Just a reminder that pretending to be a hero who fights for the west in movies doesn’t make it so in reality.

Details: Is it true that when you stay at hotels you tear out the Bible page that condemns homosexuality?

Ian McKellen: I do, absolutely. I’m not proudly defacing the book, but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I’m not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages — Leviticus 18:22 — that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.

That a member of the race that fought the book burning Nazis is doing this is frankly an insult to the memory of those who fought to destroy them but Sir Ian’s actions bring up three interesting thoughts.

The first is the obvious question to one familiar with scripture:  Why pull the pages from Leviticus but not from St. Paul’s 2nd letter to the Corinthians:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I can’t see why one would leave St. Paul and the New Testament alone when it is much more read than Leviticus.  If the goal is to prevent people from reading that message the logical move would be to pull both or if one is removing only one, the latter.  I’m presuming it’s sheer ignorance on his part but given attempts to spin the New Testament lately by revisionist scholars perhaps doing so would be damaging to those efforts.  It would be a public statement that Christ stands against this sin and this would undermine too many pretending something else.

The Second thought comes from this ironic passage via Instapundit concerning syrian refugees:

Sir Ian McKellen comments on the influx of Syrian refugees into Western nations. McKellen says these people should ‘be looked after’ until they can return to their home country and that we should trust authorities to weed out any individual who poses a threat.

I find this a rather odd contradiction give Islam’s great love for Homosexuality as the very publicly gay Milo Yiannopoulos:

So you can accuse me of being “islamophobic” if you want, because no, I don’t want to be shouted at or spat on in the street. Maybe my gayness is standing in the way of a Muslim utopia… but I’m going to be selfish here and say maybe we don’t import all the people who want to murder me.

I’m serious. Gay people are getting stoned to death all the time in the Middle East, and not in the fun way: in the throw-big-rocks-at-your-head-until-you-die way. I don’t mean to be callous, but what are we gaining by letting these people in? Why can’t we help them with overseas aid? Why do they need to come here? Aren’t we just encouraging more of them to risk the trip by throwing our borders open?

and we’re not just talking ISIS either:

These are the attitudes we’re importing by allowing millions of Muslims to settle in western Europe. Sorry if that sounds intolerant, but remember women and gays aren’t just treated like shit by ISIS, but mainstream Muslim culture, too. I can’t remember how many Muslim countries have the death penalty for homosexuality. What is it, ten? Eleven?

If Sir Ian can’t handle the christian scriptures, thousands of people bearing the Koran or books of Hadiths which are still being used to kill gays all over the world under local law should be unbearable for him.

We don’t have any word on if Sir Ian feels compelled to tear pages out of the Koran or of Islamic Hadiths when he encounters them.  Larry King didn’t bother to ask, if he does perhaps he may choose to keep quiet about it.

I can’t imagine why.


Finally and most revealing is his self congratulatory statement of restraint saying it’s a choice between defacing the book or throwing it away altogether.

What’s so interesting is that there is an obvious 3rd choice:  Leave the book alone. 

While we often hear the culture portray Christians of all stripes as “puritanical” and “intolerant” there seems to be a distinct lack of christians defacing or destroying what would be considered “gay friendly” material when encountering it during travel.

The fact that the wealthy and comfortable Sir Ian doesn’t seem to have the restraint that’s shown by the average Christian speaks volumes about the supposed tolerance and open-mindedness of the left but I suspect it speaks to something else.

As I’ve said many times no amount of belief on my part or disbelief on someone else’s part changes has any bearing on the actual truth of Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular (or any other religion for that matter).

As a Catholic the truth of the faith is a given and while I might object to the long term cultural damage the changes the left have brought to society I don’t let myself be made crazy by them because in the end none of it changes eternal truths.  My primary responsibility is my own soul.  While I might pray for and advise others concerning said truths in the hope helping them gain eternal life & sparing them the sufferings of eternal damnation the final responsibility for their souls is ultimately their concern and while it’s sad I don’t allow it to keep me from functioning.

Yet to McKellen who considers scripture a fantasy to be ignored and is clearly an educated man simply can’t handle a page in a book.

Mind you he doesn’t have to read that page, he doesn’t have to open the book in fact he doesn’t have to open the particular drawer that the book is in.  Simply knowing that a page in a book in a drawer in a room condemns his life choices is too much for him.

Now if he believes the Bible is just a fable and Christianity is just a made up religion such an obsession to destruction is beneath a man as erudite and educated as Sir Ian McKellen.  It’s an act that is completely irrational.

But if I’m right and the whole thing, Jesus, God, Angels, Devils etc are in fact reality than said obsession makes perfect sense.  It would mean that the page in that book is a reminder of a truth that can be denied only for a time, a truth that his guardian angel whispers in his ear, a truth that at age seventy is closing in.

Proverbs says:  The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD, (Proverbs 9:10a).  I submit and suggest that Sir Ian’s apparent fear is completely rational and is a sign of hope for him, because there is always the chance that said fear will move him to different action.

I wish him luck.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4400

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

by baldilocks

Discovering the fallaciousness of an idea previously thought to be true can be traumatic. Indeed, some will refuse to even consider the fault lying in the foundation of an idea–in its premises–even when the hole in it is wide and deep.

Such is the case with respect to and discrimination in private business. You’re not allowed to do it (anymore), right? Well, that means that signs like this are mere bluster and delusion.


If you can’t refuse to serve blacks, disabled, gays, etc., then you don’t have that reservation. It’s that simple. You don’t think so? Read Title II of the Civil Rights Act again.

So when you see things like this happen, you shouldn’t be surprised.

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.m


According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

The CRA cracked the foundation of our country, further inserting government tentacles into private property. And the ingenuousness of CRA is this: it seems to guarantee the rights of those who are not white male Christians. Because of that perception, it will be impossible to fix without a whole lot of Sturm und Drang (in English, SHTF) about the rights of non-whites.

But all it really does is reserve the “right” of government to tell you how to conduct “your” business, actual rights be damned…no pun intended…or advise you of the consequences of resisting government regulation in this area. It’s a fifty-year-old fraud perpetrated on the American people. We’re seeing groups take advantage of the fraud more and more because the ideological children of the fraudsters have become imboldened of late.

I can’t imagine why that is so. (sarc)

Resistance is futile, baby

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her second novel, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2014.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or contribute to Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>


UPDATE: With the Pope’s visit to the US & the MSM spinning the above phrase it is a good time to provide this post to unspin those being played by the media.

There is no phrase of Pope Francis that has been more spun by the world’s media than Francis’ famous words from an early interview concerning homosexuality.

When taken in context the Pope’s meaning is quite clear:

Pope Francis said it was important to “distinguish between a person who is gay and someone who makes a gay lobby,” he said. “A gay lobby isn’t good.”

“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.”

However many articles & pieces in context one might write, this can not prevent ignorant & dishonest people from using the “Who am I to judge” phrase as an excuse to not only justify and advance Gay Marriage but to attack Catholics who point out that homosexual acts (rather than the orientation itself) have always been and remain a mortal sin.

So in the interest of explaining this to those who the media would deceive here is what you need to know:

What the Pope said in the most generic sense is this:

A person inclined to a sin, who is seeking God who is of good will–well who am I to judge him?

What the Pope didn’t say in any way shape or form, but what the media wants you to think he did is this:

A person who is proud of and flaunts their sin, well. who am I to judge him?

If you require further information let me go into detail after the jump:

Continue reading ““Who am I to Judge?” for Dummies”

by baldilocks


Last week’s Mozilla-Brendan Eich saga has spawned many conversations. I have been involved in more than one of these, and they have produced a good amount of frustration in me. This frustration is borne of the fact that many people in this allegedly Judeo-Christian nation are functionally illiterate as to what they don’t believe, and as to what they do.

When Jesus Christ died and rose again, His work was finished, as He proclaimed. However, both believer and non-believer alike seem to think that the work of the individual Christian is finished when he/she accepts Jesus. (This is not to say that a Christian must do many things to be saved; he/she needs only to do one thing. My Catholic friends differ about this, but that is a separate topic.)

We Christians do sin–mostly in spiritual pride, but also in other areas, and that is to be expected. However, all too many of us think that Christians have arrived at some point of imaginary perfection. As a result, conversations about individual sins—like homosexuality—spur accusations from both Christian and non-Christian alike.

“What about your divorce?”

“Have you ever fornicated?”

“Have you ever lied?”

“Have you ever killed someone or thought about it?”

“What about the Westboro Baptist Church?

“What about Steven Anderson in Arizona?”

“If you’ve sinned, then who are you to call homosexuality a sin or oppose same-sex marriage?”

And on and on. This sort of thing speaks to an idea that Christians are members of some sort of club which no one can join unless they become “sinless.” It also betrays the fact that few really read the source material, including alleged pastors.

Here on earth, Christianity is a journey–a walk in faith–to the Destination; it is not the Destination itself. We pick the Destination–Heaven–when we accept Jesus the Christ as our Lord and our Savior. (Many Christians ignore that first part.)

Paul called the purpose of that walk a “perfecting of the saints.” “Perfecting” is, perhaps, an unfortunate translation of the Greek word used. In my opinion, he means that saints (all Christians) are to be shaped and molded in the manner that a potter shapes and molds clay toward an end vessel, one that is of the potter’s desire. And, as we choose to be saved, we also choose the journey—the shaping and the molding.

During each individual’s journey, the Potter shows that person his/her sins; some of which that person may not have previously thought of as wrong. Then, through reading the Word, prayer, fasting, giving—through obedience and trust of the Potter—that person can be purged of his/her sin(s). But, again, this is a journey.

The Potter will spin you, shape you, mold you and cut off things He can’t use. And, often, these actions will not feel so good at first. But, your mission as the clay—should you choose to accept it—is to remain on the wheel.

(Side Note: in one of the conversions, I asked this question as a thought experiment: why hasn’t God destroyed San Francisco? The assumption was that if God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the celebration of homosexuality, then He should deal thusly with any other municipality for the same reason. Answer: since the finished work of Jesus the Christ, we live in the Dispensation—the Age—of Grace.)

