Yes, I Wonder About This, Too

What he said:

John C. Wright ponders. Ponder with him.

“Perhaps, like me, you have wondered how it is that so many people, otherwise honest, can adopt without demur the Orwellian anti-language of Political Correctness; how it is that so many people, otherwise rational, can adopt without demur the paradoxes, self-contradictions and logical absurdities involved in relativistic morality, materialistic ontology, subjective epistemology, and the other nuggets of vacuous blather forming the foundations of modern thought; how it is that so many people, otherwise possessing good taste, can without demur fund and support and praise the blurry aberrations of modern art, praise ugliness, despise beauty; how it is that so many people, otherwise good and peaceful, can praise and support and excuse the hellish enormities and mass murders of figures like Che and Mao and Stalin and Castro; or can view with cold eye the piles of tiny corpses heaped outside abortion mills, and make such enemies of the human race into heroes; or can rush to the defense of Mohammedan terrorists with freakish shrieks of ‘€˜Islamophobia!’€™ and ‘€˜Racist!’ even thought to be wary of Jihadists bent on your destruction is rational rather than phobic, and even thought Mohammedanism is a religion, not a race; how otherwise happy, moral, reasonable and decent people can not merely excuse sexual perversion, but will be swept up in a fervor of righteous indignation even if someone points out the biological or Biblical reality of the situation; and likewise excuse lies in their leaders, and adulteries, and abuses of power, and abuses of drugs, and any number of things these otherwise ordinary people would never do themselves.

“And, finally, perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation.   Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?

More on this pondering here.  He has some very good insights.  Of course, a lot of them were insighted a bit back and can be read here (yes, its a whole book).  Main thing is that it is good to fully understand where they – our Progressive friends – are coming from.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Yes, I Wonder About This, Too

  1. Amazona March 12, 2014 / 5:06 pm

    There are so many things that just don’t make sense. It is possible that most Americans don’t understand that the definition of a dictatorship is a government where one person, or one administration, makes its own laws without going through legislation? I recently wrote about hearing a Dem spokesperson actually bragging, on a morning radio show, about Obama’s openly stated intent to just “bypass Congress” to do whatever he wants to do.

    What, exactly, do these people think “bypass Congress ” MEANS? Uh, DUH, it means just making up your own laws when you want to, and ignoring the laws you don’t like. But it is accepted with barely a flutter, and any flutter that there is comes from an indignant Right.

    I am no longer indignant about the Left. They are what they are, and it would be like being indignant about a snake because it slithers. After all, what else would you expect? No, I am indignant, as in thoroughly ticked off with and disgusted by, about half of the American public, which just cruises along enabling such behavior and acting as if there is nothing wrong with it.

    They slurp up whatever is thrown in the trough and seem to like the taste. “Homophobia” would mean, if actually defined, as being afraid of human beings. From Wikipedia: “Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them” and Merriam Webster defines “phobia” as “…an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject…” But the term is widely accepted as meaning something it does not mean, and without any interest in accuracy or even logic. It’s just a case of sheeple doing what they are told to do, or believing what they are told to believe, and in the process giving power to demagogues.

    It is this mindlessness that can find meaning in the bizarre claim that killing an inconvenient human being is really nothing more than exerting control over one’s own body. It is this inability or at least lack of desire to make any sense at all that conflates the openly self-described opinion hosts on Fox with its objective news reporting, leading to the hysteria about Fox being biased. It is this disconnect with reality that brands calm objective analysis of actual political ideology as “hate” while simultaneously spewing vile and vicious diatribes about the personalities and appearances of people simply because of a different political identity. It is this kind of insanity that claims that hatred of another because of skin color is not racist if the hater is black and the object of the hate is white, but that any criticism of any action of any black person by any white person is by definition “racist”.

