I’m sorry, not sorry, for the language. It is, however, both accurate and warranted.
I also apologize for posting a second political post in one day, during a time when I said I’d do my best to avoid such posts, but the opinion piece to which the Blaze article refers is completely over the top! In fact, I’m so angry I can hardly think straight, much less write coherently.
First, read the linked article, if you haven’t already, for the details. Then here are my thoughts:
First off, this individual (who I will not dignify by naming) is absolute and complete scum of the earth. The fact that he would write such a piece for publication is more than ample evidence of that. And the Boston Globe, despite its efforts to weasel out of the situation, is complicit, for its lack of “editorial oversight” in the first place. What, in God’s name, where they thinking, to allow that to appear in print?
Quite aside from the ethical, health-related, and just plain disgusting-ness elements of this reprehensible screed, how could anyone, on any side of the political aisle, possibly think that tampering with food as an act of political terrorism is in any way acceptable, or in any way beneficial to their or anyone’s cause – or, for that matter, to our culture, society, and even economy?
While everyone knows that there are sometimes questionable practices in restaurants, and sometimes questionable food makes it out to the table, the entire restaurant culture of this (or any) country is founded on the assumption that such incidents are rare, and usually limited to “greasy spoon” types of establishments.
If people are going to have to start thinking – even when they go out to a nice dinner at a nice restaurant – “Well, gee, what if my waiter overhears a comment I make to a table companion, or doesn’t like my choice of hat, and decides I’m of a political persuasion he or she doesn’t like, so s/he decides to spit (or worse) on my food, as a result?” What’s that going to do to people’s willingness to go out to dinner?
The level and variety of stupidities embodied in the described opinion piece are so many and so epic that it just beggars description. AND – this is the crowning irony – this is from someone who considers conservatives to be haters. Let that sink in for a minute. This guy doesn’t like the President, so he considers that it’s perfectly okay to p___ in the food of those who do, and in fact stated that people who do so would “be serving America” (though he later, and completely unconvincingly, walked that back).
But that’s okay. Being on the other side of the political aisle is not.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. And I am coming increasingly – if reluctantly – to agree with the assertion that today’s “liberalism” (which is a far cry from classical liberalism) is a flat-out, full-blown mental illness.
As I said:
Sick, disgusting, brain-damaged bastard.
But I still wouldn’t p____ in his food, because I have standards.
“I don’t have a faith like yourself my brother so I don’t share the same views in this matter but I do believe you should be able to voice your own opinions and beliefs as you see fit.
“To everyone getting worked up about these post I ask you if you don’t believe in the same things as them then what do these statements matter to you? Can we not disagree with someone without calling them a bigot or a homophobe or every other name under the sun?
“And by the way If you’re going to say you’re accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with.”
This is in reference to a specific incident, but it certainly has much wider application! The irony is that it is – as is too-often the case, these days – the supposedly tolerant “liberals” and Leftists that are up-in-arms about supposedly anti-LGBT (actually merely family-friendly, and supportive of traditional mores) comments on social media by a few members of the rugby community.
I have said much the same on a number of occasions and in a number of fora: if you are going to position and present yourself as being in favor of “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “inclusion,” it is a sad irony when you refuse to afford others the right to their own opinions. Yet that is the modus operandi of much of the modern Left.
Those who make no claim to be tolerant of what they see as sins and vices – especially when they are promoted as being worthy of acceptance and even praise – at least have the virtues of consistency, frankness, intellectual honesty, and the courage of their convictions. Those who claim to be tolerant while, in fact, being anything but, have no such authenticity.
Old-school, classical liberals, of the “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” would presumably be very disappointed in their present-day successors! At least, I hope they would…
For the record, I am of the opinion that what consenting adults get into, sexually, is their own business, being between them, their understanding of God, and their spiritual counselor or advisor, if any.
