Comments Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 768 Comments
What I don’t understand is why the Pulpit and Pen crew even cares. If God chooses who is saved and who is damned apart from any freedom of the person (Calvin’s double predestination), why even fight against the godless Orthodox?
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 25, 2017 @ 12:55 pm
“Preistitutes” actually works. Once a church becomes feminized, all sorts of sexual confusion results. In the Episcopal Church it took only one decade before the congregants were expected to extol their first lesbian bishop, and another decade when a gay primate was elected who promised a new age of structured licentiousness that was the wave of their oh-so-enlightened future. It didn’t work out. He divorced his male partner and throughout this entire forlorn episode the Episcopal Church collapsed.
A female priesthood fosters deeply symbolic confusion where the creative power of God is conflated into the creative power of the female body. The Uncreated gets subsumed by the created. It’s neo-pagan, a return to the fertility cults. It works in the post-Christian West because feminism has largely succeeded in destroying the feminine.
Abortion on the ideological level is the means by which the feminine is destroyed on the march to destroy the masculine in service to the ultimate goal of destroying any cultural memory of the God of Abraham. If God is not Father, well, then God is Father or Mother. And if God is Mother, then the creation is birthed into existence. The awareness of creatio-ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) dies and all things created become part of the stuff and substance of God/gods, or more precisely, the stuff and substance of the primal energies.
The Evil One knows he is defeated, but many people don’t. The Evil One works this ignorance to his advantage until the Final Judgment. If you can’t defeat God you can still enslave souls by removing any cultural references to Him. Want to know why teen-age suicides are sky high? There’s your answer.
So priestitutes works, the offensiveness of the term notwithstanding. In fact the offensiveness is what shakes many (including some Orthodox) out of their complacency.
Oh, BTW, when the proponents of Orthodox Deaconesses assure us a that female diaconate is not a stepping stone to Orthodox priestitutes, don’t believe them.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 18, 2017 @ 10:56 am
About a decade or so back I was in Manhattan for some reason or another and I came across a public demonstration by Jews for Jesus (I think, it may have been some other national group). Then, by serendipity or by the hand of God (I think it was the latter), I ended up in a face to face conversation with their national leader. It all happened very quickly, less than five minutes. I told him to understand the full measure of what the prophets wrote and how Jesus fulfilled it, he needed to become an Orthodox Christian.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 10, 2017 @ 11:25 am
Pat Buchanan gets it. I hope he is right about Pres. Trump not escalating.
Monday on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan discussed the possibility of the United States escalating its involvement in the Syrian civil war days after President Donald Trump launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in responding to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
Buchanan noted the biggest cheerleaders of Trump’s action were Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), which he deemed to be “the war party.” However, argued that they would not “get the war they want” from Trump.
“It’s McCain and Graham and Marco Rubio — the war party,” Buchanan said. “But let me say this, Laura — my view is they’re not going to get the war they want. If Donald Trump the president takes us into Syria’s civil war and he’s already made the first strike — it will consume his presidency. And the sense I get this morning and listening to some of these folks on yesterday’s show is that, ‘Don’t worry, this is just a one-off. We’re not going into Syria. The enemy is still ISIS, as indeed it is if you take a look at what happened in Egypt yesterday, 47 dead and 100 injured.”
“So I think the war party is going to be frustrated because I cannot believe that Donald Trump on second thought is going to plunge us into Syria, which he told us again and again and again would be an act of folly — that our enemy is ISIS and our enemy is al-Qaeda and that we should finish them off,” he added. “Then we’re necessarily going to have to work with the folks who did most of the heavy lifting in finishing them off.”
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 10, 2017 @ 11:13 am
There was no investigation before launching the missiles. Frankly, after the misinformation about Serbia, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Arab Spring debacle and other examples, the bombing struck me as another quick to pull the trigger reaction similar to the prog/libs and neocons.
