More About #BlackLivesMatter Protests

It is beyond me why it is racist to say that "All Lives Matter." In other news, the #BlackLivesMatter protests are (not surprisingly) turning violent, especially against whites (NSFW).

The barbarians have long since breached the gates.

A Difference Between Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter

I don't have anything in particular against the children's fantasy series by J.K. Rowling (disclaimer: my wife does). It's a somewhat entertaining piece of popular fiction which has somehow been a worldwide phenomenon and which made a fortune for its author and entertained countless children (and, let us be honest, no small number of adults).

With that said, Tolkien's works--here I include specifically Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion--are collectively an epic masterpiece which should be counted among the great works of western literature. There is simply no comparison between the two.

There is also a very vast difference between the two authors. Ms. Rowling is a talented writer who can tell an entertaining story. Tolkien was a brilliant thinker who developed not only a story, but a whole mythology to underlie it, a whole world which could exist as a mirror of our own. He was also a Catholic Christian, and quite faithful (if at time curmudgeonly) concerning his religion.

Rowling, for her part, loosely defined herself as a Christian writer, but on the other hand openly embraces a number of doctrines incompatible with series Christian thinking.

So, to give one simple example of a difference between the two, whereas Rowling is openly cheering this on (and condemning in the name of tolerance all others whose beliefs differ from hers) Tolkien is rightly rolling in his grave over it.

Iconoclastic Performance Art

Sometimes I laugh to avoid crying. From the Pan Arabic Enquirer (a humor site): "The Islamic State wins prestigious Turner Prize for modern art."

The Islamic State has sensationally won the prestigious 2015 Turner Prize for its conceptual art piece ‘Smashing Mosul Museum To Pieces: Death To The Infidels.’ 

“By demolishing priceless 3,000 year old statues with sledge hammers, ISIS is asking: ‘What is art?’, while retextualising normative art as transgressive, daring and counter cultural,” said the chairman of the Turner Prize jury, Sir Nicholas Serota. “I was very moved by their performance.” 

The pulvarised pieces of rock left by the Islamic State were later purchased by modern art collector Charles Saatchi for $5 million for an installation entitled: ‘Lumps Of Rock In A Wheelbarrow, 2015′. 

The Turner Prize, considered the greatest prize in modern art, has previously been won by artists using elephant dung, a dead shark and a garden shed reimagined as art.

A civilization (if IS can be called that, which I do not think it can) which destroys its own cultural heritage cannot long last. And I may add that the saddest thing is not that IS will destroy middle eastern culture, since I could take or leave that. It's not even that, if they are victorious over the decadent west, that they will do the same to our culture (which would be very sad). No, the saddest part is that this commentary works as a comparison of our culture's modern arts to the terrorist group bent on destroying civilization. It's as much a commentary against the West's cultural fixation on suicide (or euthanasia) as anything else. In this case, it's cultural suicide.

Certifiable Insanity

That's how I would describe every member of the Minnesota State High School League not named Emmett Keenan. Public showers of the sort used by students in high school gym class (and sports' teams) can be awkward enough as it is. This just goes over the top. Oh, and coed hotel rooms? Not a brilliant idea either.

Today's Most Insidious Post Award Goes To...

Hyperbole aside, the Puffington Host I mean the Huffington Post, has what just may be the most awful post I've read today. Ok, so it was written a few days ago, but then again I really don't frequent sites like Huffington Post if I can help it. I'm sure I missed a few more recent posts, and I'm sure I could find worse things written at, say, Jezebel or any number of blogs. But the post by Amanda Scherker about bad sex ed advice from the past is definitely insidious.

Let's looks at a few of the things that are "bad advice":
"1. Girls find making out boring, but they'll do it to please boys."

It's not such a stretch to see where that's going. Back then, it was "making out." Now the same argument is sometimes used in terms of sex, or for that matter sexting. Sure, there are many girls who are willing to give away the milk without charging for the cow, and quite a few who enjoy the experience without feeling any sens of shame or guilt or lowered self-esteem. Many more do not. This is one of those "read between the lines" bits meant to fool those girls who don't want to give away the farm (so to speak) into doing so anyway.


"2. Keep your mind virginal, or else... 'Not only is the mind to be kept pure, but the imagination must be carefully guarded. Turn away from obscene pictures as you would from the most loathsome contagion.' "

So keeping custody of the eyes is now bad advice? Telling young men (and increasingly, women) that pornography is not a good thing is now "bad advice?" Sure, most don't take the advice, but it's a bit ridiculous to treat the advice as "bad" or "hilarious"--it really is good advice, and those happy few who follow it will indeed be the happier for it. Or, if you'd rather, those many who ignore it will be the worse for doing so, and their relationships will be the shallower for doing so.


