Showing posts with label that which dare not. Show all posts
Showing posts with label that which dare not. Show all posts

Monday, December 08, 2008

On Saturday evening, a group of people gathered just outside St. Peter's Piazza to "protest the pope and the Vatican".

They were mad about something. But it was difficult to get a straight story out of them as to what, exactly, they were mad about.





What did strike me, though, was how, well, sad they all were. How utterly cut off from reality.


I spoke to this man, and asked him, "What evidence do you have that the Vatican thinks it's OK to kill homosexuals? In the last fifty years, say, how many times has the Church actually said this?"

It was as if he could not hear the words.

Actually, I wanted to tell him, I think the Church is more interested in getting you to stop killing yourselves.

Monday, November 10, 2008

It's all about tolerance, man.

More from the Peacelovegroovy Tolerance Club

Violence urged against marriage supporters
A Christian legal expert is calling for an investigation of a number of homosexual activists for advocating violence against supporters of traditional marriage.

...

"A number of homosexuals and homosexual activists are actually calling for violence, calling for churches to be burned to the ground -- churches that supported these amendments," he explains. The call for violence includes killing Christians.

In a written statement Barber quotes from several blogs --

*
"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*
"I'm going to give them something to be f--ing scared of....I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done."
*
"Burn their f--ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."
*
"I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."
*
"I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."
*
"Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics [sic] that were big supporters of Prop 8....As far as mormons and catholics...I warn them to watch their backs."


Charming little incident on the bus the other night. Heading for the San Pietro train station, hopped on the 881 bus and took a seat next to a nice looking young African priest. I was fairly tired so I didn't notice right away the little clutch of...shall we say...alternately oriented and gendered persons, cavorting in front of me. But they must have noticed the presence of clergy because they started a little theatrical number about two feet in front of us, loudly kissing and embracing each other.

I watched for a moment, then turned to my seatmate and said loudly, "So I guess this is for your benefit, huh?"

He smiled, somewhat surprised, and said, "Yes, I think so."

I replied, "It certainly looks as if some people's daddies didn't pay enough attention to them when they were kids."

The miscreants glared at us and sulked. I guess they spoke English.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Says it all

PinkNews is offering to those in same-sex civil partnerships a how-to guide for gay divorce.

There's something funny, and very telling, that among the grounds for the dissolution of a same-sex civil partnership is, "adultery".

"OK guys. Sit down and let me explain some things to you..."

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

In case it disappears:

Gay wedding at St Bartholomew’s EC1
by Rev. Dr. Peter Mullen, rector of St Michael’s Cornhill and St Sepulchre without Newgate
The Bishop of London is in a high huff
Because Dr Dudley has married a puff;
And not just one puff – he’s married another:
Two priests, two puffs and either to other.
“It isn’t a wedding, for that’s not allowed;
They’ve just come together and promised and vowed
To shack up and snug up, to have and to hold:
Ooh aren’t we radical! Ooh aren’t we bold!”
Now here’s a most queer and most wonderful thing:
He’s given his hand, he’s offered his ring;
And each to the other forever will bend,
After their troll in the coach up West End.
Not a flash wedding, no pics in Hello!
Just a honeymoon cottage, convenient so.
Of such Dr Dudley a goldmine has found,
From shaven-head puftas the nuptial pink pound.
The new Church of England embraces diversity,
A fresh modulation on ancient perversity:
“I’m C of E and PC so don’t think it odd of me
To offer a licence and blessing for sodomy.”



...the love that won't shut up.

Sodomy can seriously damage your health

Actually, it can and does.

But, as we know, truth ... you know, that thing that has no interest in our preferences, fantasies or delusions .... is no defence in Upsidedownland.

As this is mostly a family-oriented blog, I won't give the headline here. But I was advised that a useful keyword to use when searching for information on the physical harms of anal sex is "lesions".

Pretty much says everything right there.