I voted for Trump because of the war lust of the Democrats and Republican neo-cons. They are responsible for a lot of suffering in the world. I can’t join the chorus of praise I hear sounding from different quarters. And, no, I am not persuaded in the least that Assad is responsible. No one really knows if he is or not. This is Serbia, Iraq, Arab Spring, the Obama takedown of Libya, all over again to my ears — at least in terms of the war cries. If they start talking about regime change, we’ll know where this is headed.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 8, 2017 @ 10:54 pm
Sean, the point is that American culture is not intrinsically Orthodox, which is to say the Christian elements that remain (the true things within American culture) must be baptized into Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faith was introduced by Orthodox people, and the means by which that faith was transmitted to the next generation — and then to a larger American population, was by those same people (or their children) and the culture they preserved.
The closest culture to Orthodox culture the Americans ever experienced was old style Catholicism (think of the baptism scene in the Godfather which offered a glimpse of the holiness that was preserved within Catholicism before Vatican pedestrianized Roman worship and even despite Rome’s theological errors). The Anglican Church also preserved some intrinsic holiness but gave it up when they sanctioned licentiousness as the Christian path. Apart from that Orthodoxy was inaccessible simply because there were very few Orthodox in this land.
Now if the question is one only of language, then yes, worship should be in the language of the people. But this too took time but when it came (and its here) the process was organic.
You say you are not comfortable with a “middle-eastern style of music” but the fact is there is no Orthodox musical tradition in English, not yet anyway. And when one emerges (and it is emerging), it will use either the Russian or Byzantine as its base. The reason for this is simple: it’s all we have got. Again, the ‘western’ style was Gregorian chant (Byzantine chant set to Latin) but the Catholics gave that up after their “reforms” following Vatican II.
The cradle vs. convert dichotomy is not a helpful one I have concluded. We are Orthodox. Put another way, sociology is not the proper ground upon which to decide the question of how Orthodoxy should find its proper expression in a non-Russian or non-Byzantine cultural context. To say it another way: the notion that the countries from which Orthodoxy was brought to America are the “old countries” is fundamentally a false construct. The faith in those countries is alive and well. They are not “old countries” at all.
One final thing. The estrangement people are feeling from Christ in our day is due more to lukewarm faith than it is to the difficulties of adapting to a culture with non-American elements. I see your point and it is a valid one but if somehow all the different jurisdictions got together or if all music would conform to American styles for example, it would not change the loss of people. The reasons lie deeper.
If people moved into a deeper communion with Christ, our churches would be overflowing. The harvest is ripe, the laborers are few.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 9, 2017 @ 2:09 pm
Here’s the problem Sean. “Foreign styles” are often the way the Orthodox faith has been preserved and transmitted. Culture is the expression of faith — it is how the faith is lived — and so they have to be understood in order to understand the faith. Once they are properly perceived, that is, as an expression of faith then natural and organic change will occur as well.
We converts are often to quick to criticize anything not familiar to Americans as “ethnic” when they are in fact they are the means by which faith is appropriated and applied. They are not merely cultural “forms.” They are in fact expressions of an intact culture.
The objection to my stand is that it idolizes ethnic forms (or something along those lines) but this is in fact a short-sighted critique. We Americans are very good at reading and talking about Orthodoxy but not so good about more everyday expressions of the faith (we have no agreed upon means of expression, ie: culture). The convert parishes that apply their own ideas sometimes tend to be a hodge-podge from one parish to the next.
Again, the critique will be that I am defending a static idea of a dynamic Orthodoxy. But the critique is misplaced. I am arguing that although the frustration might be real, simply viewing culture are arbitrary forms that we can alter at will is a particularly American trait.
The Catholics bought into this in Vatican II. They anticipated a renewal in Catholicism but all they got was confusion.
Put another way, if culture is perceived in the form vs. substance construct (we Americans do that), then we don’t really understand what culture is. Culture is completely unselfconcious. It just what you do unreflectively for the most part. (I don’t believe the form vs. substance construct exists in real life, BTW. It’s just a logical construct with no real reference to reality.)
