The important thinkers of the future will be religious thinkers, installment #1637

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on her Catholic faith and the urgency of a criminal justice reform

From her:

By nature, a society that forgives and rehabilitates its people is a society that forgives and transforms itself. That takes a radical kind of love, a secret of which is given in the Lord’s Prayer: Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And let us not forget the guiding principle of “the least among us” found in Matthew: that we are compelled to care for the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick and, yes—the imprisoned.

For the pointer I thank Nick C.


I agree that important thinkers in the future will be religious thinkers. After the apocalypse.

It's about the things she wants to abolish. After the Apocalypse, there will be no borders, no ICE, no property, no poverty, no disease, no pain, no death, etc. Ergo, they will not need socialism in the Kingdom of God. They already have it in Hell.

Swing and a miss, Dick.

Thanks, though!

Job: 40:21-22 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it

Tyler, you misunderstand her. She does NOT want to "care for the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick and, yes—the imprisoned." She wants to force the taxpayers to do this against their will. That is called oppression. She is no better than any oppresive socialist dictator.

My trinken inkling is that torpid Cold inhabits it, Fear and Trembling and barren Hunger.


The world needed another ". . . tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Shakespeare

Maria Bartiromo interview with President Trump.

MB: "Mr. President, what is good in life."

President Trump: "Crush your enemies. See them driven before. Hear the lamentations of the women."

Why will the most important thinkers be religious thinkers?

What's the connection between religious patterns of thought and importance?

If it's just viewing things in terms of moral absolutes, can't any sufficiently strongly held ideology do that?

I think Tyler's point is that people are always going to desire meaning and fulfillment, and that even if "religiosity" metrics fall people will still be believing in -something-. Leaders who can shape and mold that will resonate, succeed and help determine what society values; that's why they are important.

I don't know that moral absolutes are required, but strongly held ideologies fit that definition.

In the west, the most important thinkers now are religious thinkers. Unfortunately, their religion is democracy. Right and wrong aren't determined by the edicts of a higher power but instead by the use of polls which are heavily influenced by the ruminations of academics that don't play golf or fish.

My suspicion is that religious thinkers will continue to ask fundamental questions like “what is justice?” whereas secular thinkers will just go with their prior assumptions. The reason for the religious continuing to seek answers to these questions is the traditional theistic worldview that the cosmos is an ordered whole, created by God. So religious thinkers will still try to struggle to see the cosmos as somehow reflective of God’s will, and come up with lots of different answers, while secular thinkers won’t likely be nearly as generative. Anyway, that is my best guess.

Not much of a policy against pedophiles with a high recidivism rate or rapists more generally.

Wonder what percentage of the prison population that is?

Theres an alleged rapist in the White House currently. Seems hes been rehabilitated enough to be nominated by the Republican party.

No idea. But the point remains: it's poor policy. You'll create a whole lot more misery by making forgiveness and rehabilitation an important goal in and of itself. There will be a lot to forgive then and many to rehabilitate.

"Theres an alleged rapist in the White House..." That was 20 yrs ago.

That was then. This is now.

Recidivism rates for pedophiles and rapists are something like 1/4. It goes lower for incestuous pedophiles and higher for pedophiles who target young boys.

This may be low or high for your metrics but it is typically lower than for other types of crimes. Contrary to popular opinion, criminals tend not to have one specific set of crimes they commit so if we think this number is too high for forgiveness and rehabilitation just based on recidivism rate then we should also think pretty much all criminals are likewise tainted.

Saying that these crimes are uniquely terrible is a different story, but sex offending is not wildly atypical for recidivism rates.

It is the rate and the seriousness of the crime that makes it unsuitable for rehabilitation and forgiveness as a policy. It is not Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister and her children.

Also, I do think 1/4 is really high. But the two main reasons not to give life sentences are incentives it sets when they are trying to not get caught and the cost of a life sentence in terms of lost useful output. This is about managing known risks.

I am also not talking about petty theft. The recidivism rate for armed robbery, assault, etc. also tend to be higher than for rape or pedophile crimes.

I have heard, but cannot confirm, that armed robbery is the crime most likely to result in unintended murder so I am a bit skeptical that we should treat armed robbery terribly different from rape when it comes to risk management. In both cases we would be locking away offenders with, by your measure, high odds of causing harm to others.

It is a completely defensible position to say that we should have no mercy on any sort of violent crime due to recidivism rates.

Indeed, one of the best predictors of rape is prior history of other violent crimes. We would almost certainly prevent more rapes by locking away other violent criminals for longer than by locking away rapists for longer (with the understanding that we would be locking far more people away for longer).

It is pretty hard to use cold utilitarian calculus to arrive at a conclusion that we should have no mercy on rapists but be very merciful to other violent criminals. A case can be made for rehabilitation for both (accepting that innocent people will pay a price for the benefits of rehabilitation) or for locking away both. I really do not see a case for treating them differently in a utilitarian framework.

Well, at least she didn't reference this - 'So Jesus called the children over to him and said, "Let the children come to me! Don't try to stop them. People who are like these children belong to God's kingdom.' Luke 18:16

I think a Catholic Socialist is quite different from everyone's fear of a Godless Communist(*), for what that's worth.

She might not even be that strong a socialist in historic terms.

* - spoken a day or two ago in another comment on this site.

She’s a 28-year-old waitress elected in one of the most impoverished and violent parts of the country.

She’s a meaningless aberration.

Certainly Dorothy Day held that private property owned by workers would raise them up from misery.

She could be a Godless Catholic: the existence of such creatures is attested by something more than just rumor, I think.

Remains to be seen what her loyalty and fidelity to the Bishop of Rome consist of. (As to learn what regard the Bishop of Rome holds her in.)

I hope they will, as they used to, remind us of the worth of risk taking.

There is something deeply admirable about the "consistent life ethic" position held by many orthodox Catholics (even though I don't totally agree with it) . Not sure if Ocasio-Cortez would endorse that specific position, but I am glad to see her passion for criminal justice reform and drug law reform!

She doesn't like cops or holding people in certain mascot groups accountable for anything. I cannot see a Christian ethic incorporated into that.

It's certainly your right to see what you want to see.

Liking cops is a Christian ethic?

Yes. See Romans 13: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. ”

So that means that Adolf H., Stalin, Mao, Gengis Khan, Tamerlane, Abraham Lincoln et al were God's appointments and it was wrong to resist them.

Good, you’ve learned something today. To be careful when saying Religion X supports political action Y. If you’d like to study this question more there’s 2,000 years of Christian apologetics.

Quite a list you've added Lincoln to CM. You trying to say something?

In the tradition of John Wilkes Booth (yikes!).

those that exist have been instituted by God.

Christians who believe that are nuts. Fortunately, sensible ones don't.

There's also a long history in Christian thought, and of its Judaic parent, of believing the specific rulers can lose the Lord' favor and are liable to dethronement when they do.

I remain amazed at what American churches, supposedly Christian, decide to preach, and the policies they support. I knew there were a lot of Old Testament Christians, but I never thought that this "Biblical Literalists" mostly skipped through Matthew. In today's political spectrum, the Pope is far left.

So I wonder, even if we get new religious thinkers, will anyone listen to them? Because the way I see the world moving, Religion is adapting to populism, not the other way around.

She makes good points. Will she be able to overcome her juvenile hyperpole and anti-white bigotry to become a national leader? Also oversold as a socialist novelty. There have been plenty since Victor Berger. In NYC, Jose Serrano must be thinking "What am I, chopped liver?" And I suppose Bella Abzug's youthful affiliation with the zionist group Hashomer Hatzair makes her much too toxic to be remembered today in polite society. Ocasio-Cortez would no doubt be our least bad next Democrat president because she seems ready and capable of afflicting the establishment in ways it needs to be afflicted. Certainly better than Bernie and the foul flock of squawking featherbedders who rival him. She has definitely made a good first step towards the bloodletting of the Democrat party establishment elders that is so long overdue. And a nice stilleto heel on the throat might bring a lot of US citizens to their senses. Bring her on!

Right. Not lost on some NYC observers is one of her supporters (pictured near her on election night) who ran for NY city council on the anti-rich-Jew-landlord platform.

Hey! Her name is Cortez! Does that make her responsible for what Cortez did to the Aztecs?

Your side uses stiletto heels. I read somewhere that the other side has eight trillion bullets and knows which bathroom to use.

Eight trillion bullets! DtB is hardcore.


Dick shoots blanks.

Can you point out on the doll where the evil democrats touched you?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is white. If you passed her on the street anonymously you would think "white lady". Most Hispanic people are white-- it's a linguistic-ancestral category not a racial one. Unless we're going to also start evicting Slavic people and Celtic people from whiteness too?

I won't opine on the importance of religious thinkers, but to say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an example of them is silly: She is, like most educated people of her generation, not religious.

At best she is a cafeteria Catholic, which is to say not much of a Catholic at all.

Criminal justice reform is important, but it is absolutely critical to keep in mind that Christianity was never intended as a form of government for nations. It's to govern our own lives. Frankly, too much turning the other cheek & forgiving trespasses would make a suicidal national policy.

Why is it that some advocate Christian principles in some areas but react violently to the teachings in others? Of one thing I am certain: Christianity is not a cafeteria plan where you pick the things you like & bypass the rest.

'Frankly, too much turning the other cheek & forgiving trespasses would make a suicidal national policy'

There is a book where the main character makes exactly that argument -

It is the sort of book that Peterson would point to when warning about how language can be used for twisted purposes, except that character making the arguments of the oppressive cruelty of a philosophy that does not allow you to crush your national enemies is not made by a post-modern Neo-Marxist.

Democrats mollycoddle criminals because rapists, thieves, con men, welfare cheats, burglars, wife beaters, murderers, gang bangers, terrorists, child molesters are all natural Democrat constituencies. They simply are pandering to their base.

Democrats' have a huge God deficit. "subjective emoting over objective thinking," The left scorns, caricatures, and repudiates the Church then, when convenient, deploys it as a political weapon.

the left uses stark transitions and supports speakers with juniper hats.

You've completely missed the point of that book.

Her Catholic Faith my eye. Ask her when last she went to Confession or Mass.

Christ was a libertarian.

The left frequently subverts part of Matthew 25, the "Last Judgment Narrative" (only found in Matthew), to justify on religious grounds the state taxing people for the welfare state and intimate that conservatives are evil/damned because they don't agree.

Thank God! If it weren't for the 1st Amendment (Congress make no law regarding the establishment of religion), we would have forced on us such quaint religious beliefs.

The "least among you" phrase shows up in the Last Super narratives and has to do with the Apostles. She's mistaking that for these "least of my brethren." Earlier in Matthew someone asks Jesus who are your brethren and he tells them all who do God's will. Jesus did not abolish Mosaic Law. He fulfilled it.

The left's and her trope is the spiritual equivalent of forcing someone else do your Pilates and thinking you get ripped. It don't work that way. Christ talked about you and I doing personal acts of Charity, not the state/Caesar.

Like most on the left, she is subverting the Gospel for political gain and quoting (incorrectly or out of context) one or two verses that she thinks advance the agenda while quietly execrating a thousand other verses and Church Teachings, in general.

"Christ was a libertarian."

Ya, I heard he made a killing on the fishes and loaves.

(Does anybody still think Dick is for real?)

Well, at least we knew where it was going.

Who cares? The occasional entertainment value from someone who apparently has no clue who generally reads this web site is worth it.

Translation: "I didn't understand what he wrote; but I don't like it!" In future I will type more slowly and confine myself to monosyllables.

You guys lips must be tired.

I simply responded to the Socialist barmaid's not so smart employment of the hackneyed meme that Christ was a socialist. I gave a similar meme: libertarian. I also provided facts about the Gospels. Apparently, that was above the ken of your IQ. I assume you never read the Gospels. Your lips might fall off.

In 25 minutes, 5PM east coast, I will drink to the happy fact that a recent poll shows only 28% of Americans are idiot liberals [redundant].

Does it matter if he is for real? He's a higher IQ version of most Breitbart commenters. His views are real, even if they seem exaggerated here.

Higher IQ, eh?

For all those who think Jesus was some sort of pro-business libertarian, do keep in mind that not only did he rather violently turn over tables of money lenders in the Temple, but he is quoted as saying, "It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." He made numerous statements sympathizing with the poor, a sharp contrast with the zero he ever said about either abortion or homosexuality, the twin obsessions of many current loudly self-proclaiming "Christians" in the US.

a sharp contrast with the zero he ever said about either abortion or homosexuality, the twin obsessions of many current loudly self-proclaiming "Christians" in the US.

Jesus affirmed and elaborated upon Jewish moral teaching, Barkley.

No wonder you are relegated to teaching dance to spastics.

Connie, I was about to type "Infantile" but realized you'd not get it.

Nope. He regularly violated Jewish law himself when it was obviously a bad thing and said that Love is the Law.

As for Jewish law itself, yes, it condemned homosexuality, along with things like having sex while the wife is having her period and children disobeying their parents, with both of those sets of people being condemned to being stoned to death. But it says nothing at all about abortion, per se. The closest is Exodus 2:22 where it is written that if a man triggers a miscarriage in a pregnant woman by physically attacking her, he must pay a fine to her husband's family, sort of like a parking ticket, not the stoning to death called for if someone commits murder. Most current Christian theologians simply lie about what is in the Bible concerning abortion.

Jesus (we Jews call him Jesus, not Christ because Christ means savior) regard him as a Jewish teacher who disagreed with some of existing Jewish law and contributed to it. He lived a very long time ago in a place very far away and would probably have no view at all on our contemporary political questions.

I agree, however, that he sympathized with the poor and was himself poor. That does not mean he either did or did not want people to be forced to give them money. He said nothing about it.

Catholic != Christian.

In particular, a good Catholic is not supposed to read the Gospel, rather to "stick to one or two verses" that the Catholic Church "thinks advance its agenda". Perhaps surprisingly, the resulting ethic is vastly superior to the Protestant one.

What "Proetstant one," Joel? There is a huge plethroa of Protestant sects, with a wide array of views on what moral codes should be. Are you really so ignorant that you did not know that, or are you just some Catholic propagandizing mouthpiece?

Re: Christ was a libertarian.

It's only July 2 and we already have a strong contender for Most Inane Blog Comment of the month.

Is she really more Catholic than her predecessor? Is she a more "important thinker"?

What is her position on abortion? This is just boilerplate left cultural catholic stuff for those who don’t really believe.

Not sure of her position but I'll give you mine. The way babies are born is through women hence women have original jurisdiction. From a Christian POV consider even God Himself had to come to earth helpless and at the mercy of a woman (and a very young woman at that).

I'd say the gov't's jurisdiction ends at the skin of your body, under that it's yours hence abortion should be governed by women. Does that mean all women all the time will make right, moral, correct decisions? Errr no but what exactly is the Biblical, logical, historical support for politicians, committees of judges, theologians, making good decisions? Humanity has managed to get along for over a hundred thousand years going through women to keep going, I see no evidence Donald Trump's collection of freak reality TV show appointments are likely to make a better replacement.

Of course maybe someday after Westworld we'll have humans coming to us via robot factories, cloning, transporters etc. When science fiction happens we can discuss it.

Remind me again why anyone is interested in your view of abortion. Especially since it is completely unoriginal — you could have saved us some time by saying “My View is Feminism 101”.

I should have just said “cafeteria Catholic.” I don’t even necessarily disagree with Boonton about abortion. I just simply have very little respect for people who claim to believe in a particular religion and then don’t take that religion very seriously. The Roman Cahtolic Church is very clear about abortion. If Octavio-Cortez doesn’t agree with that, it also means that she doesn’t recognize that the official teaching of the Church is authoritative, and if she doesn’t believe that then she I suspect she necessarily doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession either. Which is to say she isn’t a Catholic, she is just pretending to be one. Please note that this also applies to conservative “Catholics” who ignore the Church’s equally clear teaching that unbridled capitalism is evil and that Catholics are ethically obligated to build a just society with a large welfare state. Someone who is just picking and choosing is just there for the optics (sometimes even just to fool themselves that they are faithful).

A politician who took Catholic teaching seriously would also have had to have opposed the Iraq invasion, the death penalty, deep cuts to the social safety net and support taking action against global warming and other pollution.

Only left wing politicians are tarred, though, with the 'cafeteria Catholic' charge.

Pope Benedict has explained the difference:

"if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Could we perhaps save time and paper a bit here? Instead of having teachings which can be ignored and teachings which can't be ignored, let's just issue the teachings that can't be ignored.

Benedict's statement becomes incoherent the moment you think about how it should apply. What about a politician who is opposed to giving the death penalty to women who have abortions? Is he within the 'legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics" when he disagrees with another Catholic who says something like "if we give mothers who kill their kids the death penalty then it should be on the table as a punishment for abortion"? If you say he is then tell me again how a politician can't support Roe?

Remind me again why anyone is interested in your view of abortion.

As you demonstrate they don't set the bar for comments very high here.

What a deluded woman -- violent criminals are rehabilitated by being put in prison till they are too old to commit violent crimes.

That is true and necessary in some cases, however that should be a last rather than first resort for the criminal justice system.

Sounds like fantastic waste of taxpayer money to me. I'm tired of my money going to our overpriced justice system.

playing some songs, whatever, . . .

Great thinker? Because she won a local election by repeating platitudes that have been used countless times before?
Sometimes I truly don't understand prof. Cowen. It's like he is trying way too hard to give the benefit of the doubt to lefties.


Only someone ridiculously naive can't recognize that a lot of "criminal justice reform" is just naked ethnocentrism.

I happen to think an ethical society doesn't give violent thugs multiple opportunities to kill or harm innocents. I believe that view is shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

30 pack of rolling rock, comes to a close on this fine summer evening

Thats what I used to love about RR back in the day, you got 8 cans for the price of 6.

That's why I have a suitcase when I once had six-pack abs.

Isn’t treating your body as a Temple one of the tenets of Catholicism?

One of the most ironic developments in religion is that the Catholic faith has evolved into Judaism. What? One commenter mentioned the Gospel of Matthew, which is the most Jewish of the canonical Gospels - it's even structured like the Torah, including rules to live by (Leviticus/Beatitudes). But St. Paul took the faith in a very different direction, one in which faith (in Jesus) alone is the key to salvation not rules to live by (good works). Evangelical protestants don't follow the teachings of Jesus, they follow the teachings of St. Paul, while Catholics follow the teachings of Mosaic Law, which come far closer to the teachings of Jesus. Catholics are today's Jews! The problem for Catholics like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is that this is an evangelical protestant Christian nation, which is more concerned with faith than the condition of their brothers and sisters; indeed, if one reads the Epistles of John, one realizes that adherence to a particular belief (sectarianism) is far more important than good works - "brothers", as that term is used in the Epistles of John, includes only those who share the same Christology.

I would say modern rabbinical Judaism is closer to Jesus teaching than either his contemporary sacerdotal Judaism or modern Christianity, which as you say owes more to St Paul than to Jesus himself.

Given the massive over-representation of Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court, I would not underestimate those two religions influence compared to Evangelical Protestantism.

Given the massive over-representation of Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court,

There are a number of nominal Catholics on the Court. The one who gave evidence of serious Catholic commitments was the late Mr. Justice Scalia. Messrs. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are not manifestly at odds with the Church. Kennedy and Sotomayor, forget it.

The smart money says Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan know nothing of Yiddishkeit and don't much care. They're Jewish in the sense that they don't have certain cultural reference points and (it's a reasonable guess) despise those reference points.

“Evangelical protestants don't follow the teachings of Jesus, they follow the teachings of St. Paul“ — I’ve seen you make similar statements before and it’s so off the mark one can only think you need to get out more. You seem to think that works / faith (Paul / James) is an either / or proposition and those nasty evangelical Protestants have chosen the latter because they like to do bad works. Whereas most Christians think both are necessary. And the ‘bad works’ are simply things you don’t like, such as preferring charity to taxation, immigration laws to open borders, color-blind admissions to affirmative action, etc etc.

The important thinkers of the future will be religious thinkers, installment #1637

I'm afraid in the Keynesian long run, when we are all dead. The Catholic Church is currently in the grip of an utter mediocrity whose modus operandi include tolerance of corruption in the Church, abuse of power (in particular harassment of orthodox religious), and attempts to upend settled teaching on moral norms and the sacraments. Nonsensical babble on political economy completes the picture. Diocesan bishops may find this dismaying, but we don't know that because with a hand full of exceptions, they say nothing.

As for Catholic higher education, there are a dozen or so (out of more than 200) foundationally Catholic institutions in the United States which are salvageable, if that. There might be some life in it yet in the Third World, but wouldn't expect too much.

As for the religious orders (at least in the occident), stick a fork in 'em cause they're done. There are some small orders (often fairly novel) which have been institutionally healthy (or will be until Francis and his camarilla try to wreck them), but the antique orders are a mess. Minimal entry, sexual corruption, doctrinal corruption &c. The Church in particular would be better off if the Society of Jesus was dissolved and it's priests told to apply for incardination in whatever dioceses are willing to pick up refuse off the streets.

As for the evangelical world (of which the United States is the most consequential component), there's a great deal of Vichy evangelicalism abroad in evangelical higher education, and people who know of it's history and have some lines in to the subterranean dealings on its faculties (e.g. S. M Hutchens) are pessimistic about its future. It would be pleasantly surprising were Wheaton, Calvin, Messiah, Grove City &c recognizably evangelical institutions a generation from now and not just residually so to scam the alumni.

As for oldline protestantism, it's largely a network of sing-a-long social clubs run by den mothers on salary. You have some rigorist Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations that have some seriousness of purpose, but the rest could disappear with scant injury to the larger culture and society.

Maybe there's hope for the Eastern Churches, though Muslim fanatics seem bound and determined to kill as many Eastern Christians as they can.

Religious leaders are no strangers to selective readings of their scriptures. It’s amusing how conservative Catholic bishops said John Kerry should be denied communion for his abortion rights stance, while blithely ignoring John Paul II’s strong condemnation of the Iraq War.

Hence Lincoln’s exasperated observation in his Second Inaugural Address: “It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. ”

Religious leaders are no strangers to selective readings of their scriptures. It’s amusing how conservative Catholic bishops said John Kerry should be denied communion for his abortion rights stance, while blithely ignoring John Paul II’s strong condemnation of the Iraq War.

Condemnation of abortion is part of the ordinary Magisterium. It's settled moral teaching and binding on Catholics to both practice and profess.

The Pope's comments on foreign relations are advisory and not binding. (Nor did he 'condemn' the Iraq War during its prosecution). The Church is not a pacifist institution and prudential judgments about the advisability of any given military engagement don't command any level of assent.

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on her Catholic faith and the urgency of a criminal justice reform”

If Ocasio-Cortez were a serious Catholic, she'd be very chary about getting involved in federal politics, particularly working within the Democratic Party.

Does that make you mad?

I will forgive you your trespasses, but it is wrong for the government, which is responsible for protecting the weakest among us (which includes the poor, who suffer most from criminal activity), to do any less than apply the law and its consequences to legally tried and convicted malefactors.

Violent criminals especially, prey mostly on the poor.

I am glad to see some on the Left reclaim religiousity and begin to redefine what it means to be an American. This is a lesson long overdue.

If your first response to that passage was, but she is a socialist or she isn't religious, you missed the larger context.

July, is the hottest month, around here

? i like winter cold, winter sculpture of the trees

four seasons, yup, . . .

chirp up, lil whiner f o's,

north had south heat tonight and today a big speaks thru the afternoon

always happy when linda is talking . . .

The homeless are running amok in cities all over North America, doing harm to themselves while imposing costs on others, because irreligious SJWs refuse to allow normal people to do anything about it or even protest that nothing is being done without risking condemnation.

Maybe there is a Straussian reading to this post.

In the tenderloin yesterday I saw a guy rolling around on the middle of the sidewalk smoking crack. The police came and stood him up, took the crack and drove away leaving him in a wobbling stupor.

ask me if susan black was ever your girlfriend?

that's right, lil f o's, a big is talking 2u

It’s binary: one either thinks or is religious, not both.

pushed her ahead with ten forward gears .. .

Has there ever been any doubt that political correctness/social justice is religious? It has its faith-based tenets, its priests, seminaries, temples, and transcendentalism like any other religion. You might say man is a religious animal.

y i talk 2u, u likl pos, susie only knows . . .

was susan black ever your girlfirned? lil f face, nobody piece of of effs?

no. and she was very much mine, very much so

llil cck skrs, i talk to you, to share, magical moments

hoo! a big goes off late at night . . .

susan black is company of which, you're not familiar with

that's correct, lil f o, nobody, s heads

1967 Vinyl

susan black was my girlfriend, . . . , deal with that, lil f o, bobody, s heads

yup! she was my girl , , ,

susan was, ,yup!

what we have being posited is the old man's folly.

ask me if i give n s, when me and my girl, go grocery shopping at the A&P in MIllwood?

mr big, chirps up, on a saturday night

paul mccaffree and susan black, talking to you. that's surreal

I hear she wants "free" college for everyone. Is she going to offer "free" fellatio for everyone too?