One of the participants in the conversation suggested that if homosexuals did not struggle with the thoughts of homosexual acts, that he/she should not be labeled a homosexual. Conversely, this person said, that if a person still struggled with these thoughts, he/she wasn’t really saved.  I disagree, because, I used to struggle with wishing harm on those who have wronged me, but this wasn’t always so. I had to ask God to be free of those types of thoughts. And, I had to walk to that destination, that freedom (which, of course, does not mean that there aren’t other struggles with other sins in my life). And here’s another reason.

Therefore, I submit that, when discussing the sins of homosexual thoughts and acts, we Christians should cease labeling the individual who is trying to walk in the faith of Jesus the Christ, but who struggles to be free of these things–as ‘homosexuals.’

We should, instead, label them as all Christians are labeled: as sinners saved by Grace. And we should, of course, pray for them and ask them to pray for us. And we all should remember that His mercy endures forever.

(Thanks to Mike C.)


Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her new novel, Arlen’s Harem, is due in 2014. Help her fund it and help keep her blog alive!


Just imagine a religious fanatic burns a popular Gay Bar in the middle of a New Year’s Eve Celebration.

Picture the arsonist telling a friend from his place of worship that “Homosexuals should be exterminated.”

What do you think would happen?

The evening news would be full of the story of a hate crimes and the bigotry of Christians. You would have the Morning Joe panel deriding the haters, you would have specials on CNN, it would be the lead on every single mainstream network.

It would be considered a seminal moment.

Well it just so happens there was such a fire at a Seattle nightclub and if you go to the ABC site and search for gay+fire+Seattle the only result is this AP story from Jan 3rd:

The quick thinking of a U.S. Army staff sergeant likely helped prevent a fire inside a Seattle night club from becoming a tragedy during New Year’s Eve celebrations.

Seattle police say 750 people were celebrating in the club Neighbours when an arsonist poured gasoline on a carpeted stairway and set it ablaze.

KIRO-TV reports ( http://is.gd/rdeMRP ) that in the first seconds after the fire started, Staff Sgt. Christopher Bostick grabbed a fire extinguisher from behind the bar. Then he and Air Force member Mike Casey put out the fire.

“I’m embarrassed to say, my first move was to go after it with cups of water. Then I quickly realized, this fire is way bigger than that,” Bostick said.

Bostick, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, expects the fire would have become unmanageable in less than a minute.

While the nightclub’s sprinkler system rained water down, hundreds of people calmly but quickly left the nightclub. No one was hurt.

Seattle arson investigators are searching through surveillance video from the club and neighboring businesses, looking for suspects and clues.

“You know, in 30 seconds, if that fire did what the arsonist intended, there’s no telling how many people could have died,” Bostick said.

Well that’s good news but nothing on the source of the fire

But it’s better than CBS news that had nothing on the fire as did CNN

In fact if you do a google search of the combination of Seattle + Fire + gay and look at the results you will see nothing from any major MSM network.


Well apparently the religious fanatic who tried to commit Mass murder of Gays…turned out to be the wrong religion:

KIRO 7 has uncovered explosive new details in the case of the Capitol Hill arson at a popular gay nightclub.

Suspect Musab Masmari’s motive may have stemmed from his “distaste for homosexual people.”

Masmari is charged with arson for allegedly setting the fire at Neighbours nightclub shortly after midnight on New Year’s Day.

According to investigative documents filed in King County Superior Court, the 30-year old Masmari told a friend “that homosexuals should be exterminated.” That friend, a member of the local Muslim community, went straight to the FBI because he believed Masmari may have also been planning a terrorist attack. That friend became a confidential informant.

Pam Geller who you might remember getting excoriated over ads displaying Muslims in their own words asks the obvious question:

Where are the left wing, the gay and LGBT organizations denouncing the Islamic texts that inspire such mayhem and murder of gays? Where is that fierce gay leadership condemning Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia?

Where are those brave activists who rushed to condemn me when I ran an ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia?

They’re busy attacking Geller:

So lets recap, If you are a Muslim and you dislike gays and want to torch & slaughter then in the US, have no fear, other than Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, a few local papers, and of course myself, nobody will notice or condemn you, certainly not the national media.

But if you are a Christian who doesn’t want to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because it’s a violation of your religion and your conscience, the media will have you guts for garters.

Update:  Linked by Stacy McCain who notes

The gay-rights movement in America is entirely owned by the Democrat Party, and is therefore concerned with destroying everything — capitalism, Christianity, patriotism — that is an obstacle to the advancement of the Democrat Party agenda. So if the Seattle arsonist had been a Christian extremist or some other person who could be labeled “right wing,” the headlines coast-to-coast in the Democrat-controlled press would be “HATE CRIME IN SEATTLE” and this story would have rivaled the Chris Christie “Bridgegate” scandal as a subject for endless discussions on MSNBC.

Only this blind partisan fanaticism, the product of decades of anti-Republican propaganda aimed at the gay community, could produce amedia “cone of silence” around Musab Musmari’s crime: News of anIslamic terrorist attack might have encouraged some people to vote GOP, and the Official Gay Movement can’t let that happen.

If only Musmari  had attended even a single tea party meeting…

Credit where due, it was another member of the Muslim community that pointed the authorities in the right direction,  A hopeful sign.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Tuesday and the quest for the #350 to pay the pay Da Magnificent Seven and the less than magnificent mortgage continues currently needing 12 tip jar hits at $25 to get it done this week.

If you would to help Just click on DaTipJar below

Now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd

Please consider being a subscriber. Only 57 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis AND if you so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plus the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

On Jan 3rd I commented on a story where the Holy Father encouraged the Bishop of Malta to speak against “Gay Adoption” in his country and disagreed with Popewatch that this would be the breaking point with the left and the media:

The problem is this is still an election year in America and if the left is seen as systematically attacking the first Latin American Pope it will not play well.

I predict while some uber advocates will push it the mainstream will ignore the story after all it’s likely the only thing anyone on the left knows about Malta is lesbian porn star Magdalene St. Michaels was born there.

Well two days later a story concerning the Pope, gays and children has made the mainstream and as predicted it’s not the one I mentioned before:

Pope Francis has called for a rethink in the way the Catholic Church deals with the children of gay couples and divorced parents, warning against “administering a vaccine against faith”.

If you search on the net it’s everywhere from GMA news to  NBC and the story is the same whereever you go:

I remember a case in which a sad little girl confessed to her teacher: ‘my mother’s girlfriend doesn’t love me’,” he was quoted as saying, according to AFP. Due to the Church’s opposition to homosexuality, same-sex marriage and divorce, these children may feel unwelcome, the pontiff — who has garnered a reputation for his efforts toward greater inclusion — indicated.

“We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them,” Francis added.

There is one other thing that is the same, nobody seems to have a link to the actual speech that the reports say was given in November of last year.  There is no sign of the speech anywhere in any language, an oddity since the Vatican site put everything out there in many different languages.  For example this is page for last November speeches.

Without the actual speech the context of what the Pope is saying is totally lost.

Now to faithful Catholics the obvious interpretation is the Pope makes the point that the sin of the parents can’t stand between the message of Christ and their children as it says in Luke  18:16-17

Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

However the pitch the media is giving is totally different, suggesting the Pope is no longer things Gay Marriage and or Adoption or even divorce is a big deal.  As if the Malta story never happened.

The reason is there is a narrative to be created to try to divide the conservatives away from the church and to suggest to Latino’s that the Pope is with the cultural left on issues because the alternative is to attack the first Latin American Pope and generate anger.

There are a lot of low information voters that are going to fall for this nonsense, but any conservative Catholic who buys into the media BS should be ashamed of themselves for being a sucker.

Update:  The Vatican has issued a strong denial

Italian media on Sunday ran headlines saying the pope’s words were an opening to legal provision for civil unions for gay couples, a subject of debate in Italy.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that media interpretations were “paradoxical” and a “manipulation” of the pope’s words, particularly as some media quoted him as speaking specifically of homosexual unions, which he did not.

Lombardi said the pope was merely “alluding to the suffering of children” and not taking a stand on the political debate in Italy.

Hmmm you mean to say the media of the left might be spinning the Pope to advance their own ends?

Who woulda thunk it?  I haven’t been this shocked since I found out there was gambling going on at Rick’s Cafe in Casablanca.

Update 2:  Morning Joe found space for this story and the Vatican denial, the Malta story, not so much

Update 3: Via an e-mail from the Anchoress Jimmy Akin at the National Catholic Register has more including two critical points, one on translation:

4) This translation has “my mother’s fiancé,” not “my mother’s girlfriend.” Could that indicate he’s talking about a heterosexual couple?

The AFP story used the translation, “my mother’s girlfriend,” as we saw above.

The English translation we are quoting from here was produced by Fr. Donald Maldari, S.J., who used the term fiancé.

If the translation “fiancé” (a man engaged to be married) were correct, Pope Francis would be referring to the daughter of a woman who is planning marriage with a man (presumably after divorce, annulment, or widowhood).

If the translation “girlfriend” is correct, it would indicate the daughter of a woman who has a lesbian lover.

and intent:

6) He’s not suggesting that the Church should change its teachings on homosexuality or divorce?

No. He’s talking about how to present the Church’s teaching to children in a way that ultimately leads them to embrace the fullness of Christian teaching.

He’s not talking about lopping of bits of that teaching that are inconvenient in a modern setting.

Because many children have parents today that are publicly living in unions contrary to Christian teaching, there is a real problem in terms of how to communicate Christian teaching to them in a way that does not alienate them from the Church.

This is what he means when he says: “We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them.”

It’s a tough problem worth the church’s full attention.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Sunday a new week and a chnace to make up for last week’s failure and shortfall toward a full paycheck

While we weren’t able to pull it off last week $345 to pay for the mortgage the seven, plus our first local villager is totally possible

Let’s make sure one bad week doesn’t drop us behind in our monthly goals, please hit datipjar below

It’s the 12th day of christmas and we remain 58 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month to do this

Help us narrow that gap, subscribe for any amount below.

The Telegraph in England has an interesting story out of Malta:

In his Christmas sermon, Bishop Charles Scicluna of Malta condemned adoption by same-sex couples. He insisted that God’s own son was raised by a man and a woman, and not by two men or two women.