An example is your comment that priests should be able to serve two liturgies. You mention it completely on your own authority. I’m not scolding you here but only pointing how how easily we Americans shift things around without any consideration of why the practice exists or what the ramifications might be if we change it. This approach is part of American culture. We do it without any self-consciousness or self-reflection.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 8, 2017 @ 10:38 pm
John, yes and no. I see no problem with a cradle born and convert mix, in fact I welcome it. It doesn’t make for an exclusively ‘American’ church in the context of the present discussions of Orthodoxy and culture we hear all over the place, but often those discussions are bound to particularly American notions of culture — hence the going round and round and round and never ending anywhere.
Ethnicity is just identification with a particular culture so Americans are just as ethnic as any other culture. The only difference is one of perspective, ie: what country you happen to be standing in. I remember the stories from Russia about when the American Evangelicals flooded Russia to save the godless hordes, the Russians branded Evangelicalism as the “American religion.” They were right.
Rather, the emergence of an American Orthodoxy has to be an organic process and make take a generation or two. The source cultures are the ‘Old World’ cultures just as early Christianity grew out of the cultural soil of Israel. Remember too that it took 300 years to ready Roman culture for the coming of Constantine.
I’m applying this my mission parish. It has grown to about 80 or more worshippers every Sunday and we minister to probably 120 or so, maybe a little more. Many cultures are represented and you can hear various languages in the social hall afterwards. I don’t call it an American church as such, but an international church. Yet isn’t the international character typical of American culture (before multiculturalism anyway which seeks push everyone into a bland conformity of behavior and oppressive uniformity of thought)?
I have no bone to pick with anything you wrote. I just think the discussion we are having in American Orthodoxy never gets to heart of things. Put another way, I don’t think we really understand what culture actually is.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 7, 2017 @ 9:55 am
This is an important and critical distinction. There can be no religion without culture. Religion is the ground of culture. Fr. Pavel Florensky wrote that culture is the means through which Christ lives in the world of man (still working on trying to define this more).
The Hellenism/Orthodox construct out of Constantinople is actually false. It posits two historical streams that, if traced backwards, end at Mt. Olympus and Jerusalem. It leapfrogs the Cappadocian Synthesis altogether. In actual fact, Greek culture was baptized into the Orthodox faith (the Cappadocian Synthesis). If the Hellenism/Orthodox construct prevails, the GOA will find itself defenseless against the secular juggernaut and will probably find itself in the position that the Roman Catholic Church is today, ie: a replacement for collapsed mainstream Protestantism.
Religion is the ground of culture. Faith expressed, lived out, creates the culture. Culture reflects the fundamental beliefs of a people unselfconciously lived out. It is also the way that how one lives the Christian faith is passed to the next generation.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On April 6, 2017 @ 2:22 pm
The last line was perfect:
But it would behoove the current occupants of both of these apostolic sees to remember that the “shoes of the fisherman”—to use the felicitous phrase of Morris West’s prescient 1959 novel by the same title—fit more than one pair of apostolic feet.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On February 23, 2017 @ 7:39 pm
Anonymous, you write:
A prepubescent child has no sexual orientation; gay marriage offers them utter confusion. Fact. Liberal thought would suggest otherwise. It would suggest it opens the door for their freedom, but it does not. It offers total confusion.
This is true and a good insight. Now ask yourself why that is? I submit that it is because of natural law, where we define natural law as comprehension of the divine order of things in nature, they way nature is constructed so to speak and the logic it displays. This is comprehensible even to a child since the structure of the soul and even the mind has an ordering congruent with the ordering of nature. It is comprehended first in the soul, on a level even deeper than intuition, and only later crystallizes into a concept.
Thus when you ask:
Are they then not a victim of Jacobse’s weak argument, focus on excretia, the SCOTUS misapplied the 14th, but much more importantly a victim of the institution of gay marriage?
…the answer is because regarding sexuality natural law also applies to the function of the body. Upstream I offered the examples only parenthetically but they still hold true: waste organs are not designed as sexual organs. This offends you apparently, but it should offend all of us because offenses against nature are naturally offensive. The only time the offenses ceases offending is when the behavior is discontinued or when the sin is habituated to the point where thinking changes. This is clear in St. Paul’s outline in Romans 1 where he describes homosexual sexual activity as a violation of the natural order and describes the long term effects of the inculcation of this sin within the person.
