"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader
Today on CMR —

The Left Made Milo. The Right Just Knew The Left Hated Him.

I was busy so I didn't get a chance to write about MILO. All of a sudden he's everywhere. I feel bad for the guy. I'm not saying he didn't bring it on himself but to have a book contract and $250,000 coming your way only to have it yanked is a big deal, especially when it's because you're said to be in support of pedophilia. I feel bad for the guy because he said he was abused by a priest. I guess I take him at his word. He's going through a rough time. I haven't said a prayer for the guy but I'm thinking I probably should.

He's certainly smart and witty. But he doesn't seem happy, does he? And he can be pretty mean to people. I mean, there's a difference between being politically incorrect and mean. So that's all just to say I'm not a fan. And I'm not saying it in that understated way like people do to say they actively hate someone. I'm just not a fan. Milo didn't occupy much of my thinking, except the thought that I noticed someone taking Ann Coulter's shtick to the nth degree. I don't think I've ever even written about him before. Maybe but I don't think so. I've seen the YouTube videos of him and like I said, sometimes he's right. But more often it just seemed to me like he was putting on a FABULOUS show of which he was the star.

But from what I'm reading now, it seems that Milo has said some pretty anti-Semitic things and does he support pedophilia? I don't know. I guess it depends on what he meant by the term "boy." It did sound pretty bad. But Milo rose to prominence because he said outrageous things. It's hardly surprising that he said something over the line.

But the thing is, Milo rose to prominence because he wasn't allowed to speak, not because of what he was saying. It's a pretty important distinction. The left made Milo a thing, not the right. And some on the right began hailing him simply because the left hated him and attempted to silence him. But having the left hate him doesn't make him someone to listen to.

But what's of interest to me is that here you have this homosexual who's very OUT AND PROUD and he was invited to CPAC, a conservative organization, to speak BECAUSE THE LEFT HATED HIM. But conservatism must stand for something more than being against the left. I get it. Those guys have been pushing conservatives around for decades. But conservatives must be careful to simply not become an anti-left organization. It has to stand for something or it will find itself defending the indefensible.


Why Don't They Just Outlaw Christianity?

Johm Zmirak wonders "Why Don’t Secularists Just Be Honest and Outlaw Christianity?" The answer is simple. They'd rather not have the debate. They'll do it Grima Wormtongue style. I mean, why pick a fight when you're already winning.

Zmirak is right that banning Christianity from the public sphere is the eventual goal of the left. But they'll never say it. They'll just let judges chip away at it.

The recent Barronelle Stutzmann decision amounts to a Christian ban. The court is essentially saying you can't be a business owner and a Christian. Soon it'll be that you can't be a citizen and a Christian.

He writes at The Stream:

So I wish that our masters would just admit what they’re really up to and try to enact a Christian ban. All they would need to do is create a case that makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which gives the judges the pretext to exempt Christianity from the First Amendment’s protections. I am sure that the legal brains at the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center could find the right test case, and aim it at the creative jurists of the Ninth Circuit Court — confident that the same five-vote majority that issued Obergefell v. Hodges would vote their way. In fact, they really ought to, if they want to honor that precedent, as well as that shining lodestar of American moral thinking, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps the case could center on Christian parents who wish to home-school a child, or a Christian college that doesn’t want to hire openly homosexual faculty, or a doctor who won’t perform abortions. I leave the specifics to our betters. I know that they’re up to the task.
I have faith that Ruth Bader Ginbsurg and Anthony Kennedy can come up with some narrative that proves that the Founding Fathers really meant to ban orthodox Christianity, while protecting other creeds. Those justices could “prove” to their own satisfaction that the whole Bill of Rights is really a recipe for chicken mole. And the rest of our elites (including too many Republicans) would back them up, and call that decision “settled law.”

Decades of training and practice of modern legal theory have trained these experts to see through the tangle of messy words with specific denotations and plausible connotations, and ignore the grubby historical context and plain intentions of the Founders — and hear the clear, pure voice of our “living Constitution.” That god, whom Caesar demands that we worship, will never fail. It can be trusted. It will always tell the world just what the flesh and the devil would like us to hear.
The only Christians the elites like are those that twist and mangle and garble the faith into something resembling their secularist utopia.