How divisive! said the media. But now it turns out that Bishop Scicluna met Pope Francis on December 12.

The Blaze picked up the story as well quoting the Times of Malta

We discussed many aspects…and when I raised the issue that’s worrying me as a bishop [the right for gay couples to adopt] he encouraged me to speak out,” Bishop Scicluna said.

Now as a Catholic who knows what the pope thinks about these things the only interesting part of this story was the last name of the Bishop that was the same of the old wrestler from my youth Baron Mikel Scicluna that I used to watch when I was a kid.

But to the Huffington Post the news that the Pope is in fact Catholic is headline news:

The Holy See’s reaction may come as a surprise to those who have viewed him as progressive on gay rights. LGBT magazine “The Advocate” even named him their person of the year, citing his comments about homosexuals. “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?” he told reporters in Italian in July.

Despite his July comments, the pope has a long history of being against gay rights. He has come out strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and called it “a destructive attack” on God’s plan.

Actually he has a long history of being against Gay “wrongs” namely sin but I digress.

Popewatch sees this as the possible breaking point:

The cultural issues, especially abortion and gay marriage, are the holiest of holies for the left. Leftists who looked kindly on the Pope assumed from his statements that he was going to soft pedal these issues while assuming a leftist stance on economics. If that turns out not to be the case, PopeWatch predicts that Pope Francis will receive much the same bile from the left that most leftists heaped on Pope Benedict.

The problem is this is still an election year in America and if the left is seen as systematically attacking the first Latin American Pope it will not play well.

I predict while some uber advocates will push it the mainstream will ignore the story after all it’s likely the only thing anyone on the left knows about Malta is lesbian porn star Magdalene St. Michaels was born there.

If the story does break out plan B will be to put it all off on the Bishop in question, note that the Huffington post story says “report”, after all Bishop Scicluna only said the Pope said this. Nobody actually heard the pope say this.

The media awaits the day when they can turn on this Pope & say what they really think, but the time is not right, so they will let this story die, if they can.

Update: Pulled redundant quote


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Friday and the good news is we’re over 40$ of the way toward this week’s goal.

The bad news is that there are only two days left to get the other $197

Can we retire the goal a day early to start the year, that’s up to you.

And don’t forget it’s still the 10th day of Christmas so you have time to get yourself a late gift that will give you pleasure all year long, a DaTechGuy subscription

We remain 58 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month to do this

Help us narrow that gap, subscribe for any amount below.

And I’m one step ahead of the shoe shine
Two steps away from the county line
Just trying to keep my customers satisfied,

Simon and Garfunkel Keep the Customer Satisfied 1970

One of the joys of the internet is waiting on Mark Steyn to comment on an issue and the Duck Dynasty story was pardon the pun setting up ducks in a row for him.

Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

The most amazing this about that passage from Steyn is that it follows this exchange on MSNBC (via Stacy McCain) that makes his point:

Is the new new official “position” at MSNBC how DARE you critique Sodomy until you tried it? (I thought that our friends on the left insisted homosexuals were born that way?)

Steyn Continues on the totalitarian nature of this business:

The asphyxiating embrace of ideological conformity was famously captured by Nikolai Krylenko, the People’s Commissar for Justice, in a speech to the Soviet Congress of Chess Players in 1932, at which he attacked the very concept of “the neutrality of chess.” It was necessary for chess to be Sovietized like everything else. “We must organize shock brigades of chess players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess,” he declared.

Six years later, the political winds having shifted, Krylenko was executed as an enemy of the people. But his spirit lives on among the Commissars of Gay Compliance at GLAAD. It is not enough to have gay marriage for gays. Everything must be gayed. There must be Five-Year Gay Plans for American bakeries, and the Christian church, and reality TV. There must be shock brigades of gay duck-hunters honking out the party line deep in the backwoods of the proletariat.

As a frequent guest host on Rush Limbaugh’s show Mark Steyn is loved by the right nd hated by the left.  He’s a guy who puts butts in the seats and that’s exactly what you need to keep a shoestring magazine operation afloat.

Someone didn’t mention this to Jason Lee Steorts who critiqued Steyn’s piece concluding thus:

By way of criticizing speech, I’ll say that I found the derogatory language in this column, and especially the slur in its borrowed concluding joke, both puerile in its own right and disappointing coming from a writer of such talent.

I was rather surprised

That fundraiser is to fight the Michael Mann lawsuit over NRO’s pieces on global warming.

Steyn, who has been a free speech target in the past, had an answer:

It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us — that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court — but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.

One of the lessons of the Cracker Barrel / Duck Dynasty example is to know your customer base.

NRO has a customer and a donor base too, apparently that was lost on Jason who doubled down:

The point is basic courtesy, Mark. It’s that you could mount your opposing argument without insulting people. Sure, you have the right to insult people, but I can’t sympathize much with someone who exercises that right just to prove it exists, which seems to have been part of your rhetorical strategy. What I would like to de-normalize is boorishness, whatever its content. I would do that by criticizing your manners, not by “indefinitely suspend[ing]” you, which would not be my decision anyway. When people are indefinitely suspended from this or that for being boors, I find it “stifling and unhealthy,” as you may recall that I said. I’ll upgrade that to “creepy and repellent,” if it’ll calm you down. But it’s also part of the rough-and-tumble of free expression, which protects equally the right of people to be boors, and the right of people to call for suspensions, and the right of organizations to capitulate, and the right of you and me to criticize them for it, with or without courtesy.

Now as an editor Jason Steorts might not be concerned with the vulgar need to satisfy the customers who actually supply the funds in the check he cashes but Jack Fowler, the publisher of National Review does.  Last night at 8:32 PM with the comments sections exploding online he jumped in

I believe Mark Steyn’s new column is a triumph, and wrote him on Friday to say that. The ensuing critical take on it by my colleague, Jason Steorts, left my head shaking.

and wasted no time in bringing up the Global Warming suit and NRO’s fundraising to defend it

This, to me, gets to Jason’s cultural/state construct. So we at NR engage on the “cultural” field, but when we have said something that is intolerable to the Intolligencia, we end up on the state field (judicial subdivision). NR knows we are in the right, and believes that we will prove victorious in court, but not until after the expenditure of millions of dollars, which would have been much better used to advance our mission of standing athwart History, yelling stop. Freedom isn’t free, my friends, and the First Amendment is under assault, on cultural and state fronts — which is why we have no qualms asking you to help support us financially in our legal fight.

Can you say Cause & Effect?

That was Jack Fowler public rebuke of his editor.  I would loved to see the e-mail or heard the phone call that Mr. Steorts got.  I suspect it sounded something like this:

YOU IDIOT! who do you think pays the bills around here?  Do you think GLAAD is going to send us a check because you hit Steyn on this?

I don’t know how old Mr. Steorts is but he doesn’t seem to realize how fast all this has happened.   At the start of the century if you told me that by 2014 we would go from fringe groups arguing to allow & accept Gay Marriage to people being attacked and called bigots for quoting scripture & MSNBC’s “don’t knock it till you try it” attitude on Anal sex, I’d have told you that’s only slightly less likely than the Red Sox winning 3 World series in that same time period.

I would ask Mr. Steorts if we are going to submit to the censorship of culture and avoid offense are we going to censor this Monty Python sketch:

or this one

or this one

or perhaps this one

I could go on but the fight for conservatism has always been a fight in the culture, something the GOP establishment hasn’t figured out.  Humor & insult is a vital arrow for our bow and I’m not about to allow anyone to make us quiver it.

But I’ll make a deal with Mr. Steorts, I’ll reconsider my position six months after the Catholic Church is once again allowed to handle adoptions in the state of  Massachusetts.

Maybe by then the Red Sox will have won 3 more world series, the Cubs will win one and the Dodgers will have moved back to Brooklyn.

Update:  If NRO is Cracker Barrel is PJ Media Glenn Beck?

if NRO finds Steyn’s truthfulness unpalatable, I’m pretty sure we could find a place for him at PJ Media.

I’d turn my magnificent seven into an exciting eight to get Steyn.

Update 2:  Ouch

As one of my RedState colleagues said, their masthead should read:

Standing Athwart History, Yelling Okay Go Right Ahead (We Don’t Want to Offend Anyone)

and Ouch again:

If NRO loses Steyn I’ll have no use for the place…

 …Jonah Goldberg notwithstanding. I certainly don’t see myself reading for Jason Lee Steorts’ more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tut-tutting.
Update 3:  Added Musical Quote.
Update 4:  Linked at Steyn Online, now if I can only get him on the show.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday in the last full week of December and we unfortunately are only $2 on our way to our $340 weekly goal and $615 dollars away from our monthly goal after shortfalls in two of the last three weeks.

The only people who can change that situation is you.

It will take a full 25 $25 tip jar hitters to make all the bills this month but any hit will move the ball and of course if someone wants to hit DaTipJar for the full $615 I won’t complain either.

Be one of the producers of this blog, by hitting DaTipJar below.

We remain 59 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month away from retire the daily tip jar shakes for the mortgage and the Magnificent seven.

Give yourself a Christmas present that will inform and entertain you 365 days a year in 2014. Subscribe below.

Mr Spock:It is attempting to generate terror, Captain.

Star Trek Wolf in the Fold 1967

General John Burgoyne: 
Swindon do you at all realize that we have nothing standing between us and destruction but our own blood and the ignorance of these backwoodsmen? They’re men of the same British stock as ourselves. Six to one of us, six to one sir, and half our troops of are Hessians,  Brunswickers,  German dragoons and Indians with scalping knives. Suppose the colonists find a leader, what shall we do then, eh?

The Devil’s Disciple 1959

I haven’t written about the Duck Dynasty business that has dominated the news primarily because I have no interest in the show whatsoever.  I didn’t watch it when it ruled the Cable waves and I have no intention to do so now when it’s become a cultural litmus test.

What is of interest to me is the Newtonian example of Cause and Effect that Duck Dynasty has been from the beginning.  To wit:

Cause:  Faith filled Louisiana family develops a duck call that becomes popular

Effect:  The family becomes wealthy without changing culturally.