We can argue against the rulings that sanction gay couplings as legal marriage by citing the 14th amendment if we want, but an indisputable fact is that ‘gay marriage’ would never have gotten to SCOTUS unless there was a cultural shift first. The law was passed not based on legal reasoning alone. Rather, legal reasoning followed sentiment; the predisposition to view gay couplings as a civil right preceded the final ruling, as well as the assumption that denying these rights would be victimizing gay couples. That’s what I mean that the social programs of the left all rest in the common cradle of victimization.
To my last point you wrote:
The conservative dislike and crediting of the victim mentality for gay marriage will create more victims because they are fighting gay marriage without thinking about the most important members of society who will become victims of gay marriage.
This is unclear. Who do you mean by “…the most important members of society?” Do you mean children? If so, how will being clear about how nature really works victimize them?
Priests deal with people struggling with the passion of same-sex attraction. One of the first things that has to be untangled is the belief that same-sex attraction is a constituent of personal identity. This is a cultural norm that has been internalized that can be quite debilitating for a person seeking deeper communion with Christ who is dealing with this passion. It’s based on a false anthropology that, in the context of the Church and Orthodox Christian life, functions as a heresy (in pastoral terms). A good way to penetrate this fog is to assure the person that he is seen by both God and the priest as “(Baptismal name) son of the living God.” God (and hopefully the priest) see the man in the light of who he is by virtue of his adoption as God’s son (which his name signifies) and not in terms of the passions he feels and is struggling with.
I mention this only to explain that it is important to draw distinctions between the misconceptions in popular culture and and true (Orthodox) anthropology on forums such as this that are populated by Orthodox readers, especially in this era where some Orthodox priests (such as Fr. Robert Arida) seek to subvert the moral tradition.
So it’s not really legality we are arguing about or even the ideas of GAY Inc. we seek to reverse in the popular culture, not immediately anyway. It’s about the tradition we have received spoken in ways where those distinctions are made clear in ways they can be understood despite the cost of clarifying them.
When I spoke in Washington, DC a few years ago a few weeks before the Obergefell ruling came down I was under no illusion that that the Court was listening but it didn’t matter, not enough to prevent me from speaking anyway. Somebody had to say what the Orthodox tradition taught so I did.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 24, 2017 @ 1:03 pm
Thank you Philippa.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 21, 2017 @ 9:20 am
Actually the dissents in Obergefell are strong and well reasoned. Here’s a good summary: Reclaiming the Rule of Law after Obergefell.
Obergefell is bound to identity politics of the left. The ideas of the left are nestled in a cradle of victimization as most of the culture destroying ideas of the left usually are, at least in Western Europe and America. Identity politics erodes the moral ties that binds people together in ways that foster stability and progress by destroying the the moral restraints that channel male sexual energy into creative pursuits. You will notice that in leftist popular thought the victims of highest standing are often the sexual libertines and increasingly people with mental disorders (transgenderism) . The cult of victimization in other words often serves those who would prefer to dissipate their sexual energy into pleasures that do not foster life.
Tell me, how would you reason against this: Virtuous Pedophiles? This site is run by the man who Salon Magazine profiled a while back (article since taken down) in their effort to normalize pedophilia and invokes the same reasoning employed by those who defend Obergefell especially the appeal to victimization.
The cult of victimization has deeper precepts of course, the chief one being a cultural shift in anthropological reasoning, ie: feelings (passions in Orthodox terminology) are the ground of self-identity. You are what you feel. The passions become essentialized; what ever sexual passion you might feel determines who you are. Drop this belief (heresy really) into that cradle of victimization and emotional responses and moral confusion are the inevitable results (who dares argue against a victim?).
Thirty states had same-sex marriage bans in place by 2012 as the issue heated up nationally from the late 1990s forward and the number was growing. Many of the states saw the bans struck down by local federal courts which drove the issue into SCOTUS. Obergefell is a clumsy, heavy handed ruling as the dissents make clear. The 5-4 split decision mirrors the split in the country. It was and remains a highly divisive ruling.
