Libertarians in favor of State Imposition of Sexual Orthodoxy.

I have been absolutely stunned by the Libertarian move into Leftist Totalitarianism.

One would think that "liberty" meant not interfering in people's lives unless (a) it was really important and (b) there was no other alternative.

But we have to add a third, stand-alone element: the State can interfere with people's lives in order to enforce the new orthodoxy of the Sexual Revolution.

//In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court assumed without deciding that the government has a compelling interest in providing free abortifacients (more astonishment from the Founders) but it found there were less restrictive means of accomplishing this goal than forcing religious business-owners to provide it. The Court expressed similar skepticism in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, directing the parties to work out an acceptable alternative.

Under RFRA, may a religious zealot “shoot somebody” because he says God told him to? Of course not. Enforcing criminal law is always a compelling government interest. In the 25 years of the federal RFRA’s existence, there has been no case – not one – of the type Johnson claims to fear.

Perhaps Johnson’s sympathy toward the LGBT agenda predisposes him to accept those activists’ propaganda at face value. But there’s no excuse for either intentional or lazy misrepresentation of the fundamental First Amendment issues arising from the LGBT cultural onslaught. Conservatives looking for an alternative to the major-party candidates should keep looking.//


This is perfectly consistent with Mary Eberstadt's argument in her new book that "protection of the sexual revolution" explains so much of modern culture.

Tarzan Movie

A friend of mine who is a Baptist Pastor and has been coming to our Aquinas study group said that he had just seen the new Tarzan movie.

He said it was a good movie except for the gratuitous anti-Catholicism which made the villain a Catholic who killed people with his rosary.

He said it was obviously intended to appeal to anti-Catholic sentiments in that this element would be insulting to Catholics and unnecessary to the movie.

Could you imagine a movie where the villain is a devout Muslim who kills people with the Koran?

Of course not.

I was going to see this movie. If I had, without this warning, I would have been blindsided by this and had to sit there as a captive, once again, being surprised by yet another example of my faith being used as a "stock villain." I may still see it on Netflicks, but at least I will have been warned.

Are we are at a point where the only "permissible" villains are Nazis, Catholics and fundamentalist Evangelicals?

If so, what does that have to say about Mary Eberstadt's thesis about the shift in culture against Christianity?

I thought that the side that wanted to kill "useless eaters" lost that war.

Another one for the Eberstadt files.

Catholic Nursing Home Successfully Sued for Refusing Euthanasia

Chalk up another success for secularist humanists in Belgium.

Free-thinking Puritans

The sour reaction of some people to a demonstration of grace supports the thesis that Mary Eberstadt laid out in "It's Dangerous to Believe."

When a Delta passenger went into cardiac arrest on a plane, Tim Tebow stepped in to pray for him. But many are saying he did the wrong thing. The Delta crew immediately went to work to try to save a passenger's life after he suffered a major heart attack on board. But while a physician assistant stepped in to administer CPR, Tim Tebow left his own seat to pray for the man. Tebow bent over the man's distraught wife, hugging and praying with her and her friend. When the plane landed the man was rushed to the hospital. Tebow took the stricken man's wife to the hospital and stayed with her until she got the devastating news that her husband died from the attack. One of the passengers on board posted about the experience on Facebook. "I watched Tim pray with the entire section of the plane for this man. He made a stand for God in a difficult situation," the post said. But many do not share the same sentiment. Even though Tebow prayed with the man's wife, took her to the hospital, and stayed with her until the doctor told them the sad news, many are criticizing him for praying in public. "Tim Tebow was getting in the way while trying to be a missionary on a plane? What a putz!" said one commenter on an Orlando Sentinel article. "Prayed? Give me a break. Get out of the way and let modern medicine take care of the sick. Idiot," wrote another. Some are even claiming he was only being selfish by praying for the man's wife. "Tim Tebow did nothing, because prayer does nothing. The young medical professional who attempted CPR and actually tried to save the man's life actually DID something. What Tebow did was engage in a narcissistic ritual," said one commenter on a People magazine blog. Many say the negative comments show first hand the problems of living in a culture that is increasingly becoming more antagonistic to Christianity. "Tim Tebow did what any caring person would/should do," one commentator fired back. "He provided what the family needed most at the time-someone to show compassion and caring."

Here is Eberstadt:

"Contrary to what is sometimes argued among Christians themselves, secularist progressivism is not a nihilistic worldview. To the contrary: it embraces an alternative orthodoxy and a well-developed (and still developing) body of beliefs. The fundamental impulse leading to the penalizing of Christian believers today is not libertarian. It is instead neo-puritanical— that is, it is aimed at safeguarding its own body of revealed and developed truths, and at marginalizing, silencing, and punishing its traditional competitors."

Eberstadt, Mary. It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies (Kindle Locations 718-722). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

And:

"In England— which is now a virtual assembly line of such cases— a gardener who volunteered in a prison chapel was disciplined for quoting from the New Testament. 18 Several street preachers in the sceptred isle have lately been jailed for reading passages from the Bible aloud in public. 19 In one such case, a judge lectured the preacher on which exact passages in Leviticus could be read without penalty (the judge explained that Leviticus 20: 13 was out of bounds, because it uses the word abomination). A representative from the preacher’s defense team, Christian Legal Centre, responded, “The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren’t fit for public consumption.” 20 In another case, a teacher in Somerset asked a sick student if she would like a prayer. The student declined, and the teacher did not pray— upon which the student’s parents complained and the school fired her, with the authorities defining a prayer offer as “bullying.”
Step back for a moment to consult reality. In what possible, imaginable way does it harm anyone if someone else is praying for them? If you are secularist, and believe that prayer itself shares the empirical status of magic wands and unicorns, what possible grief could come of it? At least since Diagoras of Melos in the fifth century BC, unbelievers have charged religious devotees with irrationality, for believing in things unseen. But is it not commensurately irrational to believe you are being injured by someone talking to something that you don’t believe exists in the first place? Who is harmed?

Eberstadt, Mary. It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies (Kindle Locations 791-804). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.