The Order of Montjoie

We are all relieved to know that Mikey Pfleger, the Catholic priest at Saint Sabina’s on Chicago’s South Side (what is it about the South Side of Chicago?) who had a little hiccup calling America “the greatest sin against God” and making fun of Hillary (which is fine generally) for being white, I guess, has now been returned to his duties after a short hiatus, with a brave pledge to utterly avoid repentance or introspection.  In the Chicago Tribune, Pfleger was reported to say:

“I want to say one thing today. The Tribune asked, can you be Catholic and an activist? I say, absolutely. Absolutely. You cannot be Catholic and not be an activist. That’s the Gospel,” he said.

Really?  That’s the Gospel?  Wow.  Have I ever been misinformed. 

Right now a “trial” is underway in British Columbia before a “human rights commission” in which some Muslims who were offended by a Mark Steyn article in Maclean’s magazine have brought a complaint to have the article declared hate speech.  This would be laughable in America.  Unfortunately, in Canada this is serious business.  Dean Steacy, a Canadian “human rights commissioner,” said, in essence, that what we call freedom of speech is merely “an American concept” and of no importance to him.   More important is the right not to be offended.  Articles and books are under attack for “encouraging hatred,” or that are ”likely to cause contempt” … for anything apparently.  National Review Article  Fortunately this is getting a lot of press in Canada and there is finally some backlash appearing.  The law giving the commissions the power to decide these things is under attack.  But in the meantime, churches have been fined for saying things that offend homosexuals (have they ever charged a Muslim imam?), a church group was punished for refusing to rent its facilities for a lesbian wedding, and all sorts of ridiculous stuff. 

And now an article critical of Islam — well, actually probably more critical of the West’s response to Islam — may be criminalized if a bunch of bureaucrats think it is “likely to cause contempt” for Muslims.  Which raises a question.  Have the commissioners read the Koran?

I’ve been sick of Google for a long time and it’s slanted ads, news, and it’s complete failure to recognize American military oriented holidays and religious holidays on its banner.  Suddenly it occured to me.  Gee, there are other search engines.  So I’ve now deleted Google from the favorites on all of the computers I used and am using Yahoo.  Dogpile and Ask dot com are also perfectly fine search engines.  Maybe the little things we do matter more than we think.  Funny thing is, I Googled Yahoo to get the link to replace Google.

Mao Tse Tung may have considered himself a philosopher but, whatever you think of that, he was certainly a keen observer of politics and human behavior. His observation that “political power flows from the barrel of a gun” is a prime example of Mao’s insightfulness, and as concise a summary of the multitude of reasons for the Second Amendment as I can imagine. Although, surely, Mao didn’t mean it that way.

Simply stated, it’s this.  If, as is no doubt true, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, then if a society wants political power to be consolidated, it should limit the right to own and carry weaponry to the fewest number of persons possible, preferably those people with an interest in or under the control of the Consolidating Power.  Think Europe.  If, on the other hand, a society prefers that political power be as diffuse as possible, then the right to own and carry weaponry should be as widely available as possible.  Think Second Amendment. 

This is one of the reasons I keep saying that the American Revolution was a true revolution the like of which the world had not seen before and has not seen since.  The French Revolution consolidated power in an elite; the Russian Revolution concentrated power in the “Bolsheviks,” the “majority” that was really a tiny minority, and Communist Revolution in China the same.  Sure, they overturned the existing power structure but merely replaced the people in the structure — not the structure.  The American Revolution replaced the structure.  One of the things it took from the English was the notion of widely available arms; although in England this right was constantly shifting.  First only nobility, then Protestants but not Catholics, and so on, were recognized as bearing this right.  The American Revolution recognized the right but replaced the structure.  This right was now available to every free citizen (a category that has continually expanded) regardless of affiliation.

Again, this is one of the reasons that American conservatism is, in fact, true radicalism.

I believe in evolution but if you don’t or just want to explore interesting stuff about alternatives, here’s a great site: Design of Life

Evolution as a scientific theory doesn’t bother my religious side at all. Of course, if it’s wrong, that would be interesting, too. I don’t think it is, but there appear to be a lot more questions out there about it than we may be being told.

“Black” liberation theology is in the news these days thanks to Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, but liberation theology in general goes back to the 1960s or slightly earlier and was popular among “radicals” in South America for many years where it was known without the “black” prefix.  In any event, James Cone’s iteration of BLT gives you the nub of either formulation:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.  If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.  The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community …  Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.  What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.  Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

To understand South American liberation theology, you just delete “white people” and insert “wealthy land owners and multi-national corporations,” and substitute “indigenous poor” for “black.”