With the repudiation of the Progressive/Liberal agenda in the national election not to mention the devastating Democratic losses on the state level all through Obama’s tenure, I think you will start seeing more state resistance to the encroachments of the Federal courts. This is not as settled as you think.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 21, 2017 @ 9:05 am
Mark, a couple of clarifications.
There is no such thing as “traditional marriage.” There is only marriage. “Non-traditional marriage” ie: homosexual couplings are not a marriage at all as attested by both natural law and the moral tradition. (Same-sex couplings are naturally sterile; sodomy cannot be equated with heterosexual intercourse since the anal canal is designed for excretion, not penetration, etc. etc.)
Calling the homosexual coupling a marriage does violence to language just as sodomy does violence to the soul of the actors and also to nature. Sodomy is a repudiation of nature and thus God, and the effects of the sin have ramifications far beyond the actors themselves.
In philosophical terms sodomy displays an inversion; the creative prowess of man — a prowess that replicates in a natural way the very character of God, ie: the creation of new life — is turned in on itself. When a man deposits his creative seed in the waste canal of another man (or woman) he exalts death over life. It is a nihilistic act just behind suicide. That’s why it does such violence to the soul.
Societies that elevate sodomy (and abortion; the two are related) as a social good have lost faith in their future. They are in the throes of decay and death.
+ + + + +
Anonymous, you need to read more. Start with my essay on Progressive/Liberalism and “homosexual marriage.” You’ll see that although there are many who are confused (and some deluded) about homosexual couplings, the reasons for advancing the gay agenda reach far beyond notions of fairness or to put in in your words: “There is no way we can say homosexual marriages are not good.” Actually the reverse is true.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 20, 2017 @ 9:23 am
Here’s a question Monk James…
Yes, the term “Father” functions as a metaphor, but how can we say the metaphor is authoritative beyond the scope of the sentence in which it is used? In other words, is its function anything more than descriptive? Is the metaphor indicative of a reality beyond the meaning contained in the sentence? It’s a good question I think and one that “feminist theology” uses to discredit any application of the term beyond the sentence itself. This is also where the default to psychology takes place and usurps authority over the application of the term (ie: some people have abusive fathers, etc.).
I think I have an answer to this but would be very interested in hearing what you say about it first.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 11, 2017 @ 8:08 am
I found Bulgakov’s book Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household a great help in understanding economics (oikos-nomos — house management in Greek), not as a reduction to mathematics and sociology (the way we mostly perceive it) but as a treatise of man’s relationship to nature. The thesis is that eating is the foundation of economics and nature provides the food (Bulgakov continues the theme began in Genesis that continues within the fallen world). Economics then is grounded in both the nature of man, the nature of the created world, and a proper application of stewardship toward nature, a triad that, when realized in the context of divine design and intention, works toward the freedom of man.
Man, Bulgakov wrote, finds himself in communion with the Logos. Nature finds itself in communion man. Stewardship then, implies also the correct (according to divine design) relationship of man to nature which is the foundation and real purpose of economics. If we can extract anything from this then (it seems to me anyway) that we build/support the structures that allow human flourishing; that are in accord, albeit imperfectly given that the world if fallen, with the proper order of things.
Things are never perfect which is why I don’t think we should dismiss the imperfect. The old saying that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good makes a lot of sense in my view.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 11, 2017 @ 7:31 am
Michael, free markets do indeed exist and often foster human flourishing, even in a fallen world. In the last 20 years over a billion people have been lifted from poverty largely due to the creation of market economies. See: Towards the End of Poverty.
Yes, capitalism can be messy but human affairs generally are. Greed afflicts the socialist too, often more so, and envy is a scourge of the poor as well. There is a reason why Jesus told the soldiers to “be content with your wages.”
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Create a market where the man can sell his surplus fish and he can build a home and send his kids to school.
Poverty Cure below explains it (albeit against the false promises of socialist largess and misplaced sentiments of the wealthy):
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 7:14 pm
Carl, free markets allow for human flourishing. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Create a market where a man can sell his surplus fish and he can build a home and send his kids to school.
Bulgakov said that about the only substantial contribution Marx made to the study of economics is that he clarified the place of labor in economic thinking. Bulgakov writes about this in his book Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household (an outstanding book BTW).