That’s American Dream in action.

Cause:  4th Tier cable network (A & E) finds the story an interesting anomaly and puts it on Television

Effect:  Millions of Americans celebrate and identify with the family American success story and it becomes the most popular cable non-fiction show of all time.

Popular belief not withstanding there is a huge audience outside of the left’s cultural worldview

Cause:  The Show becomes a money machine for A & E

Effect:  It goes into merchandising overdrive making even more money for all involved

And they have money to spend.

Cause:The show becomes a ratings and a cash monster.

Effect: Every single Talk show, morning show and magazine grabs them to get a piece of those ratings and sales for themselves.

They may not understand or like these people, but they like the money & ratings they generate.


It’s in that context that the current controversy comes.

Cause:  Mr. Robertson accurately quotes the bible on Homosexuality and sin in a magazine of the cultural left

Effect:  GLAAD and the arbiters of the cultural left declare such speech forbidden.

The arena of acceptable public discourse on homosexuality must be Christianrein

Cause:The cultural left in media take up GLAAD’s cause attacking the Robinson family from Newspapers to Morning Joe

Effect:  A & E “suspends Robertson to avoid the wrath of GLAAD & the cultural elite.

The instinct to run away from this pressure would be reflexive to the “Arts & Entertainment

At this point A & E naturally expect the Robertson family to do the traditional Hollywood move, make a pro-forma Mea Culpa  to get this behind them and get the cash registers again.  However as cultural leftists It is at this point that they get a shock

Cause:The Robertson family is close knit, secure in their faith and in each other.

Effect: The Robertsons choose family over a TV show and bluntly but politely inform A & E there is no show without their Patriarch.

This decision to stick with family over a TV show is of little or no surprise to any person of the cultural right today nor anyone who still lives with traditional American Values.  But A & E being so far removed from them simply didn’t anticipate this reaction or what followed.

Cause: Millions of people watch & identify with the Robertson family both religiously and culturally

Effect: Those millions go after A & E promising boycotts & action.

Apparently A & E didn’t realize that the Duck Dynasty customer base were not the same audience as Will & Grace

Cause: The Robertson family inspires courage in the millions who have been pushed around culturally by the elites for the last decade.

Effect: GLAAD gets more and stronger push back then they ever had.

Nor did GLAAD expect that these simple rednecks would not back down before the wrath of their mighty fax machine.

Cause: Duck Dynasty’s advertisers realize how much money the show makes them

Effect: They stand behind the Robertson family and the millions of their customers who support them.

Nor did the cultural elites figure out that the advertisers know who is actually buying their products.

Cause: A & E stands to lose millions and Glen Beck Offers the Duck Dynasty show a home on his Blaze network.

Effect:  Well that’s what we’re waiting to see aren’t we?

A Postscript: Cracker Barrel, a restaurant who has a huge presence in areas populated by the  decided to pull some Robertson Family items from it shelves with the effect of generating a huge backlash among customers on Facebook. I strongly suggest Cracker Barrel execs watch this video:

and Remember there is no shortage of Restaurants for people to eat at.

Update: More Newtonian action from Cracker Barrel

Cause: Cracker Barrel gets huge negative feedback from their customer base over Duck Dynasty decision

Effect: Via Dan Riehl & the Blaze on Cracker Barrel’s facebook page Facebook

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.

I wonder what GLAAD will have to say about that?

Update 2: Here is their tweet


Update 3: TMZ is unhappy

How do CB execs move from office to office … hard to do when you don’t have a spine.

That doesn’t surprise me given via Glenn this :

The threat of the Robertsons isn’t in Phil’s politically incorrect comments. The threat is that this family has figured out how right-wing politics and Evangelical Christianity can influence pop culture without being the punch line or the bad guy. While the left has spent decades making conservatives look like idiots and Christians look like bigots, Duck Dynasty reminds average Americans that these views are mainstream. The left is alerted but will those on the right take advantage of what the Robertsons have created?

Mark Steyn sees this

Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values

Apparently his Editor at NRO does not.

Given the number of comments on the posts I’m wondering how long it will be before we see a post by Jason Lee steorts at the Corner titled “We listened”?

Update 4:  Delayed Instalanche now 5 behind Charles

and who had 8:32 PM Sunday in the NRO Pool?

Update 5: NRO cracker barrels

Update 6:  GLAAD not GLADD corrected


Olimometer 2.52

It s a new work week here at DaTechGuy Blog so the effect is we now have a new $340 goal to try to make

If 14 Tip jar hitters kick in $25 that will have the effect of our making our goal this week.

However we are also dealing with one more issue of Cause and effect:

Cause: We failed to make our goal last week and during the first week of the month.

Effect: As of this writing we are a full $619 short of making payroll for the Magnificent Seven and paying the mortgage this December.

BTW there is one other Cause and effect story we can tell here

If we picked up 59 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month.

This will have the EFFECT of allowing me to retire the daily tip jar shakes reserving them for special events.

Give yourself a Christmas present that will inform and entertain you 365 days a year in 2014. Subscribe below.


Penny Carter: Is anyone gonna tell me what’s going on?

10th Doctor: What, you’re a journalist?

Penny Carter: Yes.

10th Doctor: Well, make it up!

Doctor Who Partners in Crime 2008

There seems to be a lot of people very worried about the media jumping all over the Pope’s statement as reported   with weeping and Gnashing of teeth. Here is the ABC report in full:

Pope Francis is reaching out to gays, saying he won’t judge priests for their sexual orientation, in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference as he returns from his first foreign trip.

Francis says: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, authored a document that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests. Francis is being much more conciliatory, saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.

His remarks came Monday during a plane journey back to the Vatican from his first foreign trip in Brazil.

Before we even bother to touch this in context, lets look at it as ABC presents it.

“A person searching for the Lord and has good will” a person searching for the Lord is implicitly looking for truth, and person of good will, when finding truth will accept it. It might be hard, it might take time but a person searching the Lord will eventually find him waiting with arms open.

In other words, he is saying the Doctrine of the church as it has been, the problem being the MSM has always painted the church as something it is not.

This of course is not the message the media is transmitting or even wanting to transmit. The left is looking to spin this as: The Pope says Gay sex is OK and the low information voter might fall for it.

Catholics should not.

Now let’s look at it all in context. There are several issues, lets take them one by one:

Pope Francis told reporters, “I did what canon law said must be done, I ordered an ‘investigation brevia,’ and this investigation found nothing.”

The pope continued by talking about how “many times in the church, outside this case, but also in this one, we go searching for the sins — of one’s youth, for example — for publicity. I’m not talking about crimes here — the abuse of a minor is a crime — but of sins.”

There is a difference between sin and crime. You won’t always find crime when you look at a person but you’ll always be able to find sin because that is the nature of humanity:

“But if a person, whether a layperson, priest or sister, goes to confession and converts, the Lord forgives. And when the Lord forgives, he forgets. This is important,” he said, because those who want the Lord to forget their sins should forget those of others.

That is the whole point of confession, to have our sins forgiven. Even if we haven’t conquered them, even if we are still struggling with sin and wrestling with it as Jacob did with the angel.

“St. Peter committed one of the biggest sins ever — he denied Christ — and he made him pope,” Pope Francis said.

That’s some serious perspective. Now comes the quote the media is going nuts over.

“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said.

I’ve already gone over this but with the context above the message is even clearer.  Stripped of all context it’s easier to spin, in context it’s a lot harder.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society.

Again this is clearly stated by anyone who has read it.

The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters.

We are all sinners and falling short of the glory of God, otherwise Christ’s sacrifice would not have been needed.

The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.”

BINGO! Once we define ourselves, are lives and our actions based on sin, or based on our desire for sin everything changes. Instead of being the woman caught in sin accepting the forgiveness Christ offers her:

Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”

we instead answer back:

But Jesus, I like this sin, I enjoy this sin and who are you to really say this is sin? Maybe you should reconsider.

The media is setting two traps with the same bait. The media want both the uninformed about the faith and the faithful to think the Pope is saying something he is not and on the later Satan is helping out using the most effective temptation of all, the sin of pride.

Let’s not fall for either. I’ll give the last word to the Anchoress:

To proclaim a Gospel of Mercy and then only permit a man or woman who has converted their lives in Christ to assume lesser or menial positions is to say we do not trust our own teaching — Christ’s own teaching — about mercy. The pope is correct; by that way of thinking, Peter would never have been given the keys to the kingdom. We are the church of Saint Mary Magdalene and Saint Paul; sinners who were first forgiven and then trusted with prominence.

KJ Lopez at National Review:

It’s important to bear in mind that the pope today seemed (we’ve been reading partial transcripts in news stories) to be talking about men who are priests, not seminary candidates. Fundamentally, he was talking about mercy. It wasn’t a break with Benedict or a policy change but an elucidation of Church teaching (which popes don’t make up on airplane rides).

The media has not mentioned that there has been a real change in the seminaries over the last 10 years and those changes haven’t changed.

Update 2:
Lisa Graas makes a great point

Sandro Magister offers a concise explanation, in the context of the Msgr. Ricca story/scandal, of the difference in requirements re: same-sex attraction among priests, bishops and cardinals as opposed to consecrated persons. I knew this, but it leaped out at me as I read it as a point I have overlooked. A light bulb went off in my head.

Against homosexuals who live in chastity, including priests, bishops, cardinals, there is no preconceived hostility whatsoever in the Church, so much so that, in tranquility, a number of them have occupied and still occupy important positions.

What the Church does not accept is that consecrated persons, who have made a public commitment of celibacy and chastity “for the Kingdom of Heaven,” should betray their promise.

Aha. Like I said, I knew that…but it’s been going way over my head. If you want people to become saints, if you want people to know Jesus as St. Gemma did, you’re “hostile” to “gays.”

BTW that is a betrayal no matter who that vow is broken with is it’s own sin. If you have a second sin along with it that’s another story.

Update 3: Cardinal Dolan on CBS This Morning

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised

He is on the Today’s show and they are trying to pound him and he’s just letting it slide off his back.