The defect — and it is a defect — in this theology is that it turns the relationship between the human “worshipper” (being generous) and God upside down.  God exists to serve the political and emotional needs of the human theology professor.   The professor “accepts” or “rejects” God.  The professor directs God to participate in this or that activity.  This is entirely upside down and displays a self-centeredness of amazing proportions. 

This is not a global warming blog, but I suppose this stuff fits under the Order’s “facts are facts” principle. Anyway, the following three paragraphs are from a recent news article:

A newly released survey of climate scientists reveals that while a majority believes humans contribute to global warming, a majority also feels that climate change is not the planetary emergency some global warming activists claim.

The survey for George Washington University of nearly 500 scientists belonging to accredited organizations found only 41 percent felt global warming poses very great danger in the next 50 to 100 years. Forty-four percent rate it as only moderately dangerous — 13 percent see relatively little danger.

One thing virtually of them agrees on: They do not trust the media. Only 1 percent rated either broadcast or cable news about climate change as “very reliable.” 

99 percent don’t trust the media on this issue. Who said scientists were stupid?

Well, no, but that’s the theory of this author, Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, who is a minister, lawyer and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job).

The article is here.  Is Our Religion Killing Us?

The analysis is here.

Buzz doesn’t like the Bible’s command to be fruitful and multiply because there’s too darned many humans, and every new one produces to more greenhouse gases that are causing global warming which will flood the earth and cause starvation and disease.  Oh and drought, too.  Of course, overpopulation is caused by the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormons, and maybe the Jews, too.  Maybe Muslims, too, a little bit.  Not a lot, of course.  Buzz even manages to work in women and gays.  (Hint: They’re oppressed.  By the Church, not the Muslims.)  Therefore, priests should preach that people should only have two children.  Plus the government should end tax breaks for having children and start building desalinization plants.  We don’t want to be like the Aztecs!

Hell, why not just tell everyone to be gay?  Then they won’t have any children.  Buzz is a great name for this guy because he flits from theory to theory like a little bee, picking up a little of this and a little of that but not actually digesting any of it.  Ultimately his message opposes human life, human progress, democratic institutions and religious dogma.  (By the way, “dogma” is a good word, not a bad one.  It means a system of principles or tenets of a church.)  

There are simply too many questions.  No one knows how many humans the Earth can sustain.  The science of anthropogenic global warming is not settled.  The countries populating the fastest right now are not Roman Catholic or Mormon countries.  Even if anthropogenic global warming were real, no one knows what the results will be.

But Buzz buzzes right past all of that, because what he wants is control and a warm feeling of moral superiority.

Some questions I have about manmade global warming are, given the fact that the global temperatures in the Middle Ages were three or four degrees warmer than global temperatures today, and there was very little human activity causing greenhouse gases at the time, what caused that warming?  If temperatures are warming today — and there’s even some issue about that — how does anyone know that what caused warming in the Middle Ages isn’t doing it today?  And if the Middle Ages were that much warmer and the world didn’t flood and everyone die, what makes anyone think that will happen now?

Buzz buzz buzz.

Saint George is the parton saint of England and the country of Georgia.  April 23 is his feast day, the date tradition holds he was martyred for refusing to persecute fellow Christians as ordered by Caesar in 303 A.D.  The most famous story of St. George goes as follows:  In Selena, Libya there was a dragon who terrorized the townfolk.  The dragon at first demanded two sheep every day to eat, but soon the townspeople ran out of sheep, and the dragon demanded people.  The towns people drew lots every day to see who would be the dragon’s next meal, and one day the King’s young daughter was chosen.  The king offered half his kingdom to anyone who would take her place (well, that person’s heirs, I suppose), but there were no takers because the people had agreed there would be no substitutions. 

So the King’s daughter was dressed in fine gown and led out to the marsh where the dragon lived.  After some time, Saint George happened along on his horse, dressed in full armor.  The saint asked the young lady what she was doing, and she begged him to leave so that he would not die as well.  But Saint George stayed with her, and when the dragon appeared, he attacked it and killed it with his lance.  The King offered Saint George half his Kingdom as a reward (seems to be a theme here) but the saint turned him down and went on his way.

Happy Saint George’s Day.

I’ve been looking at a blog that is now linked in the blogroll called Brits At Their Best.  Read it.  There’s a ton there.  It says most everything I’ve been thinking about putting here.