Unless, of course, they make it my business, either by requesting my spiritual counsel – in which case I will provide it, honestly but hopefully with compassion – or by throwing it in my face, and the face of society, of which I am a part, insisting that disordered passions be “affirmed” or even “celebrated.”
While I’m on Russian Insider: an interesting article on an interesting individual!
“In contrast to the values of the marketplace, [Glazunov] calls for placing spiritual and political ideals in first place. He believes that patriotism, service to society and its head, a monarch, are far more important than filthy lucre.”
It is interesting where one’s wanderings in the Steppes of Cyberia can take one! From following links on Holy Tradition and the priesthood, I found myself struck by a passage which speaks to one of the great issues – and traditional / orthodox Christians would assert, evils – of our time: abortion. This, even though abortion is not mentioned in this context.
In her essay, “What is Holy Tradition?” in her blog, Just Genesis, anthropologist, scholar, and former Episcopal priest (one uses that word with caution, and she herself has rejected it, when applied to women) Alice Lindsey writes (this is long, but please bear with me – it’s important to set the context),
“The whole fabric of Holy Tradition is one with the Pleromic Blood of Jesus Christ. No where is this more evident than in the institution of the priesthood which is essentially the Messiah Priesthood. The Messianic Priesthood is unlike any other religious institution. It at once makes distinctions in its binary character and brings unity through its power to redeem and cleanse. It makes distinction between God and humanity and it makes distinction between male and female. The distinction in both cases addresses the primeval universal anxiety toward blood, an anxiety which many cultural anthropologists have observed.
“Underlying the priesthood is the belief that humans must give an accounting to God, especially for the shedding of blood. The priesthood is intrinsically linked to blood. The priest is the functionary who addresses the guilt and dread that accompany the shedding of blood.
“There are two types of blood anxiety: blood shed by killing and blood related to menstruation and birthing. To archaic peoples both types were regarded as powerful and potentially dangerous, requiring priestly ministry to deal with bloodguilt through animal sacrifice and to deal with blood contamination through purification rites.
“Not a single female in the Bible served in a priestly role. We can argue a case for women deacons, but the deacon is not intrinsically linked to blood. Despite the efforts of many to create an egalitarian reality, we find no basis in Tradition or Scripture upon which to argue for women priests. The Bible does not say that women can be priests because the binary distinctions that frame the biblical worldview make “woman priest” ontologically impossible.
“The Scriptures do not forbid women priests because the very idea of women sacrificing animals in the Temple was beyond imagination. It would have been regarded as an affront to the Divine order.
“It was a bloody business when a priest sacrificed a lamb, so much so that the carcasses were burned outside the walls. It was a bloody business giving birth to children, so much so that the birthing hut was set outside the community. In the ancient… worldview from which Holy Tradition emerges, the two bloods were ordained for different purposes and could never share the same space. C.S. Lewis presents the grotesqueness of women priests in his depiction of the savage slaying of Aslan by the White Witch.If you wonder why the image is so troubling, consider that woman was made to bring forth life, not to take it“ [emphasis added].
“If you wonder why the image is so troubling, consider that woman was made to bring forth life, not to take it.”
That is it in a nutshell, I think. Why is abortion so abhorrent to many of us? Why is it so troubling, even to people who support it, that they have to build defenses around their belief that it’s really okay, after all – defenses like “reproductive rights,” and “my body, my choice” – or conversely, “I had to do it, I had no choice”?
To those outside the pro-abortion movement, those have a hollow, desperate sound: abortion is the antithesis of reproduction; I have already discussed how there is more than just the woman’s body to consider; and there are always choices. They sound like justifications, rationalizations, after the fact – and they are.
Woman was made to bring forth life, not to take it.
This is why abortion is not only wrong, or sad, or “a shame,” but – on a visceral, and even metaphysical, level – abhorrent and evil: because it goes against the very nature and purpose of womanhood as such. Woman alone can conceive a child, bear it in her womb as it develops, and bring it forth to life.