President Trump, This is Why Many Christians Voted for You

They call it "holding their nose." And many Christians who were wary of Donald Trump, worried about specific policies, or disgusted by some of his personal behavior still voted for him because he vowed to nominate pro-life conservative judges and to cease the Obama administration's war on religious liberty. (His press conferences are just a fun bonus.) Many serious Christians were berated and hectored in incredulous tones with phrases like, "How could you?!!!!" or "No faithful Christian could ever support Trump!!!" 

But many Christians did vote for Trump. According to one study, Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, 58 percent of the Protestant vote, and 81 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote. And now their faith in Trump may be shown to be well placed. Or it won't.

Recently, it came to light that the Trump administration was mulling an executive order that would protect religious liberties. Many religious people are understandably excited because they're hoping that unlike so many politicians, Donald Trump may be true to his word that he will defend religious liberty. Please recall his words at the National Prayer Breakfast when he said, "My administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty."

Please continue reading at The National Catholic Register>>>

*subhead*Religious liberty.*subhead*

Church of England Rejects Report Reccomending Traditional Marriage

So a committee in the Church of England was assigned a task to recommend church policies about gays and marriage and the whole thing. They came back and recommended that the C of E should adopt a "fresh tone and culture of welcome and support" (whatever that means. Let's face it, if the C of E gets more gay friendly it'll be hanging out at rest stops on the Jersey Turnpike.) But to be clear, the committee did say that the church should not change its opposition to same-sex marriage.

Whatever you want to say, that's actually pretty gutsy for C of E. To go against the editorial pages and even somewhat adhering to a traditionally Christian view is like a profile in courage nowadays.

But then this happened. The Church of England's General Synod voted to reject what they deemed a "controversial" report.

Here's one synod member explaining her thinking.

Lucy Gorman, an activist and representative from York, said as a member of the church in her 20s she was part of a "dying breed".

"Trust me, outside of these walls we have been heard as lacking in love," she said. "Most people have a friend or family member who sits somewhere on the gender sexuality spectrum - and why would they become part of an organisation which is seemingly homophobic, even if we don't intend it."

In an emotional plea for the Synod not to take note of the report, Ms Gorman said: "I'm a dying breed because my friends are dying over this."
She referred to the words of her friend, Helen, who took her life in April last year.

Ms Gorman said: "She said to me, 'I love my local church and my faith but I feel conflicted about the Church of England.

"'It makes me sad and angry that it can waste so much energy in being inward-looking, that it misrepresents God's generous love, Christ's teachings and as an established Church can be exempt from equality legislation'."

Ms Gorman concluded: "I'm not asking for same-sex marriage in churches, a girl can but dream, but I plead with you not to take not of this report because we can and we need to be better."
Yet. She's not asking for same-sex marriage in churches...YET. But why else fight the stance against same-sex marriage?

This is what they do. they say ridiculous things like "I'm not saying the C of E should perform same-sex marriages, I'm just saying that the C of E shouldn't be against them." What the what? That's just a slow walk folks. Remember the boiling frog? It's a slow burn. And it's the best way to irrelevance for the Church of England that I could think of.

If your religion agrees with the culture every step of the way, well you don't really need the faith anymore, do you? The thing about faith is that it CALLS you out of yourself and your situation. It must offer hope, salvation. A faith must offer things that the world doesn't. If it doesn't, it's redundant. I mean, sheesh, just from a marketing perspective, it must be different. Why should people join a "faith community" (which is what the kids call it nowadays) if it's just like every other community, except with folk music from the 60's?

I commend those who made the effort to issue this "controversial" report. But I think the Church of England is just too far gone.

As a Catholic, I'm appreciative of the Church of England because I look at them and say hey, we've got lots and lots of problems but at least we're not the C of E.


Headlines: Crazy Nazi Steve Bannon Wanted to Make a Crazy Nazi Movie About Crazy Nazis...WITH MEL GIBSON!!!

So the headlines surrounding White House aide Steven Bannon all seem to be saying that he, at one time, was trying to make a movie about Nazis and eugenics and Hitler and stuff. That proves he's a Nazi, right? Or at least insane! And he met with Mel Gibson so definitely anti-Semitic.

That's what you'd get from these headlines:

"Stephen Bannon once tried to make a documentary about eugenics, Hitler, and clones."

"Bannon 'wanted to make Nazi movie with Mel Gibson'"

"Steve Bannon Allegedly Met With Mel Gibson About Making A Really Weird Movie Involving Nazis And Mutants."