Update 4: The Anchoress gets it so well we’ll quote her follow up post as well:

I am not sure many people fully realize what Francis did on that plane, so let me tell you: he neutralized the power of the media narrative; he exposed the truth that in Christ there is mercy and forgiveness, and that the church exists to offer this in his name; he set whatever “gay lobby” exists in the church on notice that while he has no intention of acting as gay-priest-witch-hunter, he won’t tolerate a bloc acting against the interests of the church.

in fact we’ll quote two of them:

As Mollie Hemingway pointed out at Get Religion, any pope discussing gay anything will make headlines. In this case, nothing Francis actually said about homosexuality was new. In fact, in these two quotes Francis is doing nothing more than pronouncing long-standing Catholic teaching on homosexuality, sin, and the mercy of God.

Let that sink in for a moment: A pope is teaching the Christian faith, and the press is accurately quoting him, in blazing headlines that everyone will read.

The Press doesn’t know what he is doing but the Holy Spirit does.

Update 5: Fr Longenecker

So if you think the mainstream media are pleased about Pope Francis the rock star pope. Think again. They’re hopping mad….

…but they’re not going to show it.

Olimometer 2.52

I’m pretty close to my best month ever (very odd for a July) both in terms of DatipJar and in terms of page views, but the quest for the weekly paycheck continues unabated.

$253 more dollars Basically 13 Tip jar hitters of $20 this week will get me there, If you would care to be one of them hit datipJar below


One of the things we have seen with the Kaitlyn Hunt case that has really struck me is how the gay rights movement has been used as suckers by her family.

As more and more facts continue to come out and the reactions of Ms. Hunt’s defenders become more vitriolic to the point where her father is making copyright claims on her pictures ,any assertion by any person not 100% behind gay marriage is to be ignored and if you are in fact Gay and don’t support Kate Hunt you become an unperson:

A gay couple on the Treasure Coast is afraid to show their faces because they say they’ve been attacked personally for their opinions opposing Kaitlyn Hunt. They fear backlash from the “Free Kate” campaign that is 52,000 members strong on Facebook as of Tuesday night.

“I’ve already been vilified for my opinion on social media.”

But this isn’t a low profile gay couple, up until a few days ago, both men held high ranking positions in a Treasure Coast LGBT advocacy group.

It all seems like something  is happening that I warned the Gay Community about back in September of last year.

That post concerned this article at Gawker on normalizing pedophilia.  The arguments  looked really familiar to me.

As you know I’m an opponent of Gay Marriage and would support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man one woman, but I’ll tell you this, if I was a supporter of Gay Marriage with even the slightest knowledge of the history of the Gay Movement and I read the arguments in the Gawker article (you can almost hear the cry of “Bigot” to those would disagree with the author) I wouldn’t just be insulted, I’d be furious.

I suggested the gay movement get in front of this business fast to head it off and not be associated with such a movement but as the game plan of the #freekate people becomes more plain it seems exactly the opposite is going on.  We are starting to see people using this as a “bigotry litmus test” and no amount of information to the contrary will be accepted.

This is already a trap that apparently with the exception of a few people such as Joan McCarter the left and their media allies foolishly didn’t avoid as Stacy McCain put it:

“To say that liberal media coverage of Hunt has been ‘favorable’ is to say that the Sistine Chapel ceiling depicts a favorable image of God.”

And that’s really what it’s about, y’know? Who gives a crap about a commonplace criminal procedure in Indian River County, Florida?

But the media said everybody should care about it: The Today show actually portrayed an accused sex offender as a sympathetic victim!

What was the name of the producer who approved that, huh? I would like that person to explain the half-assed background research that led them to believe that Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt (Booking #2013-00000708) was a plausible civil-rights martyr.

and that support isn’t confined to media

That kind of high-powered public-relations blitz is not cheap and does not happen by accident. Hunt’s supporters include the American Civil Liberties Union and the gay-rights group Equality Florida — the latter organization led by Nadine Smith, who met privately with President Obama two years ago — as well as the 501(c)3 non-profit Purpose Foundation, which receives funding through such philanthropic giants as the Ford Foundation.

And if these traps weren’t bad enough, with  June 1st coming the #FreeKate movement is in a position to set the biggest trap of all under 100 miles and 100 minutes away from the School where it all took place.

For those of you who don’t know June 1st annually is Gay Day at Disney World Florida and apparently has been for over two decades:

“Homosexuals will be celebrating the 23rd anniversary of Gay Day wearing matching Gay Day merchandise, such as T-shirts,” the One Million Moms website reads. “There will also be transvestites dressed in drag showing their support for the event.”

And for those who think it’s just a day where Gay people can enjoy the park in solidarity it appears it might be a little more …interesting:

I can’t help but think of, and feel sorry for – the unsuspecting family who saved for years for a once in a lifetime trip – only to arrive and find that Disney had in fact, been invaded by he-women and shaved down muscle boys. By itself that would not be a problem, but the sheer number of people who seem to go out of their way to rub their sexuality in everyones face during this ‘event’ is nothing short of disgraceful…

… I don’t like it when I hear pompous windbags telling me I’m going to burn in hell for being gay, and I’m sure most of the free world would appreciate a visit to Disney World that did not include the vision of grown men in go-go shorts, and ads for lubricant prominently displayed throughout the host hotel. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of ‘image’ at the host hotel (this year it was the Sheraton World on International Drive)– the line of beer trucks outside the resort was a nice touch, and the liquor kiosks and condom ads every 5 feet will certainly not further the image of us as a bunch of drunken sex fiends.

our proudly gay 42 year old man goes on.

It is widely known throughout the gay community in Orlando that if you want good drugs and great sex, the first week of June is a great time to visit. So much so, that the Orange County Sheriff’s office found it necessary to station deputies and drug sniffing dogs in the lobby of the host hotel. And before the oppression chorus starts warming up, just get real – we all know that it goes on in droves during gay week – and it’s not ‘oppression’ if it’s justified. I don’t mean to imply that every person attending gay days is a drug crazed lunatic – the vast majority are not – but no one in the gay community can deny how pervasive this problem is, and the problem travels with us.

Now given that clientele and event and more importantly given this map with Disney under 100 miles and 100 minutes away…

View Larger Map

…I would bet real money that the Hunt family will decide this is the perfect day to pack up the family and head to Disney World.

And therein lies the trap.

The Hunt family’s efforts have been hampered by the release of facts, facts which show not a person persecuted due to sexual orientation but an indulged young lady pursuing a very underage girl after repeated attempts by her parents to warn her off, that story has been slowing getting out online but what if they find an audience that hasn’t heard that side of the story?

Picture it, what do you think will happen if the young Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt and her parents come to Disney world and tell the story of the struggle of their young blond attractive 18-year-old girl who, according to the Media, activists and her supporters is being persecuted by the family of her lover simply because she is a lesbian to the crowd Pete Werner is describing?

They will hoist the entire family on their shoulders, and open up their wallets.

As of the moment of this writing the Free Kate site has raised what, $24,000? You get them down to Disney on June 1st with a smart phone and a credit card reader and it will be the most money a phony blond has raised since Tina Brown talked people into buying Newsweek for her.

It will be great news for the Hunt family, it will be great news for the Free Katie Crowd.

But for the Gay Community that is starting to win more and more votes and arguments the whole Kaitlyn Hunt = Rosa Parks business simply makes them pawns not only in the Hunt’s family quest to avoid any consequences for her daughter but for the same crowd that has looked at the reactions to that Gawker piece with great interest.

You have been warned.

Update This guy nails it:

If the #FreeKate movement wants all LGBT persons to be treated equally, that equality isn’t just limited to legal privileges. Legal responsibilities are just as important, and that includes punishments for the commission of crimes.

In this case, true LGBT equality under the law would ensure Kate sees her day in court.

Does the LGBT movement want equality or power? That is the question and this case will provide the answer.

News Broke this morning that Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien has resigned:

Cardinal O’Brien said in a statement he had already tendered his resignation, due to take effect when he turned 75 next month, but that Pope Benedict “has now decided that my resignation will take effect today”.

As the Observer reported:

Three priests and a former priest in Scotland have reported the most senior Catholic clergyman in Britain, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, to the Vatican over allegations of inappropriate behaviour stretching back 30 years.

The four, from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, have complained to nuncio Antonio Mennini, the Vatican’s ambassador to Britain, and demanded O’Brien’s immediate resignation. A spokesman for the cardinal said that the claims were contested.

This story has to be a double-edged sword for the MSM. They are of course pleased to see a Cardinal go down if they think it will harm the church.

But the truth is that if these charges are the least bit true the accelerated resignation of this Cardinal (which will be one of the last official acts of Pope Benedict) is not only very good for the Church but highlights a fact of the late Church scandals that the left would like to ignore.

That fact? The vast majority of the church scandals involving minors involved Homosexual acts and Homosexual priests.

Now as I’ve said many times before, a lot Christians fall into the trap of using the sin of Homosexual acts as a club rather than looking at their own sin but for the left this problem is different.

In the current culture any critique of any aspect of Homosexuality is VERBOTEN. As far as some Washington Post reporters are concerned, if you hold the Opinion on Gay Marriage that practically the entire world held 20 years ago you are Bull Connor with the fire hose

The reporter: “As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?

“Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness,” the reporter continued. “The true conservative would have the same bias. The true conservative would want the government out of people’s bedrooms, and religion out of government.”

And while John Nolte (a supporter of Civil Unions) notes this is all about weaponizing the issue for the left. This Cardinal is different; how do you weaponize acts that you support?

As Catholics who, you know actually believe, the point is to what is right period, our path is clear:

1. We should encourage and in fact demand the removal of any Such Bishop Cardinal or Priest who does anything this Bishop has done.

2. The moment the left brings up this case we should immediately counter with: “Yes this kind of Sin it totally incompatible with service in the church, particularly the hierarchy.”

3.  When this is used as a club against the Pope, Note that the resignation was already in the works due to his age, it was THIS Pope who proactively took the resignation early.

4. (and most important) Pray for all involved.

BTW if you aren’t doing 3 #4 because you don’t like the people involved you are failing a basic duty of Christianity.

…and Christianity is given here.