I've probably mentioned this before. I had a conversation with a friend of mine a while ago and summed up the opposition to the whole "gay rights" movement, saying, "It's very simple. That does not go there. She responded, "But if fits there." Yeah, said I, and it would fit down a vacuum cleaner hose too, but it's not supposed to go there either.

But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't fit there. Homosexual activity does a lot of really horrible damage to men. It's just one of those nasty little facts (you remember 'facts' don't you?) that sits like a grumpy troll on the bridge to the happy gay fantasyland where it's all about "equality" and "rights".

"Facts".

You can look it up.


Anti-Realism [2]: Rejection, in one or another form or area of inquiry, of realism, the view that there are knowable mind-dependent facts, objects, or properties. Metaphysical realists make the general claim that there is a world of mind-independent objects [objective reality]. Realists in particular areas make more specific or limited claims. Thus moral realists hold that there are mind-independent moral properties, mathematical realists that there are mind-independent mathematical facts…[etc]. Anti-realists deny either that facts of the relevant sort are mind-independent or that knowledge of such facts is possible [3].

Relativism [6]: The denial that there are certain kinds of universal truths. There are two main types, cognitive, and ethical. Cognitive relativism holds that there are no universal truths about the world: the world has no intrinsic characteristics, there are just different ways of interpreting it[7]… [Philosopher Richard] Rorty says, e.g. That “’Objective truth’ is no more and no less than the best idea we currently have about how to explain what is going on.” Critics of cognitive relativism contend that it is self-referentially incoherent, since it presents its statements as universally true [i.e. It is presented as a “fact” that there are no facts], rather than relatively so.

Ethical relativism is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice … Subjectivism … maintains that individual choices are what determine the validity of a moral principle. Its motto is ‘Morality lies in the eyes of the beholder.”…The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical objectivism, which asserts that although cultures may differ in their moral principles, some moral principles have universal validity. Even if e.g. a culture does not recognize a duty to refrain from gratuitous harm, that principle is valid and the culture should adhere to it.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: there is no such thing as "transsexualism"

In the world of reality, when a man thinks he was "born into a woman's body" it's called "being insane".

Monday, October 06, 2008

Classic script




Old bigotry; new players:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and city supervisors threatened to withdraw Catholic Charities funding and questioned its status as a non-profit. The board of supervisors unanimously passed a resolution accusing the Vatican of being a "meddling...foreign country"; said Archbishop George Niederauer and Catholic Charities should "defy" Cardinal Levada; and urged the cardinal "to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive."

Monday, July 28, 2008

An acquaintance of ours makes a fine point:

There's no particular reason that different forms of disagreement with Church's understanding of human nature should be mutually consistent, and yet I can't help but be struck by the irony: in an era when some people are arguing that homosexual acts should be approved because gay and lesbian people are "born that way," other people (or occasionally the same people, just depending on whether the tides are high or low) are arguing that biological maleness and femaleness are basically irrelevant to what sort of people we are. To the latter camp, suggesting otherwise is the great sin of essentialism. "Biology is not destiny" was one of the classic feminist slogans.

Think about it.


In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is every reason to believe that those who oppose Catholic teaching are actually incapable of making "mutually consistent" arguments for their defence of popular vices. The rejection of "Catholic teaching" is simply the rejection of rationality and even the notion of logical consistency must be jettisoned in order to achieve this.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

If you were describing all this to a space alien, where would you start?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

I think I'm thinking what he's thinking

"The Catholic Church does not deserve to survive if it is so gutless."

In a nutshell:

The former Catholic Children’s Society, at Purley, in Surrey,
has changed its name to the Cabrini Children’s Society on giving up its Catholic
principles in order to comply with the government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations
(SOR) and give children into adoption by homosexual couples, thus condoning same-sex
unions. The Church teaches that putting children into the care of an invalid union is
a gravely moral matter.