"Steve Bannon tried to make a movie about "blood purity" and wanted Mel Gibson to fund it."

Now what you wouldn't understand from those headlines is that Bannon was interested in making a documentary critical of eugenics from a Christian perspective.

The Week:

The 11-page outline for The Singularity: Resistance Is Futile (as the project was naturally called) credits Bannon as writer, producer, and director, although Bannon reportedly met with filmmaker Mel Gibson about getting the picture off the ground. "Essentially, Bannon's is a Christian right-friendly story of arrogant scientists trying to perfect the human race at the expense of the natural order and God's vision of humanity," The Daily Beast writes of the 2005 project.

The Singularity is divided into 22 segments, including "The Religion of Technology," which begins by talking about "the garden of the new Eden, fruit of the forbidden tree: clones, mutants, and designer humans." Other sections touch on the "subjugation of race and class throughout time," the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, "the survival of the fittest," the "Aryan Elite," and "the Commercial Eugenics Civilization," which discusses "the perfectibility of life through a human-controlled elite race that will bring about a better world."
That actually sounds like something I'd be interested in.


An Immigration Lawyer Defends Archbishop Chaput from Media Calumny

The intentional mischaracterization of Archbishop Charles Chaput has been rampant in recent years, especially this past year. But in truth he is one of the shining examples of faith in the Church today.

In the Philadelphia Daily News, an immigration lawyer named Christine Flowers defended Archbishop Chaput's reputation. She doesn't attack the media. Instead, which I think is more effective, she relates to readers a story about the man she knows; Archbishop Chaput.

A few months ago, I was representing a woman from El Salvador who was seeking asylum in the United States. I don’t need to go into her story of abuse, but there was a unique aspect of the case: she is a devout Catholic.

She was beaten and terrorized by her abuser, who resented the importance of the church in her life. He tried to prevent her from attending Mass, and ridiculed her devotion to Mary.
He beat her so badly that she lost the baby she was carrying. Then, he taunted her with the fact that she’d had “an abortion,” something so devastating to this poor woman that she is still haunted with guilt.

My client was very close to her godfather, a parish priest in a small town near  San Salvador. Their bond was so strong that he flew to the United States to be a character witness for her, and to testify to horrors he himself had suffered at the hands of gang members. It's not safe to be a Catholic these days in Central America.

When I met Padre Carlos, he asked me a favor. He wanted to meet Archbishop Chaput, a man he had heard about when Pope Francis visited Philadelphia for the World Meeting of Families. Padre Carlos’ schedule was tight and he was headed back to his parish the next day - despite my urging that he should file for asylum.

I contacted the Archbishop, not sure whether he had any time for us. The answer came back immediately: “Come by this afternoon at 4:00.”
I led a crew of four Salvadorans: my client, her two brothers and Padre Carlos. We wend from Immigration Court at 9th and Market to the Archdiocese on Race Street, with a brief detour to Starbucks because Padre Carlos loved mochas. Archbishop Chaput and one of the Spanish-speaking priests at the archdiocese greeted us warmly.

I watched as Padre Carlos told the Archbishop of his work in El Salvador, of his fears and of his determination to go back home and serve his people. The Archbishop was visibly moved, and showed immense respect and kindness to this brother in Christ.  The Archbishop, though busy, wasn’t rushed. He focused on his guests as if they were the only people in the world.

A gracious host, he gave us hugs and blessings as we left.

This is the image I have of Charles Chaput. That’s why I couldn’t recognize the picture that was painted of the man in an article that appeared this week, criticizing the prelate for his conservatism, his half-hearted support for Donald Trump and his “rigidity.”
The writer suggested that the Pope, amply praised, would likely not elevate Chaput to the college of Cardinals with their accompanying signature red hats. But, the Archbishop, the writer said, was suited for “a red Trump hat.”

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I, of all people, have to acknowledge that. I am also aware that there is a large contingent in Philadelphia that has a problem with Archbishop Chaput because he isn’t “touchy-feely” in the manner of other clergyman and maintains a deep appreciation for the tradition, structure and culture of Catholicism.

He is a man of great erudition. I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read his newest book “Strangers in a Strange Land,” but I have practically memorized his “Render Unto Caesar.”  The older book sets out a blueprint for how to live as a Catholic in the secular world, balancing obligations to Caesar against our duty to our faithful selves.

His words have helped me in many a rhetorical battle with the “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” types.