Marx’s idea about the perfectibility of man on the other hand is just an outgrowth of his materialism. It was not a new idea. Rousseau is generally credited with putting it into circulation when he rewrote the Genesis narrative and displaced the locus of sin from Adam to society (socialization). Rousseau, Solzhenitsyn wrote, is the father of modern totalitarianism.
Further, the reason that perfectibility has no “scientific backing” is that these dimensions of human experience lie outside the purview of science. There is no way to measure such things. Literature is the means by which these things are comprehended and explained, and even predicted on occasion.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 6:55 pm
The pronoun “He” preserves the ontological distinction between Creator and creation. If the pronoun “she” is used, then it is implied that the manner of God’s creation models in some way a human birth: the stuff and substance of the creation comes out of the stuff and substance of the god/s (ancient pagan thinking).
This is also a reason why we don’t have women priests. All men (collective noun) come a from a mother. Man is born of a woman. The woman’s creative prowess in other words is displayed bodily — only women give birth. Your body, your blood, comes from your mother. Men don’t have this capacity. (Even the one sperm cell that penetrates the egg dies after the genetic code has been delivered.)
For the Christian, the new birth is baptism, the sustenance of that new life is the Body and Blood of Christ — the Holy Eucharist. When a women holds up the chalice however discord results on symbolic levels (in the Greek meaning of the term). Two manners of creation and sustenance are represented — the female’s and Christ’s — and they get confused. If anyone thinks this doesn’t have consequences ask yourself why the Episcopal church went full blown homosexual only a decade after ordaining women priests.*
A male priesthood preserves the ontological distinction between Creator and creation. There is no confusion that the body and blood in the chalice has anything to do with the creative prowess of the male because males cannot create life from their bodies.**
*I’ve argued for years that once a church gets feminized it gets homosexualized.
**Some say that a male priesthood is barrier against a slide back into paganism. While that may be true in the early centuries of Christianity, today a slide into neo-paganism is a conceptual impossibility given that monotheism is ubiquitous in Western culture. Even the atheist/secularist assumes the God he claims is not there is monotheistic; so shaped by and dependent is he on the tradition that he decries. As a result the only path left is nihilism.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 10, 2017 @ 4:55 pm
Misha, all true but I love the Statue of Liberty. I talked about Lady Liberty years ago in the first essay I ever wrote for publication. It explains why I am a patriot, a critical one sometimes but a patriot nonetheless, and why I love my country.
The essay: Liberty
BTW, I am glad the purpose for the Statue of Liberty got recontextualized in a more enduring and hopeful narrative.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 28, 2017 @ 7:05 pm
Mike, you seem to think that if you increase the volume of your vituperation, then your disdain is all the more credible. No worries though because someone else feels your pain!
Apologies for the rough language.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 28, 2017 @ 6:39 pm
Mike, all the moral invective you manage to muster doesn’t change one fact you refuse to face: Arab Spring was a disaster. The prog/lib/neo-con obsession with regime change is a major cause of the refugee crisis and the rise of ISIS in the middle east.
You could have seen this for yourself if you had listened to the Christians of the region. They warned us. You didn’t listen.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 28, 2017 @ 7:54 am
Planned Parenthood was the “Exclusive Premier Sponsor” of the Women’s March in Washington. They were joined by Emily’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America, high flying abortion lobbyists. The March was largely paid for by the abortion industry.
Other sponsors included Human Rights Watch, a Soros funded group that militates for homosexualism in the US and Western Europe, and Moveon.org, David Brock’s dirty tricks outfit for liberals.
See the full list here: http://www.womensmarch.com.
Secondly, try not to proof-text. The promiscuous use of the the words of scripture violates their sanctity and subverts their meaning.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 26, 2017 @ 10:15 am
More Planned Parenthood lies exposed:
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 24, 2017 @ 10:36 am
No they don’t. Some insight:
Global warming is merely a way to transfer control over the economies of sovereign nations to a centralized bureaucracy. If carbon can be classified as a pollutant, then regulating it must be given to a transnational body — globalism on steroids. That died too in the last election except for Progressives of course. They tend to be impervious to facts that challenge their ideology.