The question being: Why is homosexuality forbidden when other restrictions in Leviticus restricts are not?

The scriptural conflict is well documented in the Acts of the Apostles from acts Chapter 10 (Peter and Cornelius) and the initial reaction of the circumcised. (Chapter 11) and the final decision to not force Gentile converts to what would become called Christianity with the Jewish Levitical laws (chapter 15)

Here is the text of the letter that went out:

This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.

Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth:

‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'” Acts 15:23-29

Important note, the prohibition against “unlawful marriage” applies to heterosexual sexual immorality as well.

To any Christian the story of Peter and Cornelius is very significant since it was the introduction of the faith outside of the Christian Community and the Counsel of Jerusalem was the defining moment where the Christian Faith took the single most critical step to being considered something other than a breakaway Jewish cult. And yet Paul who was leading the drive against forcing Jewish Law on the new gentile converts was no less adamant on sin:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

Important note: Paul lists a plethora of sins to avoid, from envy to drunkenness, not simply sexual immorality.

It is that basic misunderstanding of the development of Christianity that makes the talking point effective to that half of the culture that is secular or to poorly catechized Christians.

I’ve had a little back and forth with my friend Cynthia Yockey yesterday (who will be on the show this Saturday at 10 A.M. on WCRN 830 Don’t miss her!) I was updating the post with a link from Lisa Graas when I saw what is a very significant tweet from my friend Sissy Willis that had a tangential relationship to the conversation:

A very fair warning, that produced a fair response by me.

If you are more worried about Christians who wish to return American laws to those primitive days of May 16 2004 when Gays were so repressed that Sharon Stove could not give a lesbian Kiss to Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman then the people who actually murdered Pym Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh and from who Molly Norris is STILL hiding then your eyes are off the prize. Lisa Graas lined an example here:

Homosexuals deserve to be tortured and executed an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, it emerged today.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality following recent reports that gay youths were being hanged.

Cynthia gets this (check out her blog under the category Islamofacsim). She may go after Marcus Bachmann but she doesn’t pull any punches against radical Islam. Many of the anti-anti’s on the left do not.

And by an odd coincidence via Pam Geller we see this from ABC news:

In a video released three weeks before the 9/11 anniversary, new al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri urges followers to continue to target the United States.

Dressed in white, with his automatic weapon leaning against his left side, Zawahiri urges “Muslim brothers everywhere” to pursue America in the 12-minute video.

As Pam puts it:

Another influential misunderstander of Islam. Does anyone else find it curious that the most devout and pious Muslims are all misunderstanding Islam in exactly the same way, reading the exact same words for over 1,400 years?

On and one more thing. Sissy Willis was quoting this NYT article that referred to the killer of Pym Fortuyn as “an animal-rights activist”. That is true, but they seem to have missed this bit from the trial of the killer:

A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland’s first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.

Strangely enough a CNN article from March 27th 2003 cited in Wikipedia titled “Fortuyn killer ‘acted for Muslims'” no longer exists in the CNN archive. Funny that.

Update: Michelle Goldberg knows where the real threat lies, I’m shocked that neo confederate sex panic isn’t cited in her piece.

Way back at the start of the blog I did a long post on Hell. Here is a taste that came to mind today.

The Catechism of the Church specifically mentions both the Devil and Hell. If one believes in Christ and the church one must also believe his warning of the Devil and hell. This is not optional. In fact it is an amazing thing to me that so many people who profess belief in a God that remains largely unseen can’t allow themselves to believe in the Devil and temptation and all that comes with it.

Some argue that a good God would not allow such a thing, yet they don’t question that a good law (against murder for example) may cause a person to be imprisoned for life or worse. It isn’t bad law its the offenders bad choice that makes him liable to judgment.

Our unwillingness as people to face that fact is not unlike an overweight person avoiding a scale or a person sick unwilling to see a doctor. It is much easier to avoid an unpleasant truth than to confront it and do something about it. To the degree that Satan is active this is by design, denial works in his favor

It came to mind when I saw this post by Cynthia Yockey, I like Cynthia, she is a friend and will be my guest on this week’s show. We are both strong Palin supporters and I really wrestled with putting up this post on the subject but ducking the issue simply won’t do.

To those who don’t consider Homosexual acts a sin people like Bachmann simply infuriate them, John Stewart and company will hit them big time but there are lines and this is over it:

So, if I were going to put Marcus Bachmann through such a test, I would choose a variety of types of gay porn to see what he prefers, but I would expect the models he finds most attractive to be teenagers.

Those 23 foster kids — they’re all girls, right?

Think about that line, read it a few times and ask yourself if it reminded you of the type of statement about gays that activists have screamed against for decades.

Now Marcus Bachmann, like most protestants, looks at homosexuality from a different perspective than Catholics. His denomination considers the orientation a sin, while we consider the act a sin.

For the fun of it however, lets stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that Cynthia is right about Mr. Bachmann sexual orientation. A protestant would be shocked, a Catholic would say, Yeah, so?

The goal is to avoid sin, particularly the sins that you are vulnerable to. It seems to me that if Bachmann’s particular sin vulnerability is homosexual acts he is doing a good job avoiding it.

Let’s bring back an important verse I used in my post The De-Education of Anne Hathaway.

He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” Luke 17:1-4

There is a warning to those who lead others to sin, but also a reminder to those that we MUST forgive sin when one asks. Both ARE explicitly said by Christ…

There are a lot of people who obsess about Homosexuality as an excuse to avoid dealing with their own sins, that is dangerous for the soul, but on the other hand, pretending that homosexual acts are not a sin is just as dangerous.

But this post is not about homosexuality, it’s about Hell, and there is a bottom line here.

Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is either true or false, there is no middle here. Christ is the son of God or he is not. If that sentence is false no amount of our actions will make a difference after death and we are just an Elk’s club that meets on Sundays.

However if true then it doesn’t matter one jot if one is offended by its teachings. There are two clear paths, Heaven and Hell (Catholic teaching states that all souls in Purgatory will end up in heaven on the last day or before). Like Harry Randall Truman on Mt. Saint Helens we can deny it and scoff at it but in the end the result is the same.

It does not matter what takes you to hell but everyone there comes by their own free will. Let’s go back to Screwtape #12:

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,

Job one of a Christian is to avoid hell (by following Christ) and help others to avoid it by our actions and/or example. If what Marcus Bachmann does keeps him and others out of hell, it is totally irrelevant what other people think about it. If it causes him to be hated by people, including people I like, that is as Christ points out, part of the job description:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:34-39

…and that applies to those who love a seat in the legislature, congress or at a presidential debate or to be invited to cool parties as well.

Hell is a reality. You may not like it, you may not believe it, you may think it’s unfair, but that’s moot. The good news is you can’t get there without your own consent and one has (foolishness like the “Blasphemy Challenge” not withstanding) till the very moment of your death decide to reject it.

After that you’re on your own.

Update: Cynthia responds on her blog and I’d like to make some minor corrections and comments concerning her assertions.

1. Absolutely correct all men are created equal and are also equal before the eyes of God, God puts no additional value on one soul vs another.

2. I would point out that my religion is Roman Catholicism which as I already pointed unlike most forms of Protestantism does not consider Gays’ and Lesbians “intrinsically Evil” As I said it is the act, not the inclination that is sin. I would further point out that there is a difference between “imposing a religion” and redefining centuries old words by either fiat (bad) or election (foolish but people have the right to be wrong). Everyone is free and should be free to practice or not practice any religion they care to under the Constitution.

3. I can not damn anyone into hell, wouldn’t want to and never claimed I could. I’m much too busy trying to keep myself out. My point is that every person has the ability to avoid hell if they choose to do so. It is up to the individual and they have their whole life to make that choice.

I would not expect or demand that a person pretend they are something they are not, but I would also never recommend sin vs not sinning. I can no more declare homosexual acts non-sinful than I could declare Abortion, cheating on your taxes, sleeping around, shoplifting, gambling away the mortgage money, online porn. drunkenness, or any other sin defined by the Catholic Church as unsinful. All sin is worth avoiding and it isn’t easy because each of us has a vulnerability to their own specific sin(s). That’s what prayer, fasting and other stuff is for, to give people a hand in that sense.

I don’t base my friendships on the basic of religion or the state of anyone’s soul. I don’t know nor claim to know the state of any other person’s soul. I’ve got enough to worry about the state of my own. I just pray for my friends and try to give a hand when I can, both in terms of temporal help when in need, and spiritual help via example and advice when asked. I’m more than grateful for all the times when my friends of other faiths (or no faith) do the same for me and always wish them the best.

Not a thing I’ve written in this post changes the fact that I think Cynthia is a fine person a good writer and excellent company to spend time with and I’m proud to call her friend.

Update 2: Lisa Grass might be right about a problem being Christian in public as my spam filter didn’t like her linkback I couldn’t help but laugh when I followed her link to Dictionary reference.com’s definition of “Barbarian”.

5. Barbarian
(among Italians during the Renaissance) a person of non-Italian origin.

That’s absolutely wrong, Most Italians still use that definition.

Update 3: Stacy McCain pulls a Rick Warren in his commentary on the debate between Cynthia & I:

And while Cynthia Yockey is free to insist that she is a lesbian by nature, incapable of erotic feeling toward any man, I am equally free to insist that she is in denial about her true orientation. In an alternative universe — where social norms were dictated by the insane King Stacy, Emperor of McCainia – she would be merely another of the innumerable concubines in my vast harem.

As I commented on his site that paragraph if read in person to Cynthia would have produced two laugh out loud moments. The look on Cynthia’s face when he read it, and then the look on Stacy’s face after she decked him.

Of course after he gets up they might just say “This is all your fault!” and deck me together.

BTW when I say “pulling a Rick Warren” I am basing it on this line:

“I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see…”

When Rick Warren or Stacy McCain purchases a Private Tropical Island then start worrying!

Update 4: Considering that I really didn’t want to write this post, It has created a tremendous amount of buzz (Viva la Madonna della Cava!) Now Joy McCann has weighed in too and has some things to say:

Joy starts with info on “ex-gay” therapy etc. I must admit a total ignorance on the subject so I can’t comment intelligently about it.