Susan is not that way .. .

you're lucky to be in the presence
of such a woman.

like godmnded lucky you ever lived
and saw sometthing that lovely . . .

I doubt there'd be many takers.

How come so many Catholic countries are poor and corrupt and violent and so many Protestant countries aren't?

Cuba is so better under the atheists.

Given her close association with old-style Jews-Murdered-Jesus anti-Semites, not everyone is getting forgiven ...

And we don't need Latin American socialist dictators dumping their social problems on the United States taxpayers. Nor do we need their drug running cartels. I think it would be cheaper to annex Mexico.

you can't deal with Puerto Rico , What makes you think Mexico is easier to handle than a tiny island?

Tyler, I don't think criticising the current hypocrisy of US religion as it is often currently practiced counts as being a religious thinker. In 25 years time I think the person quoted is more likely to be seen as part of a reaction that weakened religion in the United States . Sure, sometimes having a gutful of what's going on gets a crazy rabbi or Saxony theology Professor boosted to the pages of history as an important religious thinker, or at least leader, but the odds aren't good.

But I've always been partial to the notion that Communism is just one in a long line of Christian heresies, so I'll be interested to see if the United States can manage something similar.

In completely related news, the developer of my favorite computer game recently announced will focus on small group cooperative play. Even though I don't like the idea I will still probably try it and suffer through some working as part of a group towards a greater goal. Now if a computer game can get me to do that when even the promise of eternal salvation won't make me interact with other human beings, I don't fancy religion's chances of remaining relevant.

PS: I think you need to hose out your comment section.

burp . . . no delete button this morning

Is she really religious, though? Certainly she doesn't hold the orthodox Catholic position on sexual questions... There seems to be this assumption that pretending to believe is something only Whites do, that Hispanics are always honest believers. I think that this is due to assumptions about race and IQ: Hispanics average low IQs, a high IQ is required to doubt religion, ergo, Hispanics must be believers. Anyone familiar with the history of Latin America and its often violent secularism will know this isn't true.

"Christ came to me emblazoned on the upper arm of my beloved cousin Marc. The blue-black ink danced between the bullet scars and stretch marks that graced my cousin’s upper body... Marc—like several men in my family—had been caught in the webbed threads of poverty, geography and lack of opportunity during the fever pitch of 1990s mass incarceration. Baggy-pant boys like him fit the descriptions of “super-predators” and “thugs” that dominated our national discourse at the time. Marc served his time...

What'd he do? How did he get those bullet scars? If the police "profiled" Marc as a thug, they evidently made the right decision.

"Atop this crown-of-thorns depiction was a tattooed banner with the phrase “Only God Can Judge Me.”"

Paul dealt with these "only God can judge me" types long ago:

"9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]"

“Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.”

David Foster Wallace

I am a Catholic who is frustrated by liberal Catholics who conflate an obligation to help the poor with a forcing other people to help the poor.

Are you equally frustrated with Christians who want to force women to bear children against their choice? Once you accept that moral strictures can be backed up with public legislation you can't really pick-and-choose (except on matters of purely sectarian tenets) without being a hypocrite.

Are you equally frustrated with Christians who want to force women to bear children against their choice?

Of course not. Decent societies do not kill their young. They do punish people who kill the young. (And shun people who manufacture excuses for it by contrived and manipulative phraseology).

Decent societies also do not allow their poor to die or hunger or of easily treated diseases. Nor do they saddle people with insupportable debts so that them that has can continue to get. Look around the world; apart from the a few Third World hellholes a strong social safety net is a feature of just about every nation that can afford one, and those that can't, aspire to one. Ayn Rand was not a normal human being, and her philosophy is beyond the pale of what human ethics across many cultures and centuries would consider proper. Redistribution to prevent extremes of misery has been a proper and praised function of the governance since the Pharaoh of Genesis stored up food from the seven good years to feed people in the seven lean years.

Prediction: Religions will become less creedal and theological and more ethnic and tribal. The Jews are the model here.

Hi, i agree with the thoughts you share in your write up. its the fact of the century.

Comments for this post are closed