But what I find particularly unfair in the profiles of Archbishop Chaput is the seeming shock at a man who reiterates obvious and established principles such as abortion is a sin, same sex marriage is not recognized by the church and there is no authority for the ordination of women, let alone a married priesthood.
Ah, but isn't it "obvious and established principles" that are actually under attack? The problem isn't Archbishop Chaput per se. It is the institution he represents -The Church. It is the Church that must be, if not destroyed, driven to scorn and irrelevance. It is precisely because Archbishop Chaput is an example of fidelity to the Church that he is in the crosshairs of the culture.

Thanks to Christine Flowers for defending a good man. He deserves it. So does the Church.


Good Housekeeping Wonders Where Have the Down Syndrome Children Gone

Good Housekeeping asks, "Where have all the Kids with Down Syndrome Gone?"

I think a better question would be "What have we done to the kids with Down Syndrome?"

Worth a read.


NYT Posts Pic of Severed Head of Trump Advisor on a Pike

I almost couldn't believe it but then I was like, "of course the New York Times would publish a picture of the severed head of a Trump advisor Stephen Miller's head on a pike."

This is disgusting. Sickening. And could be dangerous. But see, it's ok because the left are the good guys so...

HT Twitchy


Tell Me Again There's No LInk Between Darwinism and Eugenics

Please tell me again how there's no link whatsoever between Darwinism and eugenics.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


Report Card: Pope Francis on the “Evangelical Inspiration” of Catholic Education; New Study on Hookup Culture at Catholic Colleges Released

Pope Francis: ‘Evangelical’ Catholic Education Doesn’t ‘Obscure’ Catholic Identity

Catholic schools and colleges play a key role in evangelization and in creating a more humane world built on dialogue and hope, Pope Francis told members of the Congregation for Catholic Education, and this does not mean “obscuring one’s Catholic identity” but educating through “evangelical inspiration.”

Pope Francis expressed the importance of Catholic education, saying that young people who are “educated in a Christian way for dialogue, will come out of the classroom motivated to build bridges and, therefore, to find new answers to the many challenges of our times.”
“Dialogue, in fact, educates when the person relates with respect, esteem and sincere listening, and is expressed with authenticity without obscuring or softening one’s own identity nourished by evangelical inspiration,” he said. “Schools and universities are called to teach a method of intellectual dialogue aimed at seeking the truth.”

Bishop Zubik: Catholic Schools Harmed by ‘Godlessness’ in Society

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburg is set to offer a reorganization plan to reverse the diocese-wide decline in enrollment, but he understands that there’s more to it than demographic shifts. There is also “a sense of godlessness in society” that affects church attendance and Catholic school enrollment, he said.

Sold-Out 18th Year of V-Monologues at DePaul University

On the subject of “obscured” Catholic identity and godlessness, last weekend’s performances of the V[ ] Monologues at DePaul University—for the 18th year!—were reportedly sold out.
“Easily one of the most animated and aggressive performances of the night,” according to the student newspaper, was a student actress “screaming ‘[extremely vulgar reference to female part]’ from the audience and eventually making everyone in the room scream it with her in attempt to reclaim the word from all negative connotations.”

New Study: Catholic Colleges’ Religious Identity Affects Hookup Culture

Jason King, professor of theology at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, PA, has published a study aimed at discovering how Catholic identity affects the hookup culture. The study, “Faith with Benefits: Hookup Culture on Catholic Campuses (2017),” concludes that “Catholic identity does affect hookup culture—but not in a simple or straightforward way.”
“It can hinder hooking up, change its meaning, or direct energy away from it,” writes King. “Its effects depend on how an institution supports Catholic identity, and on the students’ own Catholic faith.”

Trump Administration Withdraws Defense of ‘Transgender Bathroom’ Policy

The Trump administration has decided not to appeal a federal court injunction that barred enforcement of the Obama administration’s guidelines requiring all schools which receive federal funding to allow students who identify as the opposite gender to use opposite-sex bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities, reports Joan Desmond of the National Catholic Register.
The Obama administration had appealed the ruling by a federal district court in Texas, but the reversal by the Trump administration allows the injunction to remain while the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the matter with oral arguments on March 28. It is not yet clear how the new administration will argue that case, or if it will simply rescind the Department of Education’s interpretation of the Title IX law

Please continue reading at The Cardinal Newman Society>>>

*subhead*Catholic college.*subhead*