The global warming doomsday scenarios are no different than the fundamentalists preparing for the rapture back in the late 1800s. In 2006 Al Gore predicted that the area where I live would be covered in water by 2016. It’s 2017 now and despite rain in the last few days it is still reasonably dry. In southwest Florida we don’t pay much attention to secular prophets and their apocalyptic warnings.
Here’s what Good Morning America reported back in 2008:
One other point. Despite the predictions about malnourishment increasing world-wide because of global warming, the exact opposite has happened. See: Global Poverty Declines Even Amid Economic Slowdown, World Bank Says
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 24, 2017 @ 10:02 am
If your wife marched on behalf of “women who literally carried their children by foot across a desert in Darfur to escape civil war, or Christian mothers who fled Iraq and Syria with their children at a moment’s notice because of bombing or ISIS retaliation,” then maybe she’ll welcome the new administration given that it is not captive to regime change in the way the liberals and neo-cons are.
Bush/Obama/Clinton are responsible in a large measure for the chaos in the middle east and there is no question that had Hillary been elected, American foreign policy would become even more hawkish. Look what Obama/Clinton did in Libya, or the preoccupation of the Democrats and neo-cons with overthrowing Assad.
People confused about the moral status of the unborn should not be in positions where they decide the life and death of others.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On January 24, 2017 @ 9:36 am
Political correctness is the cultic aspect of Progressivism mostly because it attempts to control thought through language. It’s Orwell but on a deeper level Dostoevsky and even Nietzsche. The markers are easy to spot especially the cruder terms — racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, white privilege — anything to shut down discussion and censure thought. Language is used promiscuously, laced with moral opprobrium and other self-justifying blather. It’s intimidation, like the Brownshirts or Bolsheviks.
The corruption of language is both a cause and effect of the moral inversion I spoke of elsewhere. I have set a goal of reading all of Dostoevsky works in the next two years and am about a third of the way through. He’s the master and anyone who wants to understand why things are as they are needs to read him. Dostoevsky is the clearest expositor of the rot of the cult and thus also an antidote; he exposes the acidic pits from which the corruptions seep and reveals how courage and other virtues can defeat it — virtues that draw power from the scandal of the cross; a strength through weakness; a re-inversion of the inversion that makes all things whole and new.
We will increasingly see that those who support the Progressive ideals do so thinking that they do service to God. They do not recognize the dehumanizing trajectory of their heresy, how it threatens the true Gospel with a false one. At the same time we will better understand why the Father’s fought against the heresies of their day with all their strength. We have already seen this descent among the heterodox and I think it is inevitable that we will see it among some Orthodox too. The only strength that can avoid this fate is the kind of strength that endures the cost of faith in Christ and frankly we have few leaders willing to pay that cost and many more who don’t understand it. It we did, we would not see scandals like we recently saw in New York.
We will see about Trump. The repudiation of the Democrats and Republicans is a good thing overall. The test will be if those who understand what is at stake have the courage and discipline to maintain resistance. If not, we just delay the inevitable descent into tyranny. Progressives believe their own propaganda. They are impervious to facts and the testimony of history and literature. They think tyranny is freedom and earnestly labor to build a New Jerusalem surrounded by barb wire and attack dogs that they think keep the barbarians out when in fact it keeps them in chains. That’s what the inversion does. Not all of them see this of course but their leaders do.
We have been given a reprieve. You are right, we have to fight with all means necessary.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On November 26, 2016 @ 5:49 am
Mike, I’m glad to see you refrain from the “racist, homophobe, Islamophobe” shibboleths since they don’t work anymore. Nevertheless, a descent into the murkier depths of moral approbation seems to be occurring. For example,
Father. I cannot ascertain whether or not you enjoy, and endorse, George’s at best poshlost and way too often hideous sensibility. But your failure to rebuke his dissemination of libel, fake news, monstrous lies and all manner of disinformation makes clear all that at least is A-OK with you.
Maybe you could get a job with the DNC. They appear to be doubling down too.