"6. Reading romance books is VERY dangerous for your private parts. 'It is not only that novel-reading engenders false and unreal ideas of life, but the descriptions of love-scenes, of thrilling, romantic episodes, find an echo in the girl's physical system and tend to create an abnormal excitement of her organs of sex ' "

Aside from that certain types of writing are meant to inspire lust, and thus are pornography in another form, it's not really bad advice if their are some women (or men) who get excited by the reading. It may be that not all do, but some do, and giving them fair warning is hardly "bad advice."


"8. Real boys wait."

Again, how is this bad advice? Sure, it is a bit odd to state that "When a boy waits for sex, he'll be 'ready with a big splendid manhood to offer'" since the two aren't really related. But waiting is bad advice now? Really? And reading further, we see the implication that fidelity is also hilariously bad advice. What?


"10. Don't jar pickles the wrong way, and don't have sex the wrong way (or something...) 'You wouldn’t take a diamond and platinum brooch to try to pry open a jar of pickles with it, would you? Using sex in the wrong way adds up to the same thing.' "

Apparently the bimbo writing this column for Huffington Post doesn't understand the concept of analogy. This is actually good advice (I'm sure there's more context to it), if advice it is, albeit wrapped in a bizarre analogy. Sex is not for utility, that is, sex and with it our own bodies is debased when used as just another means to the end of pleasure, or (worse perhaps) to take the other person for a "test drive" before deciding whether the relationship should get serious. To make a mockery of abstinence and of purity is anything but "hilarious."

Some days I can't even. This is one of those days. The real moral of this story is that anything resembling abstinence or outright purity is not only a morally neutral thing, but actually a bad thing. And that is why we must fight back in the culture wars. There will be no peace in them, since the other side will be driven inexorably forward until any hint of Christian morality is removed, firs from the public square and the from our private lives.

Then They Came for the Churches in California

This is kind of old news, but it's apparently starting to get reported enough for me to notice it. We have to be reminded that the homosexualists--while the most militant group seeking to ruin the Church and anyone tenuously connected to her--are far from the only group. The abortion lobby is just as happy to go for the jugular, though they only seem to have traction under the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate. Except, that is, in far leftists states like California, where abortion--including elective abortion--has been placed in in the category of "basic health services," and thus its direct coverage in all insurance plans is demanded by the state.

This includes insurance plans bought by churches (emphasis added):

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections. 

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.... 

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage. 

To no one's surprise, one of the chief instigators of this brazen trampling of actual rights and civil liberties is the now-ironically named American Civil Liberties Union. And while I breathe a sigh of relief that I avoided having to relocate to California (or Massachusetts, or new York, etc which I am sure will contemplate following suit), it's only a matter of time before this kind of evil is forced on even the so-called "Red States."

America was once land of the free and home of the brave. As these kinds of laws take place, this reputation will be eroded under we are all naught but chattel to the state. And the state will serves it new gods, which are really very old demons: Moloch, or Isis, or Baal, or even Satan.

Western Civilization and the University

So my boss sent me the proposed changes to the general requirements curriculum. This is largely because eh wants me to go to the hearing/planning meeting tomorrow and fight for keeping the 8 hours of science as being 4 hours each in two separate categories, to prevent students from just taking 8 hours of biology and skipping chemistry, physics, earth science, and physical sciences (all of which are in our department) altogether. FWIW, I think we should require 12 hours, with a sequence of 8 and then one more out of that sequence, but that's just me (and many other universities), but the next best option is to have two separate 4 hour sequences.

The biology department seems to have a desire to outright require a two-hour sequence.  This would virtually eliminate the chemistry/physics cashcows of physical science (and to a lesser extent, earth sciences) since neither class currently exists as a two-semester sequence, and most students would prefer the relatively easy intro biology courses to the relatively more difficult chemistry, physics, or even physical science counterparts. Such is inter-departmental politics.

Moving on, I noticed that among proposed changes was this gem: "3. Removal of Western Civilization as a history option in the required slot for General Studies Program; move Western Civilization to the elective area." As I understand it, this makes Western Civ an optional history class as opposed to a required one, albeit one which does still fill a requirement There is, after all, the requirement of "Any 1000-2000 level courses from the following Social Science disciplines: Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, Leadership, Interdisciplinary Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Sociology or other Social Science areas: 9 hours" with  6 of those 9 hours being either a six-hour sequence in literature or a 6-hour sequence in history. US or World history is its own 3 hour category.