    Somehow we have, as a nation, allowed our values and sensibility to become so eroded and corrupted that we not only no longer have moral compasses, we believe that having a moral compass is wrong. We now celebrate degeneracy and despise morality. We now approve of schools handing out brightly colored condoms to junior high students, with phrases on the packaging such as “Lucky Girl”, and have one of the two major political parties in the nation advertising on the basis of promiscuous girls hustling strangers for sex. It is now hard to find a TV show that does not, over a period of a few weeks, have at least one reference to testicles, usually in a coarse and vulgar way.

    Cultural degeneracy is one thing, but the bland acceptance of blatantly tyrannical government without a blink or a question is quite another. We have an administration bragging about violating the Constitution, and a public that seems to see nothing wrong with this.

    • M. Noonan March 13, 2014 / 12:26 am

      One could write a whole book about it, and I am. Matt and I have been, of course, wrapped up in “Worst” for more than a year and we’ll be hammering away at that at least through the end of this year…but the book is about 1/3 written and once I’m done with “Worst”, the new book will command my attention until completed. Will it be an earth-shattering book? I don’t know, but it will be written – and it will, at certain points, probably offend everyone who reads it because in it I propose to take to task every bit of nonsense that people believe in our modern world…with the dual premise of the book being that we are conned out of our wealth and liberties by people who want power and wealth without having to earn it and, on our side, we are simply unwilling to be rude enough to call these con artists out. We’ll see how it goes.

      • Amazona March 15, 2014 / 4:33 pm

        Shawny, the Left likes to ridicule and deride observations of semantic infiltration and educational indoctrination, but any examination of the tactics of the Left throughout the last 100 years or so will show the pattern.

        Here is just a very tiny example of the pervasiveness of Leftist propaganda. You have probably noticed the ubiquitous hustling of mortgage refinancing that pops up on nearly every web site you visit. Each of these ads I get proudly announces that the lower rates advertised are there because of Barack Obama. The ads tout “OBAMA LOWERS INTEREST RATES !!!” and so on.

        This not only gives Obama credit for stepping in and allowing people to refi, it sets the stage for the acceptance of Obama as one who has this unilateral power, so the next time Obama makes a law on his own, it is just another in a series of things he has done.

        What with one declaration after another—OBAMA DOES THIS!!! and OBAMA DOES THAT!!! with no questioning of just how he did this or that, under what authority did he do this or that, did he really do this or that at all, or if he did was it legal, the ignorant American public is primed to just accept the fact that Obama does things, and to not question if he is supposed to do things, if it is Constitutional for him to do things, if it is a sign of encroaching tyranny that he does things, etc. There is just the introduction of several themes into the American subconscious, where they are not examined. There are the themes that Obama is acting for the good of the American citizen, that Obama is acting for the good of the nation, and that Obama has the power and authority to do whatever he wants to do as long as it is for the good of the people or the country. From here it is a small step to accepting anything he does without question—-setting armed drones out to keep an eye on, and potentially attack and kill, Americans on American soil, spying on American electronic communications on American soil, using agencies of the American government to intimidate, attack and punish Americans who simply have different political opinions, openly stating that he will only enforce some laws, and so on.

        We have already had Leftist spokespeople testing the waters, going on talk shows to openly state Obama’s intention to “bypass Congress” to unilaterally make his own laws. They have to feel quite emboldened, given the absolute lack of outrage at this blatantly stated intent to subvert the Constitution.

        The pattern is there. First, those who objected to the political positions and agendas of Obama were demonized not as political opponents with objective analytical differences but as morally despicable human beings—-racists. Then people who came forth and gathered to express their concerns about the nation’s government overreaching its Constitutional boundaries were publicly identified, by the leaders of the Left, by the top officials in two of the three branches of government, as “domestic terrorists”, as dangers to the nation. Americans were warned about them, about people who gather to express their political opinions, about returning military personnel who had been defending the country, about anyone who is not a supporter of the Left. Soon after this, we learned that the government had implemented a method for tracking, monitoring, and even killing Americans, on American soil—-if they are identified as enemies of the nation.