You don’t really argue ideas Mike. Further, I use the term “finger-wagging” a lot because you tend to wag yours a lot. Of course on a deeper level — the group-think, cultic dimension — the attacks resemble a kind of secular Puritanism, a gaggle of church ladies all too certain that their enforcement of social mores is pleasing to God, or in the case of cultural Marxists pleasing to the march of history.
Anyway, back to the facts. I am glad Trump won. At least we have hope the liberal/neo-con enabling of the slaughter of mid-east Christians will stop. That’s a very good thing.
I also like the promise of an expanding economy. It will lift many of the brutal pressures middle-class families face after a decade of declining wages — families I deal with BTW. Have you ever noticed that those who glorify socialism have little experience with its effects on real people?
Finally, if Trump can break the strictures of indentured servitude in American inner cities (outlawing school choice, 55% unemployment of young Black men, unsafe family neighborhoods, subsidizing the abortion industry in the killing of unborn black children, etc.), the cities might start turning around. These cities have been controlled by Democrat administrations for over 40 years.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On November 19, 2016 @ 4:51 pm
Mike, five paragraphs of moralistic finger wagging but not one clear idea expressed apart from your clear disapproval of — what? As far as I can tell nothing more than I don’t agree with you. Nevertheless, you managed to avoid the shibboleths of homophobe, Islamophobe, racist and the rest of the tiresome litany (although you managed to sneak in “bigot”). Maybe that indicates some progress is being made.
If your argument is that I deserve the disapproval because I am not sufficiently sensitive to Nate’s “worries about the fates of millions of Americans ,” it should be clear by now that I don’t subscribe to the Progressive demand that policies be judged by intention. I prefer to judge them by results. This is also a way to break free of Progressive group think, the demand that people think a certain way or be subject to the petulant moral shaming you display above, that cultic dimension of the ideology as I explained to Nate.
Back to the salient point. We don’t have to call the destroyers of mid-east civilization liberals and neo-cons. Call them Democrats and Republicans if you like. Still, not all Democrats subscribed to the Arab Spring debacle (Sanders supporters for example) and neither did all Republicans (Trump supporters for example).
You are right about one thing though. I did support the war in Iraq but had I understood how it would end up, I would not have done so. Smarter men than me (Buchanan, Trump, some others) saw it more clearly than I did at the time.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On November 18, 2016 @ 1:33 pm
Back To Stats Page
Dino, the values have not been turned upside down as much as they have been inverted. Progressivism/liberalism represents what Nietzsche termed the “transvaluation of values” (what I call a moral inversion). It uses the language of the moral tradition but means different things by it (aborting the unborn is an act of benevolence, denying birth sex as the basis of gender is an act of compassion, forcing states to allow adult males to use bathrooms used by little girls is an act of tolerance, to cite some examples).
The confusion enters because the vocabulary of the tradition and the vocabulary of progressive/liberals is the same. This gives the appearance that the values informing the liberal/progressive social vision are derived from the tradition (and contiguous with history). These values function on the level of religious conviction and thus gives the vision moral power. That’s why so many progressive/liberals are impervious to facts and why actions seen as illicit in the past (abortion for example, or driving families out of business, etc.) are construed as a social good.
This is why people like Nate who see things like restricting Muslim immigration as an impending catastrophe (the Fascists are coming!) while impervious to the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East due to the policies of politicians he supports, or why he defends the financial destruction of a family over the refusal to bake a cake. The thinking takes on a cultic character where the real cost of real life events are evaluated and judged solely within the boundaries of politically correct ideology. That’s why political correctness is actually a political cult.
This is also why we see such outlandish statements like Nate’s assertion that his views concern the “well-being of your own flock” (emphasis his). To argue against such statements on their face asserts ground where there is none. The statement is absurdity on stilts but when you are captive to the cult, you believe they are true. The inability to see real limits is one characteristic of cultic thinking. So is overreach into the affairs of other men about whom one knows nothing.
One of the things the election proved is that conservatives (non-liberal/progressives really) are done with it. You can’t reason with misguided believers. You can only take away their power. Thankfully, we can still do that peaceably in America.
» Posted By Fr. Hans Jacobse On November 16, 2016 @ 7:53 am