evangelicals just aren't getting it when it comes to understanding sola fide and sola scriptura, but guys like this seem to me to be taking BOTH to their logical conclusions: pitting works against faith and pitting organised religion (Apostolic Tradition) against the scripture.
For more Catholic responses (video and otherwise) look here.
For a great Reformed response look here.
UPDATE: I just watched the following video. Wow! I could have just avoided this post and shown this video. It says everything I wanted to say but much better. I Love it when the priest compares the incident with Judas whining about the purfume being poured on Jesus with the complaints about big churches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)