The Catholic Faithful need to know that they’ve just lost £10 million (the society's
assets), and been sold down the river of political expediency as it is now
technically outside Church jurisdiction.


more here, and here .

Friday, May 16, 2008

Moral Sanity and the Logical Principle of Non-Contradiction

If you are standing in the room, you cannot also be not standing in the room at the same time.

If you are going up the escalator, you cannot at the same time be going down the escalator.

These are examples of what logicians like to call the Logical Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Wiki:
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”


It is the foundation of all rational thought. Without it, no sense can be made of anything and nothing can be discovered, grasped, taught, conveyed or decided. Without this principle, all science, engineering and economics would halt. Without it, only irrationality and chaos could result in human endeavour.

Yes, I know, there are lots of philosophers, mostly recent ones, who refuse to accept this.

And we have the results before us every day in the papers. And in Parliament.

The ignorance of and refusal to accept the L.P. of Non C. results in statements like this:

My starting point is that I have always felt that where the science
is essentially persuasive, as I believe it to be, we should have a model of
facilitation. We should go with embryo research because of the tremendous human
opportunities that it offers. That is to say, I take an empiricist, pragmatic,
instrumental view, rather than the view that some abstract principle should inveigh
against the possibility that such research should be allowed or
extended.


and in politicians being elected to Parliament who think they've said something profound and clever because they have used the word "inveigh".

Well, I was taking my late morning bath this morning after tea n' toast and reading the Spectator in the bath, as I often do, when I became very excited.

Theo Hobson met Gene Robinson. Yes, that Gene Robinson. He's in the Old Country for Lambeth, even though he hasn't been invited. In fact, he was specifically dis-invited, nevertheless, he's here.

Mr. Robinson told a group of admirers that his purpose in life is to create a new Christianity. Specifically Gay Christianity, for want of a better euphemism. The Church of Holy Gayness. He says that the Anglican Church is just the place for it.

Why?

Because it is the only one in the world that makes no bones, and never has made any bones, about accepting logical contradictions over tea and biscuits.

Apparently, in the Anglican Communion, water flows uphill and one can indeed be both in the room and not in the room at the same time.

Specifically:
"The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. It's position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Both are true."


I have to say, when I saw this statement I was filled with joy.

AT LAST! I had found someone who can say plainly what Anglicanism is all about. Sodomy, infanticide and fundamental irrationality. Chaos, depravity and murder.

I believe this explains very well what has happened in this country.

Anglicanism invented political correctness.

Here's how it happened.

The nation's leaders abandoned the Faith when they repudiated the Church. (Maybe they didn't think they were doing this, but we have since learned that you can't separate the Faith from the Church any more than you can separate the soul from the body.)

The nation, after a period of rebellion, realizing they lived in an island and there was nowhere else to go, found they had no choice but to go along with it and followed suit, albeit more slowly and less enthusiastically. Thus the Anglican solution was born: let's just not talk about the fact that the entire nation has apostatized and abandoned God and in doing so, also abandoned its own identity. As long as we don't talk about it, things can just carry on and nothing bad will happen.

And nothing bad did, with a few exceptions. What is happening now, with the broad secularization of the whole world, happened then too. It seemed OK to go along with the Protestant revolution because nearly everyone else was doing it. Eventually, it was the Catholics who were seen as foreign and strange. The True Faith had been turned into an interloper and alien in its own land.

The bits and pieces of Catholicism that were allowed to survive in this newly manufactured "religion", were the carefully sanitized bits that fit into the political expediency of the day. But Christianity is politically inconvenient and one by one, they have had to be jettisoned as well.

Having been torn from its foundations, the Faith slowly leaked away until it died out completely.

But nature abhors a vacuum and the devil can't resist an empty house, and moved right on in, animating the corpse which, somewhat gruesomely, continues to wear the ecclesiastical clothes and occupy the buildings, gambolling lewdly around, flopping its limp and rotting appendages in a grotesque parody of Christian worship.