She agreed with me concerning Cynthia’s initial post in one respect:

So, yes—I would concede Da TechGuy’s argument that Cynthia overstepped a little in her certainty about Marcus Bachmann’s orientation and proclivities. And imputing a desire for minors to someone one has not met is—well, it’s coloring outside the lines.

That was the primary reason for the post.

She mis-interprets the Screwtape except however:

Do I really believe that playing cards will take a person to hell as easily as murder? Do I think a bit of Friday night poker endangers a person’s soul? Do I think it’s a sin for a child to place a playing card so that it makes a loud, rhythmic noise as it runs over the spokes of his bicycle? Of course not!

She doesn’t have the context of the previous paragraph which I now provide:

As this condition becomes more fully established, you will be gradually freed from the tiresome business of providing Pleasures as temptations. As the uneasiness and his reluctance to face it cut him off more and more from all real happiness, and as habit renders the pleasures of vanity and excitement and flippancy at once less pleasant and harder to forgo (for that is what habit fortunately does to a pleasure) you will find that anything or nothing is sufficient to attract his wandering attention.

You no longer need a good book, which he really likes, to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday’s paper will do. You can make him waste his time not only in conversation he enjoys with people whom he likes, but in conversations with those he cares nothing about on subjects that bore him. You can make him do nothing at all for long periods. You can keep him up late at night, not roistering, but staring at a
dead fire in a cold room.

All the healthy and outgoing activities which we want him to avoid can be inhibited and nothing given in return, so that at last he may say, as one of my own patients said on his arrival down here, “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked”. The Christians describe the Enemy as one “without whom Nothing is strong”. And Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off.

The “small sins” were the distractions from duties that needed to be done. Cards are not sinful but this particular Srewtape letter wall all about slowly weaning the “patient” from his proper actions. The full letter is here.

Finally on the separation of church, nothing about the post concerned government, it concerned sin and hell. In our republic people law is not defined by sin, a person has the legal right to sin all he wants provided said sin does not violate law. Neither I nor the church would dispute that.

But the decision to exercise one’s freedom to sin and the free choice to not repent has a price, and acknowledge it or no it will be paid.

Update 5: Cynthia Yockey responds to Stacy comment on our exchange:

Stacy McCain vouches for Marcus Bachmann by hiring him to babysit his youngest son

The title alone is worthy of a Bazinga!

….and the whole quota/race card/homophobe card crowd.

1. Since the NYT did not have an openly gay op/ed columnist until this week were they up until that point bigots who were practicing discrimination?

2. If the answer to question one is “No” since the highly liberal New York Times took 160 years to have an openly gay op/ed columnist have we established that “160 years” is an acceptable watermark/deliminator to decide how quickly institutions can wait before advancing an opening gay person to their most prestigious positions without being considered bigots/racists/homophobes?

Just askin’

reported by Zombie (incredibly NSFW)

1. He is exactly right that if it was a group of Christians making fun of Gays in the same manner it would be front page news on every paper, held up as a sign of intolerance and condemned by every major media outlet. The MSM will never cover this event because they understand what the reaction of the general public would be.

2. Considering that gays are actually killed today under Sharia law it would be interesting if these same people would hold a similar festival during Ramadan attacking Islam or holding a “hunky Mohammad” contest.

3. As a Christian in general and a Catholic in particular this kind of stuff is part of the job description. We will always be mocked, Christ said so. The proper response to such mockery is to pray for them.

4. No word on if Michael Bower will be devoting a show expressing his outrage concerning this event.

5. It would be very interesting to find out if any Federal and or state funds are used for this event. If so it would be more interesting to ask state and federal elected officials if they support the use of said funds for this event.

6. Under local standards and law, the people of San Francisco have a perfect right to hold events of this nature if they want. The people involved are certainly welcome to continue to do this every year and hedonisticly mock Christianity and Christ for the rest of their lives…

…after that they’re on their own.

I’m looking at Don Surber’s post concerning Tony Perkins blog post at the WP. He notes that the comments are universally negative concerning Mr. Perkins at the post.

Now we Roman Catholics treat Homosexuality differently than most Protestants, we don’t consider the orientation a sin (the Catechism calls it “intrinsically disordered”) but the act is.

So although there is disagreement here. Let’s ask the questions I’ve already asked once before on Twitter:

As believing Protestants believe homosexuality is a sin, does that mean that all believing protestants are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?

As believing Orthodox Jews consider homosexuality a sin does that mean that all believing protestants are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?

As believing Muslims consider homosexuality a sin does that mean that all believing Muslims are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post? That’s a tough one, gotta be inclusive here.

As believing Catholics consider homosexual acts sinful does that mean that all believing Catholics are by definition bigots who are unworthy of being in the Washington Post?

If you answered yes to any and all of those questions, then the question you need to ask yourself is? Are I a bigot who is unworthy of being in the Washington Post?

The Ken Mehlman “coming out” story raises an interesting question about when a person is considered gay.

Mehlman was “outed” several years ago, and the reaction of people was pretty much the type of reaction that I would get if I told people I was fat. A total lack of surprise.

Since this was apparently something everyone knows it leads to the following questions about sexuality:

1. Is a person only considered a homosexual if they acknowledge it?

2. If a person comes out, is that considered forever, for example if a person announces later they they are in fact straight are they considered straight?

While these are interesting philosophical and or sociological questions, this doesn’t explain why the Mehlman story is so big? Of course it’s a great excuse to not report Tea Party/Sarah Palin wins Tuesday, but if we have to have the real answer Stacy McCain provides that for us.

There is nothing new under the sun, you see. There were gay people working for Republicans in 1967 and there are gay people working for Republicans today. What has changed is that gay-rights activists have turned sexuality into an identity-politics racket, so that any gay person who doesn’t share their agenda is made to feel inauthentic, a traitor to The Cause. And, as Marc Ambinder explains in his report at The Atlantic, this is now being used as a “wedge issue” by the Left

It is the attempt peel away conservatives that is the goal here and if this story can help the cause then it will be promoted by the media.

So as long as this is the case it will remain on top of memeorandum

Update: Via Glenn Ann Althouse nails it. It is all about becoming relevant , watch the MSM start using him as a goto guy when talking about republicans in the future.

When I first read this story my jaw dropped on the floor and rolled around a while:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

Sounded an awful lot like the Georgia case, I wrote about earlier. My outrage button was pushed and heading into overdrive but when I read the Fox story there was a twist that I noticed that should not be ignored:

She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

This is a most important sentence, we would not allow a doctor to refuse to treat a homosexual man, I can’t see how this is different than an Islamic bus driver keeping a guide dog off the bus.

A counselor’s job is to give advice, there is nothing wrong with a counselor shaping and framing that advice based on their beliefs (we are all of us are shaped by our beliefs) but to refuse a patient based on said beliefs, particularly in a training program, that’s off.

In private practice a person can pick and choose patients, but during training that is a different matter altogether.

Let’s put it another way. Murder is a mortal sin, Adultery is a mortal sin, Theft is a Mortal sin, all are explicitly prohibited by the 10 commandments. Would Julea Ward refuse to treat a person who committed any of these sins as well?

Christianity explicitly teaches that homosexual acts are sinful (many protestant denominations consider homosexuality itself a sin). It is a serious sin, but it is not the only sin, when we pretend that it is we make a grave mistake, almost as large as the mistake that is made when one pretends it is not sinful at all. One can magnify the legitimate sins of others in order to ignore our own. This is a trap not of our political foes making but of our spiritual foes making and its eternal consequences are much more dangerous to us as individuals.

Christian belief is not based on the separation of one from sinners, we are all sinners, it is based on the separation of one from sin and the willingness of Christ to forgive sin when one repents.

So lets be clear on what the 1st Amendment does and what it doesn’t do:

• Julea Ward has a right to follow any religion she chooses, natural law AND the 1st Amendment guarantees this right.

• A public university has no business trying to force any student or employee to change any person’s religious (or political) belief, that is a totalitarian act contrary to the natural law and the 1st Amendment.

• Any such speech code or rule by a public university to restrict the free expression and/or practice of religious (or political) belief is unconstitutional on its face per the 1st Amendment.

• Any and all such public universities who attempt to enforce such codes to change any person’s religious (or political) belief violating 1st Amendment rights should be sued until they are so broke that they have to go back to slide rules.

• A public university CAN however require that a student follow the basic rules of a degree program. An Islamic student can’t refuse to study the anatomy of a dog or pig if they want a degree in Veterinary medicine.  That is not a first amendment issue.

Julea Ward put herself in the wrong by refusing to counsel a homosexual student: From the ruling:

“In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

In such a case the correct and honorable move for Miss Ward would be to tell the patient openly that she considers homosexual relationships wrong and that her advice would be informed by that belief. She could then give said patient the option to either continue with her or request a different counselor. This empowers and informs the patient without violating personal beliefs. If the patient wished to continue with her she could give advice based on actions that are harmful (lying, selfishness, deceit etc) in any type of interpersonal relationship.

And the university put itself in the wrong by trying to change her beliefs:

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

By attempting to create a single mindset within said program the university harms itself by closing of it’s own mind and robs potential patients of the perspective and philosophy that can benefit them.

There is no question that the media culture and university culture is trying to promote and protect homosexuality (remember Dirkhising Christian & Newsom? Exactly!) and to attack Christianity as a rule. Let’s avoid helping them out in their endeavor.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: I think we on the right are missing that key detail that makes this case different than the Keeton case. I would however concede that the Clinton appointed judge would have likely gone with the university even if she didn’t refuse the patient treatment.

Update 2: Outside the Beltway almost gets it.

This really isn’t complicated: You’re allowed to believe whatever you wish. Under the 1st Amendment, you’re allowed to say or write just about any damned fool thing you please without fear of sanction from your government. You’re also allowed wide berth in the practice of your religious beliefs.

But public institutions are allowed to set policies that conflict with some people’s religious beliefs, so long as they have a rational, secular basis for doing so. In this case, EMU did. It would be simply absurd to allow students to participate in a program designed to provide counseling credentials who would never be able to get licensure as a counselor.