Under different circumstances, I would consider protesting this change. I think that the single most important course in history for a student to take is that of Western Civ, which is not generally covered in much depth once one enters post-secondary school. American History, or the History of the US, and World History are probably next, but the former at least has been covered (in theory) by the high schools. To banish Western Civ. to the lost realm of "electives,' even "elective which fulfill a requirement," is to deprive a great many students of their cultural heritage.

With that said, I know a number of the newer history profs and lecturers: one specialized in race relations in the south, and another in Middle Eastern History*. The former currently teaches Western Civ and frequently remarks that she is having to learn it all over again, having not really studied it much in the course of gaining a doctorate in history focusing on the history of the United States. Such is not an uncommon occurrence in history or really any field. Based on her conversations with me, she is doing a reasonably good job of trying to teach the material objectively, but then again she has mostly covered Egypt, Greece, and (pre-Constantine) Rome to this point. I can only hope that the attempts at a fair presentation continue through the medieval period. The Middle Eastern History specialist remarked to me that he did not even bother to apply to any school whose mascot was "the crusaders" or "the knights" or "the templars" or (gasp) "the saints," because they would obviously have a wrongheaded approach to teaching history in general and Middle Eastern, Islamic history in particular. This latter man is actually Jewish, but decidedly un-Western, perhaps even anti-Western** (though I suppose that any course he teaches about world history outside of the west is probably a thing of beauty, as he does put lots of effort into the preparation).

Being as I am at a state (read: secular) university, and being as these are the kinds of professors who largely work here, we may be doing the poor students a favor by sparing them a cynically taught version of Western Civ. Utter ignorance of one's cultural heritage is probably preferable to complete disdain of that heritage, especially if it is manufactured disdain.


-----
*A third one is actually a convert to Catholicism, and wrote his dissertation on anti-Catholicism in the US, particularly during the mid 19th century ("Know Nothings" featured prominently). He would probably do a nice job of teaching Western Civ.

**But still a colleague and perhaps a friend no less.

Bottuming Out

Not to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to return the the case of Joseph Bottum, and his surrender on the issue of "gay marriage." It's been about a week since I last wrote on this. I've tried to be fair to him in this space, though some would say I've failed. So be it.

And, to be really fair, he's caved to the secular culture in just one real (public) front of the culture war, and that a front which many consider lost. He himself considers it lost, though to read his long and rambling post on Commonweal, to say nothing of his briefer rebuttal to the early responses on facebook, one would come to the conclusion that it is a fight not worth winning. Others among his defenders have said so and in roughly so many words: and this is a large part of why we appear to be losing this particular fight.

Many people, including many Christians in general (who should probably know better) and many Catholic in particular (who should definitely know better) consider our efforts against legal recognition of "gay marriage" to be a waste. This is certain, and it's been stated. Less certain, by really not in much doubt in my mind, is that many consider the effort a waste because they want to see "gay marriage" become a reality, and not merely because they think the fight is using up political and moral capital which could be better spent elsewhere.

Elsewhere tends to be vague: it may be on the very important issues of fighting abortion, or the culture of death in general, or of poverty, or what-have-you. Anywhere else.

The thing is, the two reasons for giving up on this issue look too much alike. "Spend political and moral capital elsewhere" might be advice you'd give a friend because you want to see him succeed elsewhere, but it might as easily be a ruse to get him to stop fighting a fight which you don't want him to win. And reading through Mr Bottum's essay, I notice that while the words mostly say the former, the tone of the thing seems to say the latter. If this is reading too much into Mr Bottom's essay, it is certainly not overreading the sympathetic defenses of that essay, some of which have said in so many words that fighting against "gay marriage" is not a good fight (if a losing one):

"I just also happen to agree with Joseph Bottum, that the fight over gay civil marriage is not the good fight we should be fighting....Attempting to stop legalized gay civil marriage because of the “grave threat” it poses seems disingenuous, not just to gay people but to everyone. Even to me."

This reads a lot closer to "stop fighting, because I don't want to risk your winning" than to "stop fighting, you're wasting energy here that could be spent on a winnable battle." Many of these essays read like the "gay marriage" equivalent of "personally, pro-life, but politically pro-choice" which provided cover to Catholics who didn't want a pro-life victory (of any sort).