        Connect the dots. Political opponents have been publicly identified by top government officials as enemies of the State. Trained military personnel no longer on active duty are identified as dangerous. The State sets up the means to kill, on American soil, Americans if they have been identified as enemies of the State.

        Barack Obama declared his intent to form a civilian security force as large as, and armed as well as, our military. Then, within a few short years, federal agencies were expanded so dramatically, and given such unprecedented power, they now form a de facto fourth branch of government—–and they are arming themselves with billions of rounds of ammunition, purchased by agencies which have never before been associated with military action or the need to be armed. These agencies, and their weaponry, are not controlled by our military. Who controls them?

      • Amazona March 15, 2014 / 4:39 pm

        Shawny, I went to your link and though it is intriguing I found a couple of things that cast doubt on its legitimacy. One is the comment that this Russian man got citizenship within a year. Unless there is proof that he did, because of illicit connections within the United States government to make this possible, I have to consider it a lie, and one that casts doubt on the rest of the story.

        Another is the misspelling of the name of Bill Ayers. This is the kind of thing that tends to identify hair-on-fire crackpottery, rather than legitimate news and information.

        Not that I doubt the infiltration of radical anti-American Leftist operatives into the heart of the American Left—we have so much evidence of this it can’t even really be questioned any more. It’s just that this particular story has too many inconsistencies and red flags (no pun intended) to feel quite right.

  2. 02casper March 12, 2014 / 7:24 pm

    Actually homophobia is a word.
    From wikipedia:
    “Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars, the term itself is relatively new.[11] Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[12] the term homophobia is a blend[13][14][15] of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear”. Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[11] ”

    And it has a meaning other than what you want it to.

    From Merriam Webster
    ho·mo·pho·bia
    noun \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
    Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
    : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

    • Amazona March 12, 2014 / 7:57 pm

      Well, I did the literal translation, while you went for the NewSpeak, modified, politically correct, mangled Orwellian version, in which a “phobia” is not a “fear” or “morbid fear” at all, but just discrimination. It’s just more of “Who cares what the word has always meant? We say it means something else now!”

      Kind of like “marriage…”

      Even your own source had to admit “…the term itself is relatively new. Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s..” Coined=invented. The fact that this Weinberg guy first used this invented word to describe something that is not related to fear at all is proof that he is also a demagogue, trying to insert the concept that finding something distasteful or wrong means it is feared. It is an effort to shift the distaste from the aberrant act to those who find it aberrant. It’s part of the movement to say that homosexuality is not deviant, it is those who identify it as deviant who have something wrong with THEM, rebranded as irrationally fearful folks now described by the inaccurate use of the suffix “phobe”.

      It is exactly the sort of semantic manipulation and semantic infiltration I was talking about. And, of course, you sheeple scurry to start to use it, too. And you, an alleged teacher, condone the manipulation of two established word meanings to cobble together an entirely new word which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual, real, historical and accepted meaning of its disparate parts. You don’t just condone it, you defend it.

      I see.

      However, your feeble attempt to prove me wrong actually just proved me right, in its explanation of how the Left uses, abuses and manipulates language to promote its agendas. As well as the observation that an entirely too-large segment of the population is just too damned stupid to see what is going on.

    • Amazona March 12, 2014 / 8:00 pm

      BTW, if you are going to play the cut-and-paste game, at least delete the numerical references which are irrelevant in the finished product.

      Or is your tolerance of sloppy use of the language extended to sloppy use of footnotes, etc.

  3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 12, 2014 / 8:12 pm

    Amazona,

    Although homophobia is not a pathological condition in the sense that phobia refers to fear; the word nonetheless is defined by common usage.

    As the pud-packer from Wyoming demonstrates, listing dictionary definitions without understanding taxonomy is a defining characteristic of simple-minded libiots. In its purest sense, homophobia could translate to a fear of same. Since the prefix homo is without definition vis-à-vis homowhat.