This misses the point here, if a license is not allowed based on a religious belief that is a religious test and unconstitutional. If they decide a believing Catholic, Muslim or Protestant can’t be certified that is a de-facto religious test made by a public university based on beliefs also unconstitutional. It wasn’t the beliefs of Miss Ward that were the proper grounds, it was the INACTION in refusing to treat the patient that constituted the proper grounds for the University to act.

Update 3: The Anchoress zings in her own gentle way at the very end of this post

I guess my question is, if a gay counseling student expressed an inability to “embrace” religious people or their values also be subject to remediation? Are we drowning in irony, here?


I was approving comments today and a fellow named Billy asked what I think is a very fair question:

If “Kagan has to stand or fall on her record,” why has every single one of your posts about her been related to her sexual orientation?

It’s a good point worth answering, particularly since I’ve claimed that it has non bearing on her qualifications for the court.

First Two people I like, Robert Stacy McCain and Cynthia Yockey wrote stories on the issue. I thought that Cynthia’s was particularly good and I found it a good reason to link to them. I must not be alone in that opinion since she has been invited on two radio shows since her PJ media piece.

Second: Frankly the Elena Kagan nomination story is… well boring. Very important mind you, will affect the country for decades but boring nonetheless. You have a liberal president with a 59-41 Senate nominating a supreme court nominee. Barring a revelation that she was working secretly for the Taliban there is a greater chance of this president naming me to replace her in the solicitor general’s office than there is of her being defeated. If the Senate was closer it might be different but with these numbers, until the hearing it is just a giant yawner.

Third: We have been told over and over again that republicans and conservatives are “homophobic” and the democratic party is the one place that is welcoming for gays, yet during the course of the year this administration has stuck their finger in the eyes of Gay groups on more than one occasion. Thus how the administration handles the first “Gay” nominee to the court is significant.

Fourth: The reactions themselves have been telling. The suggestion that she is a lesbian is being treated by Democrats and the administration as a slur. This totally contradicts the image the democrats have of themselves as Gay friendly. It is that phoniness that is the only interesting story at this point, at least until the hearing start, then you never know.

Finally: It gave me a chance to quote Andrew Sullivan. For reasons that will be clear in just under three weeks I wanted an excuse to link to and quote Sullivan. This story provided it.

I hope this is an adequate answer to your question.

with this article concerning Elena Kagan:

Gossiping about the sexuality of Washington powerbrokers has become sort of a national pastime. But the stakes—and the vitriol—seem to go up substantially when powerful women crash the beltway frat party. And while Sullivan might think that sexual orientation has become as bland a biographical detail as Jewishness, the unfortunate truth is that, unlike him, most of those suggesting Kagan has something to hide aren’t rooting for her to come out so she can advance the cause of gay rights. They just want to knock a powerful woman down a few notches.

I have not nor do I suggest that Elena Kagan’s sexuality disqualifies her for the high court, nor should it. Yet Mother Jones suggests that to be a Lesbian is a slur. Why is that? How is the suggestion that Kagan is a lesbian directing hate to her? I think the very suggestion is a great example of two things.

The first being projection, Mother Jones’ Stephanie Memcimer is quick to play the “homophobia” card but she is the one suggesting Lesbianism is a slur, something to be denied. I guess Cynthia is right when she talks about the left’s true feelings about homosexuals.

The second being the suggestion that the White house plan is to duck the issue until it can be framed as Mother Jones just did. That way it can be the story of: Evil Right Wingers pushing the Kagan’s sexuality as an issue, as opposed to a celebration of the first Lesbian justice. This will give the media a reason to celebrate the diversity without having brought it up themselves first being forced into it. The White House’s cunning plan that I mentioned in play?

Sounds like don’t ask don’t tell to me, but it can’t be because we know Kagan opposes it.

Even funnier than that is this line that really takes the cake:

Just ask John Edwards how hard it is to keep secret relationships secret in the era of 24/7 celebrity coverage.

Is she serious? Does she not recall the successful efforts of the media to totally ignore and deny the John Edwards story until there was no chance of him getting the nomination? This is supposed to be a professional journalist who I am to give credence to? Ha!

Taking another look at Gibbs’ feigned outrage I wonder if the White House plan is to feign outrage in order to make it a moral imperative of “fairness” to rush Kagan through to keep her from improper personal questions.

I certainly don’t care who she is sleeping with but I sure would like to know her Abortion position (as if I didn’t know).

…from my youth.

My mother is a strong willed Sicilian woman who although she had many diplomatic skills was also blunt when asked a direct question. This bluntness made her more than a few enemies.

There is one in particular that comes to mind, I won’t quote the name as the woman in question is long dead but to say there was no love lost between them is the understatement and then some. I’ve heard the stories of their many conflicts dating back to the 40’s for decades.

I remember thirty something years ago the subject came up and my mother was talking about something that had happened back in the 50’s. She was actually getting angry over it, one of the few times I ever saw her start to get carried away. She began to mention a rumor and suddenly stopped herself short. I noticed a look on her face as if she was angry to have even alluded to it.

I asked her about the rumor and she wouldn’t go any further, her whole attitude shifted. She said that she would not repeat it, no matter what she had done to her in the past or how much she disliked her the very suggestion was beyond the pale and she scolded herself for mentioning it.

Her anger dissipated at once and she gave me a talking to on propriety and respect and she stressed about how one should never go by rumor. It really struck me how ashamed of herself she was. I had never seen that before.

I don’t think I have to say what the rumor was, but it really gives an illustration of how attitudes have changed in just a few generations. My parents did have homosexual acquaintances (as did I) but their orientation was never openly discussed. In those days to suggest or mention it was considered the height of impropriety.

I never knew the mainstream media held such old fashioned values.

Update: Stacy notices that Robert Gibbs thinks he’s my mother.

…I don’t know Elena Kagan personally, never met her, never really followed her. I don’t know if she is a lesbian or not and frankly don’t care. It seems to be an “open secret” but I’ve never really gone for “open secret” stuff. If she wants to declare her sexual preference that’s fine, if not that’s fine too. It’s not true one way or another until she says so and either way it’s not my business.

That being said what is really interesting watching Morning Joe this morning is the number of times the words “4th woman” (over and over) vs the number of times “1st lesbian” (never) is being said.

If this is something “everyone knows” the fact that the media won’t and hasn’t said it is very telling. The media has constantly bombarded us with the proposition that Homosexuality in all its forms should be embraced and even celebrated by society. Yet, if this is true, the historic nature of this nomination the “breakthrough” is not being touched. Not even being alluded to.

Why is this the case? In my opinion three reasons:

1. They are convinced that this will hurt them (the administration) in the elections this year. They are already in rough shape and don’t want to make things worse.

2. If it is discussed they want it to come from a conservative outlet so they can cry “bigotry”.

3. Demographics. If you look at Prop 8 the Black community is not on board with the whole Gay Marriage thing. This year there are an unprecedented amount of black conservatives running on the republican side. Cynthia is on the money here. If the black or Latino community move even slightly toward the R column the game will be over for Democrats for generations.

This I think speaks to the hypocrisy of the media more than anything else.

Of course maybe they think she is another Gregg Kravitz.

Presuming she is the nominee I will likely oppose her based on her judicial philosophy (yes I’m going to use the same standard the left uses for us) , however from what I can see there is no question that she is a qualified candidate and philosophy aside certainly can do the job. If she however wants to use foreign or international law as a precedent for ruling then we have a real problem here, but that problem if it exists wont be with who she is sleeping with.

Update: Interesting. I believe the true expression of media bias is not what the media says but what it doesn’t. Take a look at this Media Matters list of “Myths” about Elena Kagan and note what is not said.

Update 2: Legal Insurrection points out another irony.

Update 3: Camp of the saints calls my reasoning fine but doesn’t answer the real question. I know that in the photo at the bottom of his page I’m the guy on the left, which one of the remaining two are him and which is Robert Stacy?

Update 4 Andrew Sullivan and Hot Air address the question Stacy, Cynthia and I have been talking about this morning. Keep track of the relative times. Sullivan is going to be a very important reference at this blog in about 20 days.

Update: Little Miss Attila has the last and the funniest word on the subject:

I’d love to jump into the fray and demand that Elena Kagan disclose any feelings she might have about women as potential life partners, but I’m searching desperately for my gay agenda. I think I may have left it in the closet . . .

That’s a pretty good line.

Make sure you see this.

We have been warned over and over and over again about what is coming. If we don’t take it seriously then the consequences of stopping it will be partially our fault.

It’s up to you do you want to worry about this:

or this:

Your guide to the Flemish Menace!

And if you are gay, don’t think this is an anomaly:

Three cousins from Hayward have been charged in San Francisco with a hate crime and assault for allegedly firing a BB rifle at the face of a man they believed was gay, an attack the men videotaped, authorities said Wednesday.

Mohammad Habibzada, Shafiq Hashemi and Sayed Bassam, all 24, are scheduled to be arraigned today in San Francisco Superior Court. They are free on $50,000 bond apiece.

This show has played all over Europe, it’s only opening here. Look at the Memeorandum link. It is no coincidence that only conservative blogs are covering it. If the shooter was a Mormon or a Catholic it would be the lead everywhere.

What’s it going to be America?

…the opinion and the comment of our humanistic friends over this story at Vanderbilt:

Last week, a Vanderbilt University Muslim chaplain publicly acknowledged what those of us who study shariah Islamic law know… Awadh Binhazim, when pressed on whether or not shariah Islamic law requires the death penalty for homosexuals, asserted that yes, it does. Furthermore, he stated: “I don’t have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings.”.

Sense of events comments further:

As a graduate of Vanderbilt Divinity School, I know that the university generally and its religion departments specifically fully embrace conceptually and practically gay rights. The teachings of the Jewish and Christian scriptures that say that homosexual practice is sinful are either simply ignored or reinterpreted by the professoriate. This is a very strong institutional value of the university.

So what are we alums to make of Awadh Binhazim

What indeed? Over to you guys.

Exit question: Memeorandum doesn’t list this story, would that be the case if it was a person of a Christian denomination? (trick question we already had that answered last week)