Perhaps they're meant to read this way, and perhaps not.

The fact that so many of them do does give us a clue as to why the reaction against Mr Bottum was so harsh. Some of the posts are downright vitriolic, and many comments look like they come from Two Minutes' Hate. Many more posts were (or attempted to be) charitable but blunt. Only a scant handful were the least bit tactful (I'll admit, I didn't particularly worry about tact here). Such is how the internet (and beyond) often reads, but this felt a little different.

I suspect that the reason is because those of us who still try to fight the good fight in a loosing battle feel more than a little betrayed by Mr Bottum. As mark Shea put it, he sold out, but only after explaining (as if to placate his own conscience) that he never really believed in this cause to begin with. But he didn't just leave the battlefield gracefully: he sold us out, he attempts to sabotage teh efforts of those who remain (or so it seems).

Intentional or otherwise, he became a traitor of sorts, every bit as much as Mr Doug Kmiec became a traitor who sold out prolifers during the 2008 elections. At the very least, he made us all feel betrayed by the way in which he exited the fight--a way which is opening the gates for a seeming exodus of other deserters. Worse still, many of the arguments involved have made it feel less like a desertion and more like a sudden switching of sides, like so many double-agents and turncoats. They aren't just wearily leaving the battlefield, but rather have retreated to the edge of the field and then turned to fire a parting volley into our flanks.

Is it any wonder, then, why there is so little sympathy for them from those who attempt to fight on? He (and they) may have largely been allowed to leave this front quietly to focus his energies elsewhere had he just been a little more gracious in departing and disengaging. Sloth might be forgiven; choosing to focus one's energies on another front would surely have been forgiven, as would choosing to fight on this front with different tactics. But treason, betrayal: this is quite possibly the hardest thing of all to forgive. There is a reason why the traitors occupied the lowest depth of Hell in Dante's Inferno, and it is not merely a matter of Dante's view of the role of kings in the cosmos. Betrayal is like the anti-salt, which makes any other offense taste that much more bitter to the offended.

Yet, in the end, forgive we must.

Crucified for Hedonism

Joseph Pearce has a brief post up which teaches an important truth to a culture which wishes to sacrifice truth to hedonism:

Those who embrace their crosses selflessly are liberated from their slavery to themselves. This is the only freedom worth living for or dying for. Those who hate their crosses are nailing themselves more painfully to them, enslaving themselves to their own selfishness. 

The number of suicides is increasing. Despair is increasing. Nihilism is rampant. Addiction is an epidemic. These are all signs of a society that is crucifying itself through its hatred of the Cross.  

Saint Augustine wrote that the demons are ruled by their passions rather than their intellects, but I don't think that most men do much better these days. Such is life in a culture which embraces hedonism. The demons cannot rule themselves, but they wish to rule others; we can't control our own passions and urges, and so are unable to use our intellects to guide ourselves. The result is a great social death wish.

Quote: Mark Steyn on Detroit's Downfall

Mark Steyn is one of my favorite political commentators. Here's his article on the Detroit bankruptcy fiasco:

Detroit was the industrial powerhouse of America, the “arsenal of democracy,” and in 1960 the city with the highest per capita income in the land. Half a century on, Detroit’s population has fallen by two-thirds, and in terms of “per capita income,” many of the shrunken pool of capita have no income at all beyond EBT cards... 

The city’s Institute of Arts paid $300,000 for the original Howdy Doody puppet — or about the cost of 300,000 three-bedroom homes. Don’t get too excited — you can’t go to Detroit and see him on display; he’s in storage. He’s in some warehouse lying down doing nothing all day long, like so many other $300,000 city employees... 

With bankruptcy temporarily struck down, we’re told that “innovation hubs” and “enterprise zones” are the answer. Seriously? In my book After America, I observe that the physical decay of Detroit — the vacant and derelict lots for block after block after block — is as nothing compared to the decay of the city’s human capital. Forty-seven percent of adults are functionally illiterate, which is about the same rate as the Central African Republic, which at least has the excuse that it was ruled throughout the Seventies by a cannibal emperor. Why would any genuine innovator open a business in a Detroit “innovation hub”? Whom would you employ? The illiterates include a recent president of the school board, Otis Mathis, which doesn’t bode well for the potential work force a decade hence.

I suspect that as our nation continues its decadent slump toward barbarism, stories like this will become more frequent.

Also, "If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit."