Lex Anteinternet: J. D. Vance at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Lex Anteinternet: J. D. Vance at the National Catholic Prayer Breakf...: 

J. D. Vance at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Vance, on the same day he assisted in berating President Zelenskiy.

James Donald Bowman of Middleton Ohio is sort of a hard guy to figure out.  Bowman, and that's his real name, or rather the one he held at birth, grew up in a suburb of Cincinnati, not exactly part of Appalachia.  His parents divorced when he was very young, and when he was six, his mother married for the third time, and his name was changed to James David Hamel.  That's the name he served in the Marine Corps under, and went to university under.  He didn't become "J. D. Vance" until he was ready to graduate from Yale Law school.  Vance was the last name of his maternal grandmother.

Vance has also changed religions over the course of his lifetime.  As a proper Hillbilly would, he was once a member of an Evangelical faith, that of his fathers.  By the time he was out in the world, however, he was an atheist.  He became Catholic through the influence of a Yale law school friend, and became a very traditionalist Catholic at that.

I don't fault him the change in religions (I do the adult change of names, which I regard as phony).  I am, of course, a Catholic, and I therefore welcome those into the faith.  Moreover, I often find that converts are more devout than than "cradle Catholics", who often don't know their own faith all that well, although that's certainly not universal.  And I admire traditionalist Catholics as well.

But here's where I begin to have a problem with Vance.  Just as I don't admire Catholics who become another religion for convenience, something we've always experienced (it often used to be for economic reasons, but now is usually due to divorce and remarriage), I don't admire jettonsing of elements of the faith when it becomes difficult, and Vance has done just that.  Catholics believe that life begins at conception, and that conception should always be via natural means.  Vance has changed his position on abortion to tolerate it where states provide it should be, and he's okay with IVF ,which Catholics definitely are not.

Having said that, on basic moral principals, Vance was closer to the faith than many Catholic politicians have been since 1960.

But now he's an active Vice President, and things are beginning to shift again.  He attempted to strain Catholic social teaching the other day to suggest that Catholics have a diehard family first position in regard to loving our neighbor, and got immediately rebuked.  

Vance is actually the highest elected official in the United States right now, given that Donald Trump cannot Constitutionally occupy the position he pretends to without a Congressional dispensation he has not received.  He's a convert to Catholicism, but occupies an odd status in that he's an intellectual conservative traditionalist convert, but with a wife who is a Hindu and who hasn't followed him there (my Protestant wife hasn't followed me either) and who has heavily compromised himself on certain principal Catholic moral teachings in his recent campaign.

So he makes for an interesting, if predictable, speaker at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, something that I frankly didn't know even existed.

His speech, and some comments.

I came here last year as a very young senator not knowing how much my life would change, and I'm thankful to God — but also thankful to the friendship of the people in this room for helping us get there, because I think that we have turned a new page in Washington, D.C., and we are going to take advantage of the opportunity that God has given us. 

We? 

So I want to say a couple of words just about Trump administration policy because, while you're certainly not always going to agree with everything that we do in President Trump's administration, I feel very confident in saying that between protecting the rights of pro-life protesters, between ensuring that we have an opportunity to protect the rights of the unborn in the first place, and importantly, protecting the religious liberty of all people — but in particular, Catholics — I think that we can say that President Trump, though not a Catholic himself, has been an incredibly good president for Catholics in the United States of America.

Now we know of course the last administration liked to throw people in jail for silently praying outside of pro-life clinics. We know that they liked to harass pro-life fathers of seven, very often, Catholic fathers, for participating in the pro-life movement. And we know that the last administration wanted to protect taxpayer-funded abortion right up unto the moment of birth. 

The Biden Administration was extremely hostile to pro life positions, and tacked to the extreme left on social issues in general.  Whomever allowed Biden to take these turns, and I suspect it wasn't Biden's idea, should be severely dope slapped.  In large measure, it's such things that gave us King Donald. 

On every single one of those issues, in 30 short days, Donald J. Trump has gone in the exact opposite direction and I am thankful for that. And I'm sure that every single person in this room is thankful for that as well. But I actually want to talk about a couple of other things in particular. 

One of the most important parts of President Trump's policy, and where I think President Trump's policy is most in accord with Christian social teaching and with the Catholic faith, is that more than any president of my lifetime, President Trump has pursued a path of peace. And we very often, I think, ignore the way in which our foreign policy is either an instrument or an impediment to people all over the world being able to practice their faith. And we know — and as, of course, I learned in this breakfast last year — I believe there were some Nigerian priests who were being persecuted, and were trying to protect their flock despite incredible persecution. 

Trump has followed a path of being a bully, trying to extort the mineral wealth of another country, while making it compromise with an invader.

There will always be wars and rumors of war.  Ukraine is justly defending itself. Catholics are not pacifists. 

We know that some of the biggest groups that are persecuted all over the world today are Christians and the Trump administration promises you that whether it's here at home with our own citizens or all over the world, we will be the biggest defenders of religious liberty and the rights of conscience. And I think those policies will fall to the benefit of Catholics in particular all over the world.

But I would say, my friends, that it's not enough simply to protect the rights of conscience, to pursue funding opportunities and grant-making opportunities that protect the rights of people to engage in religious conscience. We also have to remember that oftentimes the biggest impediments to religious liberty have not come through malice from the United States government but have actually come through carelessness. And one of the things that — I have to be honest — that I am most ashamed about, is that in the United States of America, sometimes it is our foreign misadventures that lead to the eradication of historical Christian communities all over the world. 

And so when President Trump talks about the need to bring peace whether it's in Russia and Ukraine, whether it's in the Middle East, we of course have to recognize that, as a policy oriented towards saving lives, and carrying out one of Christ's most important commandments, but I think we also must recognize it as an effort to protect the religious liberty of Christians. Because over the past 40 years, it has often been historical Christian communities who bear the brunt of failed American foreign policy and that is, in my view, perhaps the most important way in which Donald Trump has been a defender of Christian rights all over the world. He has a foreign policy that is oriented towards peace. 

Trump's peace policy in the Middle East involves siding with one group of people in their entirety while thinking, as his tiny brain does, that the others can happily simply be moved to a second rate Middle Eastern version of a Florida housing development. 

We have done it already so much in the past 30 days, and I'm proud that we will work for peace all over the world in the remaining four years of President Trump's term, and I think that's an important thing.

Now of course, we're not always going to agree, and I'm sure that there are people in this room who agree or disagree with some of our views on foreign policy on any number of issues. The one thing that I will promise you is that you're always going to have an open door with me and with the president. I think that you've already seen that, and if you haven't, please come and bring your concerns — and some of you have already brought many concerns to me over the last 30 days — but also your “attaboys,” because I think that part of being a good presidential administration for people of faith all over the United States, part of it is listening to people of faith when they have concerns.

And I think that it's important — and I'll make this commitment to you in front of God, and in front of all those television cameras back there — that we will always listen to people of faith and people of conscience in the United States of America. You have an open door to the Trump administration even if, and especially maybe when, you disagree with us. So please use that opportunity: communicate with us when we get things right but also when we get things wrong. And that is my solemn obligation but also my request because, of course, as I've learned during the campaign — of course, I've got Secret Service protection and it's bumped up now that I'm the vice president of the United States — I live in a bubble, ladies and gentlemen, I live in a roaming bubble and wherever I go, I'm surrounded by armed agents. The only way to keep me honest, and the only way to know what is actually affecting the real lives of people all over our country, is for you to talk to us. So please, consider that open door very much an invitation, but also a request.

And I will say that I believe that I'm the first Catholic convert to ever be vice president of the United States, [applause] — I appreciate you guys clapping because, it turns out, there are some people on the internet who don't like Catholic converts. And in fact, there are some Catholics who appear not to like Catholic converts. I've learned that the hard way. But of course, the gross majority of of my brothers and sisters in Christ have been incredibly welcoming and Incredibly charitable and for that I'm grateful.

Vance's comments about converts and the Internet here are quite valid.  Vance has proven to be polarizing, including amongst Catholics, which has lead to Twitter wars of a very unfortunate nature.  As noted, converts are often amongst the most devout Catholics. 

I wanted to just reflect on that, on being a Catholic and particularly a Catholic convert in public life, in the hopes that maybe it would provide some wisdom or some guidance, or maybe just some interesting stories for those of you who are enjoying your breakfast. And you know, one of the things that I try to remind myself of as a convert, is that there's a lot I don't know. When I was a kid, we used to call new converts to the faith “baby Christians” and I recognize very much that I am a “baby Catholic” — that there are things about the faith that I don't know. So I try to be humble as best I can when I talk about the faith and publicly, because of course, I'm not always going to get it right. And I don't want my inadequacies in describing our faith to fall back on the faith itself. And so if you ever hear me pontificating about the Catholic faith, please recognize it comes from a place of deep belief, but it also comes from a place of not always knowing everything all the time.

And you know, now I say that of course, I don't try to comment on every single Catholic issue. I try not to get involved in the civil wars between Dominicans and Jesuits and conservative Catholics and progressive Catholics. But as Michael Corleone said in The Godfather, “Sometimes they pull me back in.” Sometimes I can't help — I can't help but spout off. I am a politician after all, ladies and gentlemen. 

But the thing that I have tried to remind people of, and the thing that I try to remind myself of, is that what attracted me to the Christian faith, and what attracted me to this Church in particular, is the recognition that grace is not something that happens instantaneously. It's something that God works in us over a long period of time — sometimes many years, and sometimes many decades. I think that when I I was a kid, my assumption was that grace is something where the Holy Spirit would come in and it would solve all of our problems.

I learned the hard way, as a Catholic — in part, by following the sacramental life as best as I could — that grace is very much a process that God works in us over time. He makes us closer to him and makes us better people in the process. And so when I first became a Catholic, I would probably go to confession every other week because I would fail to go to Mass every other week. Things would come up, you'd have business trips you'd have — the kids would get sick — and I just remember that this process of thinking: okay, if I don't go to church this week I'm going to have to go and talk to some stranger about everything that I did bad the last two weeks, and that process worked in me a much better discipline, a much better prayerful life. And you know I'm batting probably like 95% of Sundays now that I actually go to Mass. This is, I think, one of the geniuses of our faith — that it teaches us through repetition in some ways, and it forms us through a process, of course, that is I think at the heart of the mystery of faith, that somehow by practicing the sacraments — even imperfectly, as I certainly do — God transforms us. 

And while I am as imperfect a Christian as any person in this room, I really do feel that God is transforming me every single day, and that's one of the great blessings of our faith, and one of the great blessings of following the sacraments as I try to do. So thank you all for welcoming a convert into your ranks, because I certainly benefit from it — and my family does too.

The second thing that I take from my Catholic faith is a recognition that the deepest and most important things are not material. They're not GDP. They're not the numbers that we see in the stock market. The real measure of health in a society is the safety and stability and the health of our families, and of our people. We are in the business, in President Trump's administration, of producing prosperity, but that prosperity is a means to an end. And that end is the flourishing, hopefully, of the life of every single citizen in the United States of America. 

Trump, his supposed boss, does believe that the only thing that matters in the world is wealth, and therefore is an extreme materialist.  He's put part of the government in the hands of a materialist atheist.

That's why we care about these things. I often remind myself that there have been times in the past where you know the GDP numbers were maybe moving in the right direction, where the stock market was moving in the right direction, but the United States of America was losing life expectancy. I think that what the Catholic Church calls me to do is to say that if the stock market's doing okay, but people are literally dying and losing years off of their life, then we have to do better as a country. 

We do, which raises the question of why we'd wipe out USAID, which was a lifeline for many people around the world. 

Catholicism — Christianity at its root, I think — teaches our public officials to care about the deep things, the important things, the protection of the unborn, the flourishing of our children, and the health and the sanctity of our marriages. And yes, we care about prosperity but we care about prosperity so that we can promote the common good of every citizen in the United States of America. 

And when I think about the deep things, the things that really matter there was something really amazing that happened to me in November of 2024. All my friends were there, all my family was there. We were gathered together in a great moment of celebration and, of course, I'm talking about when my 7-year-old chose to be baptized into the Christian faith. And he's at school right now, so he won't see this, but as amazing as it was to win the election of course in November of 2024, and as amazing as it was to know that President Trump would become president again and would get to accomplish so many good things for the American people, the thing that I was most excited about in November of 2024 is that the week after we won the election my son chose to be baptized in the Christian faith. 

Now here's the basic idea, and and for those of you, of course — you all mostly are cradle Catholics, I assume —  typically we do water baptism of infants in the Catholic Church very very early on. But as many of you know, I am part of an interfaith marriage. My wife, though she comes to church with us almost every single Sunday, she is not Catholic herself. And so the bargain that we have struck is that we will raise our kids Catholic, but we will let them choose the moment that they want to ultimately become baptized. And if that's terrible sacrilege, blame the Dominicans, because they're the ones who came up with this scheme. 

But my 7-year-old elected to become baptized and it was the proudest moment maybe that I've ever had as a father, and he took it very seriously and he wanted to know what are the right things to say: 'Dad what do I need to do? What does this mean? Why is this important?' 

And it was an amazing thing for me to see :my 7-year-old working through these things himself and when I talk about the deep things, the important things, that's what I I'm talking about. Of course we care about our economic indicators and of course we care about the wages of our citizens. We care about those things because when our people are doing better they can have the kinds of moments that promote the kind of flourishing that all of us believe is the very core of a good human life and that of course, in my case, was watching my little 7-year-old son become baptized.

And so while, again, I will never be perfect, I will always try to remind myself that the goal of our public policy is to promote the common good and I will fight for that every single day that I am a public official. 

And that brings me to the final observation I'd like to make as a Christian, a Catholic convert in public life, is that you know, sometimes the bishops don't like what I say and I'm sure, by the way, sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. My goal is not to litigate when I'm right and when they're wrong or vice versa. My goal is to maybe articulate the way that I think about being a Christian in public life.

When you also have religious leaders in public life who have a spiritual duty to speak on the issues of the day and the way that I try to think about it is, the Catholic church is a kind of technology. It's a technology that was developed 2,000 years ago and it's coming into contact with a technology that's about 10 years old, 20 years old — and that's, of course, social media.

What I I try to remind myself of, is that the clergy are important spiritual leaders. You'll sometimes hear people say, ‘Well we'll let, you know, the clergy talk about matters of the Church, but we can ignore them when it comes to matters of public policy.’ I think that's the wrong way to look at it. That's certainly not the right way to look at it for me. But what I try to remind myself of is that we are not called as Christians to obsess over every social media controversy that implicates the Catholic Church, whether it involves a clergy or a bishop or the Holy Father himself. 

I think that we could frankly take a page out of the books of our grandparents who respected our clergy, who looked to them for guidance, but didn't obsess and fight over every single word that came out of their mouth and entered social media. I don't think that's good and I'm not again counseling all of you but I don't think it's good for us as Christians to constantly fight with one another over every single controversy in the Church. Sometimes we should let this stuff play out a little bit and try to live our faith as best we can under the dictates of our faith and under the dictates of our spiritual leaders, but not hold them to the standards of social media influencers because they're not. 

That brings me of course to the last point that I want to make which is that, as you've probably seen publicly, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, has criticized some of our policies when it comes to immigration. Again, my goal here is not to litigate with him or any other clergy member about who is right and who is wrong. You obviously know my views and I will speak to them consistently because I think that I have to do it because it serves the best interest of the American people. 

I hate the casual use of the world "litigate", but frankly it's one of Vance's favorite. 

What I want to do instead is remind, and I talk to a lot of conservative Catholics and I talked to progressive Catholics too, and I think that sometimes a lot of conservative Catholics are too preoccupied with their political criticisms of a particular clergy member or the leader of the Catholic Church. And of course, I'm not telling you that you're wrong because sometimes I even agree with you. I think that what I would say is that it's not in the best interest of any of us, again, to treat the religious leaders of our faith as just another social media influencer, and I think frankly that goes in both ways if I can be so bold. 

I think it's incumbent upon our religious leaders to recognize that in the era of social media, people will hang on every single word that they utter even if that wasn't their intention and even if a given declaration wasn't meant for consumption in the social media age, but every day since I heard of Pope Francis' illness, I say a prayer for the Holy Father because while yes, I was certainly surprised when he criticized our immigration policy in the way that he has, I I believe that the Pope is fundamentally a person who cares about the flock of Christians under his leadership. And he's a man who cares about the spiritual direction of the faith.  

I say this because every day me and my children have said a prayer for the Holy Father and we pray for his health and we pray for his comfort as he deals with what appears to be a a pretty serious health crisis. 

And while, yes, some of our media and some of our social media influencers and even some of us fellow Catholics I think, try to bring the Holy Father into every culture-war battle in American politics, I will always remember the Holy Father — whether he makes his way through this illness, and I certainly hope that he does — I will always remember the Holy Father in March of 2020 at a time of incredible stress for really the entire world, remember that was the height of the COVID pandemic. None of us knew how bad it was. We heard reports from Italy of people dying en masse on ventilators and personally, I had just a few weeks earlier welcomed our second child into the world and so when the pandemic happened, I had a 3-week old baby at home and I went to Dick’s Sporting Goods and I bought 900 rounds of ammunition and then I went to Walmart and I bought two bags of rice and I sat at home with my bags of rice and my  900 rounds of ammunition and said, “All right, we're just going to wait this thing out,” and into that void when a lot of people didn't know how bad it was, and of course, thankfully the pandemic was not as bad as the very worst predictions. It was quite bad, but not as bad as the very worst predictions.

Ugh, the AR15 Effect and the Stalingrad Weltanschauung making an appearance. 

I think all of us can remember that moment of the Holy Father standing in an empty St Peter's Square holding the Eucharist above his head and giving a sermon that I returned to consistently because it was incredibly meaningful to me at the time and it remains meaningful today — and so if you'll forgive me, I hope that you'll be okay with me reading just an excerpt of the homily that Pope Francis gave:

‘When evening had come’ (Mark 4:35). The Gospel passage we have just heard begins like this. For weeks now it has been evening. Thick darkness has gathered over our squares, our streets and our cities; it has taken over our lives, filling everything with a deafening silence and a distressing void, that stops everything as it passes by; we feel it in the air, we notice in people’s gestures, their glances give them away. We find ourselves afraid and lost. Like the disciples in the Gospel we were caught off guard by an unexpected, turbulent storm. We have realized that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together, each of us in need of comforting the other. On this boat … are all of us. Just like those disciples, who spoke anxiously with one voice, saying ‘We are perishing,’ so we too have realized that we cannot go on thinking of ourselves, but only together can we do this.

It is easy to recognize ourselves in this story. What is harder to understand is Jesus’ attitude. While his disciples are quite naturally alarmed and desperate, he is in the stern, in the part of the boat that sinks first. And what does he do? In spite of the tempest, he sleeps on soundly, trusting in the Father; this is the only time in the Gospels we see Jesus sleeping. When he wakes up, after calming the wind and the waters, he turns to the disciples in a reproaching voice: ‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’

Let us try to understand. In what does the lack of the disciples’ faith consist, as contrasted with Jesus’ trust? They had not stopped believing in him; in fact, they called on him. But we see how they call on him: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” Do you not care: they think that Jesus is not interested in them, does not care about them. One of the things that hurts us and our families most when we hear it said is: ‘Do you not care about me?’ It is a phrase that wounds and unleashes storms in our hearts. It would have shaken Jesus too. Because he, more than anyone, cares about us. Indeed, once they have called on him, he saves his disciples from their discouragement.

The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers those false and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities. It shows us how we have allowed to become dull and feeble the very things that nourish, sustain and strengthen our lives and our communities. The tempest lays bare all our prepackaged ideas and forgetfulness of what nourishes our people’s souls; all those attempts that anesthetize us with ways of thinking and acting that supposedly ‘save’ us, but instead prove incapable of putting us in touch with our roots and keeping alive the memory of those who have gone before us. We deprive ourselves of the antibodies we need to confront adversity.

And that is how I will always remember the Holy Father: as a great pastor. As a man who can speak the truth of the faith in a very profound way at a moment of great crisis. And so I would ask all of us, if you would join me, in this prayer for Pope Francis:

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Almighty and generous God, we thank you for your charity. Please grant your mercy upon Pope Francis so he may be restored from sickness and guide us in watchful care. We pray that you bless our Holy Father's doctors, nurses and medical staff with wisdom and capability so that you may work through them to renew the health of your shepherd through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

As I conclude my remarks here: I'm not ever going to be perfect. I'm never going to get everything right. But what I will try to do is to try to be the kind of leader who helps our shared civilization build those true antibodies against adversity. And if the Holy Father can hear us, I hope he knows that there are thousands of faithful Catholics in this room and millions of faithful Catholics in this country who are praying for him as he weathers his particular storm.

God bless you. 

Thank you.

Well, could be a lot worse.

I worry, however, that the Trump administration is going to result in a lot of harm to Christians in general, and Catholics specifically.  Trump was raised as as Calvinist and both he and Musk act like them.  Trump isn't close to Catholicism, he's close, for political purposes, to the New  Apostolic Reformation Evangelical Christians who believe that the United States has a militant Protestant purpose. Catholic itself is a barely evolved Latin word, Catholicus, meaning universal.  We have a universal world outlook, which the Trump administration seems to completely lack.  When Trump's policies all fall apart, and they're already starting to, those on the outside will cast a negative eye towards "Christians", not realizing that much of what we're seeing has very little to do with "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and that we mean those words.

The last Catholic President, Joe Biden, didn't do Catholicism any big favors.  The prior one, John F. Kennedy, didn't either.  Let us hope and pray that J. D. Vance as Vice President, and probable President soon, won't walk that well worn path.

Lex Anteinternet: The Four Things.

Lex Anteinternet: The Four Things.: 

The Four Things.

Because I've referenced it more than one time, but apparently never posted it (cowardice at work) I'm going to post here the topic of "the four sins God hates".  I'm also doing this as I'm getting to a political thread about this years elections and the candidates, in the context of the argument of "Christians must. . . " or "Christians can. . . "

First I'll note using the word "hate", in the context  of the Divine, is a truncation for a much larger concept.  "Condemns" might have been a better choice of words, but then making an effective delivery in about ten minutes or less is tough, and truncations probably hit home more than other things.

Additionally, and very importantly, sins and sinners are different.  In Christian theology, and certainly in Catholic theology, God loves everyone, including those who have committed any one of these sins, or all of them.

This topic references a remarkably short and effective sermon I heard some time ago. The way my 61 year old brain now works, that probably means it was a few years ago.  At any rate, it was a homily based on all three of the day's readings, which is remarkable in and of itself, and probably left every member of the parish squirming a bit.  It should have, as people entrenched in their views politically and/or economically would have had to found something to disagree with, or rather be hit by.

The first sin was an easy one that seemingly everyone agrees is horrific, but which in fact people excuse continually, murder.

Murder is of course the unjust taking of a life, and seemingly nobody could disagree with that being a horrific sin. But in fact, we hear people excuse the taking of innocent life all the time.  Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  Even "conservatives", however, and liberals as a false flag, will being up "except in the case of rape and incest".

Rape and incest are horrific sins in and of itself, but compounding it with murder doesn't really make things go away, but rather makes one horror into two.  Yes, bearing a child in these circumstances would be a horrific burden.  Killing the child would be too.

The second sin the Priest noted was sodomy.  He noted it in the readings and in spite of what people might like to say, neither the Old or New Testaments excuse unnatural sex. They just don't.  St. Paul is particularly open about this, so much so that a local female lesbian minister stated that this was just "St. Paul's opinion", which pretty much undercuts the entire Canon of Scripture.  

A person can get into Natural Law from here, which used to be widely accepted, and which has been cited by a United States Supreme Court justice as recently as fifty or so years ago, and the Wyoming Supreme Court more recently than that, and both in this context, but we'll forgo that in depth here. Suffice it to say that people burdened with such desires carry a heavy burden to say the least, but that doesn't make it a natural inclination.  In the modern Western World we've come to excuse most such burdens, however, so that where we now draw lines is pretty arbitrary. 

Okay, those are two "conservative" items.

The next wasn't.

That was mistreating immigrants.  

This sort of speaks for itself, but there it is. Scripture condemns mistreating immigrants.  You can't go around, as a Christian, hating immigrants or abusing them because of their plight.  

Abusing immigrants, right now, seems to be part of the Conservative "must do" list.

And the final one was failing to pay workmen a just wage.  Not exactly taking the natural economy/free market approach in the homily.

Two conservatives, and two liberal.

That's because Christianity is neither liberal or conservative, but Christianity.  People claiming it for teir political battles this year might well think out their overall positions.

Lex Anteinternet: Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift

Lex Anteinternet: Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift: 

Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift

On "X", fka "Twitter" a man who was the father to a large family of daughters (it was either 7 or 9), and who is very conservative, posted an item expressing relief for Taylor Swift.

His points were really good.

Populist right commentators are all up in arms about Swift right now, for reasons that are darned near impossible to discern.  It seems to stem from her expressing support for Democratic candidates in the past, including Joe Biden in 2016.  Well, guess what, she has a right to do that.  You have a right to ignore it. 

She also expressed support for abortion being legal.  I feel it should be illegal.  That doesn't mean she's part of a double secret left wing conspiracy.

But, and here's the thing, there are real reasons to admire her, or at least her presentation, and the father in question pointed it out.  He'd endured taking his daughters to Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, "Lady Gaga" etc., and found them disturbing.

Indeed, they are.

Miley Cyrus went from a child actress to being a freakish figure posed nude on a ball, looking like she was a meth addict who was working in a strip club.  Ariana Grande has at least one song that's out right graphic about illicit sex.  Lady Gaga has made a career out of being freakish, until she couldn't any longer, and like Madonna is another woman who was the product of Catholic Schools who took to songs that are abhorrent in terms of Christian, let alone Catholic, morals.

Swift, in contrast, can only be criticized a bit for dressing semi provocatively on stage, but only somewhat so. Off-stage, she's always very modestly dressed.  Indeed, she's a throwback, with her ruby red lipstick and classic nearly 1940s appearance.

And in terms of relationships, it's noted that she's dating a football player.

Now, we don't know what their private lives are like, but they're admirably keeping them private.  It's hard to know what Swift's views are on most issues.  And we really don't need to.  But in their visible relationship, made visible to us only because of media fascination, they're quite proper.  As the poster noted, the football star is "courting" her.

It's not that there's nothing to see here.  There's nothing to see here which any conservative in their right mind wouldn't have an absolute freak out about.  They're behaving exactly the way in public that supposedly Christian conservatives want dating couples to do.  No piercings, no weird tattoos, no scanty clothing.

Which would all suggest all the angst is about something else, and what that is probably about is the secret knowledge that huge numbers of real conservatives can't stand Donald Trump and won't vote for him.

The Andy Griffith Show

I was at lunch two days ago at a local Chinese restaurant, and across the way an all adult family was discussing the plot of the prior night's Andy Griffith Show rerun.  It struck me that that may not have happened since the 1960s.

It's interesting. 

The Andy Griffith Show went off the air before the Great Rural Purge in Television, but not my much.  It ran from 1960 to 1968.  It was consistently focused on the rural South, and it felt like it depicted the 1950s, which it never did, save for the fact that what we think of as the 60s really started in about 1955 and ran to about 1964.  Indeed, while the show was in tune with the times in 1960, it really wasn't in 1968.

But that in tune with the times is what strikes me here.  The family was speaking of it as if it was a currently running show, not like it was something from 60 years ago.  That suggests that in some ways people have groped their way back in the dark to idealizing the world as it was depicted then, rural, lower middle class, devoid of an obsession with sex (although it does show up subtly in the show from time to time), and divorce a rarity.

Now, the world wasn't prefect in 1960 by any means.  But the show didn't pretend to depict a perfect world, only one that was sort of a mirror on the world view of its watchers.  To some degree, that world view had returned.

Epilog

The Taylor Swift story also appears on the most recent entries for City Father and Uncle Mike's Musings, both of which are linked in on this site.

Lex Anteinternet: Health care, abortion and the Law of Unintended Consequences. How becoming obsessed with a political fantasy sabotaged, maybe, the effort to ban abortion in Wyoming

Lex Anteinternet: Health care, abortion and the Law of Unintended Co...: 

Health care, abortion and the Law of Unintended Consequences. How becoming obsessed with a political fantasy sabotaged, maybe, the effort to ban abortion in Wyoming

A headline on Vox:

Thanks, Obama! The hilarious reason why a judge just blocked Wyoming’s abortion ban.

Republicans just got a painful reminder that political stunts can backfire.

The article concludes:

For the moment, however, the Obama-era amendments writing anti-Obamacare talking points into two state constitutions have proved to be a thorn in the side of Republicans who hope to ban abortions. Let that be a lesson that a state constitution is a foolish thing to change for the sake of a political stunt.

Vox is more or less correct in its thesis as to how we got here, even if it's absurdly optimistic about anyone "learning a lesson".  Where it isn't fully correct is in the assumption it was a stunt.  Fired up by conspiracy theories and propaganda, a fair number of those voting for the amendment and the bill that took it to the electorate believed that they were operating against almost certain Obamacare "Death Panels".  One Natrona County former legislator has stated:

I’ll be very grieved if they actually use that as an instrument of death,  That wasn’t our intent at all.

Of course that wasn't the intent, but did you read the constitutional amendment?  There were concerns at the time.

The Equality State Policy Center, for one, was worried about the bill, with its lobbyist, Dan Neal, stating:

I’ll bet that even the original supporters of this amendment can’t tell you exactly what it will do, given the vague language and all the changes made to it during the Legislature’s deliberations in 2011.

Yup.

And as for grieved?  Bereaved would be a better term.  By yielding to paranoid propaganda, those who sponsored this, and then voted for it, have blood on their hands.

And there's a lesson in there.  

In the rules that govern logical thinking, Chesterton's Fence, which should be the first rule of Conservatism, holds:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

 A corollary to that might be called Yeoman's Gate, which holds:

Before you go through a gate to get to the other side of a fence, completely figure out. to the extent you can, where the path goes.

Which brings up the topic of the Gatekeeper:

If somebody is holding a fence open, urging you to go through, or keeping it close, trying to bar you from doing so, ask what interest he has in either action.

None of these principles were applied.  If they had been, it should have been clear that a certain sector of the Obamacare fearmongers were people who were using it for their own political self-interest, not out of any real concern. Those people were among the gatekeepers.  "Run through", they yelled, "the big scary blood Marxist bear of Obama is right behind you!. . .And by the way, vote for me next election, here's my flyer full of BS . . ."

And the pathway lead right to here.

A person should likely ask the same questions about the more radical bills that floated in the last legislature, and most particularly about the Crossover Voting bill that just passed.

Why did we allow crossover voting?  Nobody really asked, did they?

Where does the path lead, now that we've crossed it?

And why was the gatekeeper so eager to for us to go through?