    But, back to homophobia. The antonym phobia implies aversion as much as fear. In this context to be repulsed, whether rational or not, to the homosexual, and the abbreviation homo is understood to be shorthand for homosexual human being, progenitus prohibitius. A person we like to call a Chutney Ferret.

    So, although highly inaccurate, the word homophobe is used to describe anyone afraid, repulsed, horror-struck, appalled, sickened, repelled, offended, disgusted or otherwise reacts normally when confronted by homosexual behavior.

    Does that explain it better?

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 12, 2014 / 8:33 pm

      However, Webster is demonstrably incorrect in one part; to describe phobia as irrational.

      I have agrizoophobia, which I would say without fear of contradiction is fully rational and otherwise referred to as survival.

      • Amazona March 13, 2014 / 9:02 am

        Count, please define “agrizoophobia”—without consulting any scholarly reference, it appears to be a fear of farm animals.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 13, 2014 / 1:39 pm

        Wild animals.

        As an avid hiker, backpacker and climber I can assure you that a respectful fear of any wild animal is prudent and normal.

      • Amazona March 13, 2014 / 2:52 pm

        Maybe so. After all, Jimmah Carter did get attacked by a rabbit.

  4. Jeremiah March 12, 2014 / 8:32 pm

    First of all, I want to say, what an awesome article. I went straight to the blog where the whole piece is found, and I must say, Mr. Wright wrote it with such eloquence and grace. I wish I had the writing capabilities as those by the Author of the one who wrote that piece, or, even you, Mr. Noonan.

    I have had people tell me, “Jeremiah, you have good writing skills, you would make a great writer, whether author of books, journalism, or online.” I do not think that is a possibility, however, in part, because I don’t have the composition, or vocabulary necessary to write in a manner that would make it comprehensive enough to reach an audience. My thought/thinking skills fail me quite easily. The words do not flow as I would like them to. And, primarily, because I am more comfortable when my thinking is applied to my hands in relation to trade skills. And, not to boast, but I would consider myself better at woodworking, metal-working, machine-operating, such things as those, as opposed to writing.

    That said, and out of the way, I would like to write something in regard to what the thread is about…

    I think, and am persuaded that the so-called “political correctness” movement is primarily about silencing the voice of reason, and/or truth. We cannot ask or require people from other cultures to assimilate to our laws, rules, or customs, and in this way, is created a multicultural society, and in other words, created a society that has lost, or does not adhere to a semblance of order, and therefore, chaos is the result. That is the whole process of “progressive” or liberal way of thought — take order, turn it inside out, into disorder, or chaos.

    I don’t if any of you watched the Creation vs. Evolution debate, but it was aired online recently, and I forget the names of the two debaters, and they are very intelligent men, scientists…but anyway, the guy who was debating in favor of intelligent design laid this out in concise terms in regard to the opposing views….such as, if you have a Creator, then life has worth, and therefore is valued…whereas, if evolution is favored, then life loses its value, and death is the result. The truth of the matter is, though, that if evolution is the favored philosophy, life does not lose it’s actual value, it’s only lost in value within the parameters, or confines of the intellect within the individual’s mind who favors evolution. Life will never lose its value, because God has decreed it so. Christ proved that when He bled and died on the Cross at Mt. Calvary.
    A tree led to the downfall of man, and it also took a tree to redeem mankind.