The vestiges of Christianity had all but seeped out of the "national church" by the end of the 18th century and we got Rationalism and the Enlightenment. But man cannot live on this high falutin' brainy stuff alone, and needs spirituality, even if it is counterfeit, so the ordinary folk clung to the bits and pieces of genuine, that is Catholic, Christianity as long as they continued to float whilst doing what the English do and refusing to talk about it.

This carried on until, about the beginning of the 20th century, that colossal slap-in-the-face epoch in which no one could maintain any delusions any more. Life without religion was tried, but found impossible, and we have ended up with what we have now, sex and personal gratification, nihilism and crushing indifference and the sudden exponential growth of the occult.

Oh, and pretty big rates of suicide, divorce, abortion, crime and spiritual emptiness.

That's because of what the headshrinkers like to call "cognitive dissonance".

Wiki:
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling when a person begins to understand that something the person believes to be true is, in fact, not true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one's beliefs.


Taken as a lifestyle choice, the refutation of the L. P. of Non C., makes you go crazy. The dissonance builds up in the mind and the soul until it becomes like being permanently locked in a noisy room. You can't escape it and you can't shut it off. It's what happened to Friedrich Nietzsche and Winston Smith.

The one thing Anglicans do that has become a British national trait, perhaps the defining British national trait, is to not talk about what we're talking about. The trouble is that this causes massive, nation wide cognitive dissonance, which is what we see in the papers every day.

We've gone from not wanting to talk about the Papacy or the nature of the Church, to not talking about anything that might be upsetting. The let's-not-talk-about-it default position of the English was, I submit, created by the Anglican schism and has since spread into every aspect of British life, and has ultimately put the nation into its current parlous and perilous condition.

Our desire not to talk about Islam. About abortion. About Multiculturalism. About the EU. About the loss of British sovereignty. About the 200,000 children getting flushed into the sewer every year. About the absurdities of expecting the abortion and teenage pregnancy rate to fall whilst bombarding the kids with sex talks and condoms in schools. About the fact that "Asian" immigrants and blacks are statistically responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country. About the fact that the British, once a free people have abandoned their integrity and freedom and are being ruled by a toxic combination of Islamic terrorists, Brussels marxists, and gross salivatory appetite.

In all of this, we continue not to talk about what we are talking about. It's the Anglican way. Well, I've always wanted to know where it comes from, and now I know.

Thanks Gene.

Anglicanism. The one creed in the world that requires its adherents to accept logical contradictions by the simple method of not talking about anything but the weather.

At least with Islam, adherents are given something to do to work off the rage created by being forced to accept things that are patently untrue and wicked.

I used to try desperately to get Anglicans to tell me what they thought they meant by the word "catholic" in the creed at their service. I was puzzled by the fact that none of them could speak in plain sensible English about the origins of their church, or about their notions of ecclesiology.

I had yet to learn that when people are forced to accept things they know are not true, as an obvious logical contradiction, they can do one of two things: go mad and become violent (what I like to call the Islamic solution) or apply the Anglican principle. The latter is a kind of glaze, like aspic, that is poured over the logical rift to try to fill in the gap. It holds the whole thing together, in a fragile sort of way. But it requires one thing to keep it going: the pledge of everyone in the room, never ever to talk about it. Never ever to disturb the "consensus" that holds the jelly together. The first person to dig their spoon in it and try to find out how it's made, destroys it for everyone.

Anglicanism was held together for five hundred years by this massive agreement never ever to talk about the big questions. What sort of church are we? What do we believe? I think Druid Rowan said something like it recently, as he huffed and shuffled over the Shariah law debacle. I paraphrase from memory, "Anglicanism holds together by means of deciding not to decide on things."

Well, Gene has gone and blown it. He has forced it all out into the open. As long as we didn't say out loud that we like sodomy and abortion, the Christians could maintain their denial and wouldn't have to go off on their own or join the papists.

But Gene has dug his spoon into the jelly to get the shrimps out and the whole thing has fallen down.

Gene talks about the future of the Christian world, and it is gay. Perhaps not particularly happy, but certainly gay.

Actually, I have to say that Gene showing up and telling everyone what he thinks while the Anglicans talk about the weather in Lambeth palace, is exactly what is needed. The attempt to stick the jelly back together by not inviting him is a perfect example of what I mean.

But Gene, you go girl, you keep sticking your spoon in and you GET that shrimp.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Now listen you queeah

Buckley was right. Gore Vidal was as nasty little queer and pornographer.

Imagine what kind of man would try to soil a film like Ben Hur.

In interviews for the 1986 book Celluloid Closet, and later the 1995 documentary of the same name, screenwriter Gore Vidal asserts that he persuaded director Wyler to allow a carefully veiled homoerotic subtext between Messala and Ben-Hur. Vidal says his aim was to explain Messala's extreme reaction to Ben-Hur's refusal to name fellow Jews. Surely, Vidal argued, Messala should have been able to understand that Ben-Hur, his close friend since childhood, would not be willing to name the names of his fellow Jews to a Roman officer. Vidal suggested a motivation to Wyler: Messala and Ben-Hur had been homosexual lovers while growing up, and then separated for a few years while Messala was in Rome. When Messala returns to Judea, he wants to renew the relationship with Ben-Hur, but Ben-Hur is no longer interested. It is the anger of a scorned lover which motivates Messala's vindictiveness toward Ben-Hur. Since the Hollywood production code would not permit this to appear on screen explicitly, it would have to be implied by the actors. Vidal suggested to Wyler that he would direct Stephen Boyd to play the role that way, but not tell Heston.


What a cur.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Look, it's very simple

That, does not go there.

It doesn't

And we don't have to say it does in order to make a certain lobby group happy.

Sorry, but really!

Is there some reason we can't get that?

Monday, March 03, 2008

He's mad

Heh.

Was just advised that Fr. Gravel is mad at us.

Can't imagine why...

Gravel said he was "uncomfortable" with the bill "because the member
putting it forward is part of a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which
in my view is a rather extreme fanatical group, when it comes to life." Gravel
continued, "I'm pro-life but I'm not part of the pro-life movement in Canada."

The priest who had promised his Bishop before entering politics that he would not
take positions that went against the doctrines of the Church, added, "I also think
this bill will open the door to a re-criminalization of women who have abortions,
and that's not to be desired.

"I'm against abortion, but this is no way to solve the problem of abortion. It's
through education, through outreach, through helping women who have undesired
pregnancies I think that's how to solve the problem of abortion. But not
recriminalizing abortion, I don't ever want to see that happen"

Speaking in French, Gravel acknowledged that the murder of a pregnant woman is
abominable. "But," he added, "at the same time when the fetus is still in the
mother they're just one being. Its only when the fetus is born is when it becomes
another being, when it becomes a human being."

(More details tomorrow when Hansard comes available.)

Friday, February 22, 2008

"From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta"

I'm working on (thinking about) a post on the concept of "biological determinism" that is a pet peeve of the alternatively gendered.

The new county law states, "Gender identity means an individual's actual or perceived gender including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."


I once had the opportunity to interview a woman who did a lot of work on life n' family issues at the UN. She told me about "gender".

It's not just for French class any more.

It proves the adage that there is a Monty Python routine for absolutely everything


Look boys. It's very simple.

That

does not go

there
.

Even if it "fits".

It would fit down a vacuum cleaner hose too, but neither apparatus is designed for that purpose.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

You'd think there were more important things to think about

in Russia.


Population of Russia, in millions.

Vladimir Putin (bless his black little Commie heart) seems to concur:

"My approach toward gay parades and sexual minorities is very simple. It is directly linked to my responsibilities. One of the key problems of our country is the demographic problem."