Men cannot do this thing; only women can. Therefore childbirth (and I know individual women have other marvelous abilities, and I also know that some women for a variety of reasons simply cannot have children; but we are talking on an ontological level, here – the level of beingness) is of the essence of woman, in a way it is not and cannot be of men, obviously, or even of humanity as a whole.
Woman was made to bring forth life.
Those women who elect to have an abortion (elective abortions being defined as those that are not medically necessary to save the life of the mother, the latter of which is a very small percentage of all abortions, on the order of 1% or less) – whatever struggles and psycho-emotional agony they may have gone through to reach that point, and I do not wish to minimize the very real struggles of many women, who may feel themselves pressured toward abortion by circumstance, by society, or by their “significant other” – are in a very real sense rejecting the most defining characteristic of womanhood itself, the ability to bear a child and give birth to him or her.
In effect, by her decision and action, the woman who chooses abortion – although it is the abortionist who actually does the deed – is choosing (by Lindsey’s categories, above) to function in the role of priest… but of a priest of Moloch, the biblical Phoenician deity who demanded child-sacrifice.
This is not only an individual act of violence and cruelty against the most innocent and defenseless among us, but – on a metaphysical level – it is an inversion of, and offense against, the cosmic order itself, and thereby an offense against the God who created that order (and who also taught us, “thou shalt not kill,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”).
No wonder it is greeted with unease, at best, and often (and rightly) abhorrence, by many – frequently including the woman herself!
When a woman, whose natural role (inter alia, but also preeminently, since she alone can do this) is to bring forth life, chooses instead to kill it, not only is her own world turned upside down, but so, metaphysically, is the cosmic order itself. Is it any wonder, then, that a culture and society which not only accepts, but is expected to “affirm” and even “celebrate” such actions (638,169 in 2015, and nearly 45.7 million between 1970 and 2015, per the CDC), also seems topsy-turvy?
On a metaphysical level, as well as a socio-cultural one, it is!
The Bishops of the Anglican Joint Synods – often known as the “G4” or “Group of Four” Continuing Anglican Churches – has released an official statement on the subject of abortion, here linked from the website of the Anglican Province of America, one of the G4 jurisdictions.
It notes, inter alia, that
“In Virginia, where [legislation similar to that passed by New York] has been proposed [though thankfully not passed], the current governor has made statements that appear to endorse the notion that babies who survive late-term abortions could be left to die.
“Such sentiments reveal how far removed the pro-abortion movement is from the values expressed in a document penned by another governor of Virginia, one which asserts that all humans are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ and ‘that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’
“A society founded on these principles cannot support legalized abortion. If the right to life is unalienable, it belongs to the individual alone, and cannot unjustly be taken away. Moreover, the right to life possesses a logical priority in that all other rights flow from the individual’s status as a living being.
“Curtailing the right to life undermines the principles of natural law and threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”
Distributism is the only practical solution to the problem of rampant corporatism and the globalism which is its inevitable consequence. Next time we raise a glass of craft-brewed ale, we should not merely enjoy its flavor, we should also raise a toast to the political and economic freedom that it represents. (essay by Joseph Pearce)
It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket-scientist to perceive the perils and pitfalls of socialism. Tens of millions of dead, and untold misery among the living, over the last century provide more than ample reason to view socialism as what it is: a tried-and-failed vision of political economy, a utopian ideal in the worst sense of the word (“utopia” means, literally, “no place” – a vision that is by its very nature impossible to achieve), a shipwreck foundered upon the shoals of its own misunderstanding of human nature.
What is less obvious – especially among many on the conservative side of the political aisle – is that capitalism doesn’t exactly enjoy a shining historical record, either. As a useful ally to Western liberal democracies (back when “liberal” meant something close to its original definition) during the long struggle against totalitarian Communism, being seen as the antithesis to Marxism, capitalism acquired something of a luster that it may not entirely deserve.
While capitalism has not (so far, at least) sent anyone to the gulags, that does not mean its effects have been entirely benign, either.