    I think what’s lost in all of this debate, is for the fact that the devil, or Satan is not mentioned or contemplated as to why so many people follow the wretched lifestyles that have permeated our culture. Many people either believe that the devil is a “fictional character”, or they are too afraid to mention him as a causative factor for fear of some unforeseen retribution for mentioning his name. He is real! I can assure everyone who has ever heard of the name can believe with confidence that Satan is real. His deceiving ways come through many avenues, as he has perfected the art of deception over millennia — including many of those things that Mr. Wright mentioned in his article — sexual perversions, rock ‘n’ roll/heavy metal/death metal music, drugs, alcohol, idols or paganism, matter and the materialistic things of this world, worshipping other planets, worshiping created things, trees, rocks, water, wind, etc. Many have been deceived into following Satan himself — practicing witchcraft, fortune-telling etc. This is all part of how Satan has deceived and used matter to capture and destroy souls. This is why there should be no doubt in the minds of individuals as to why we see our world, and country in the shape that it is in. No doubt! Whatsoever!

    One of Satan’s most effective tools, has been the school, or educational system…he has used them to train up, brainwash, and control generations of people. Using the schools for social engineering projects, to dissect, and shred formerly adhered to family values, and not just family values in general, as morality itself has become a fairly relative term, but Godly, Christian home values. Newspaper ads of the early 1920s were good, clean humor…but today, they come from the bowels of Satan himself. Shows on television in the 50s were good clean family shows. Today, you cannot turn on the tv without being bombarded with references to issues related to sex or violence. The people who created Bevis and Butthead and Family guy would have been put in a noose around their necks in the middle of city hall, in, let’s say 1830.
    What we are witnessing is a transition from those days when the generation of the day was taught values, honor and dignity, to a generation where the generations are taught that moral depravity is a preferred form of “liberty,” to self-destruct is an acceptable template for society to pattern itself after. And this template was developed in a classroom starting with Madeline Murray O’hair. In Murrey vs. Curlett in 1963. That Supreme Court decision carried out, opened the doorway to the type of society that we see today in America. The pattern repeatedly used day in and day out in our public schools to continue creating the type of world that atheists and other cultural groups that deny Christ as King, envision for America. And even more troubling is the fact that there is no number of people willing to tackle this problem we face, or to face those who want chaos to reign!

    • M. Noonan March 13, 2014 / 12:29 am

      Ah, but it goes back much further than that – it goes back to the break up of Christian civilization in the 16th century. Everything was actually let loose at that time and even the virtues could be carried to extremes and be destructive. When we lost any sense that there was a final Authority, then everything became possible – and just about everything has come about. Abortion, infanticide, conscription, industrialized war, genocide…and people calling evil things, good.

      • Jeremiah March 13, 2014 / 10:47 pm

        Mr. Noonan,

        The 16th century was a time of victory for the church, because of the Glorious Reformation movement that birthed a time of liberty for the gospels to be shared to a lost and dying world. The Reformation, at least in my opinion, was akin to the day of Pentecost. In that they are similar in nature as far as the times were concerned. Pentecost, the disciples received the Holy Spirit to spread the gospel in different languages. The Reformation, because the Scriptures were translated into different languages. And last, but certainly not least, I believe America found its conception in the roots of the Reformation. I believe America would have never been possible without the Reformation. I don’t know, maybe that is a slightly skewed form of history, but I believe that the Reformation came about because people have a desire to be free, and America has always been based upon that premise…that, “we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right, among these are, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.”

        Somehow, after almost 300 years, people have allowed those ideals to be distorted, and our country to be formed into something contrary to what the Founders intended for it.

      • M. Noonan March 14, 2014 / 3:42 am

        Well, not quite. The hardest thing in discussing the Reformation is that very often Protestants gravely misunderstand what happened. Here is a bit from Belloc on it:

        Now, both Catholics and Protestants today tend to commit a capital historical error. They tend to regard Catholicism on the one side, Protestantism on the other, as two mainly opposed religious and moral systems, producing, from the very origins of the movement, opposed and even sharply contrasted moral characters in their individual members. They take this duality for granted even in the beginning. Historians who write in English on either side of the Atlantic talk of so-and-so (even in the early part of the sixteenth century) as a “Protestant” and so-and-so-other as a “Catholic.” It is true that contemporaries also used these terms, but they used the words in a very different sense and with very different feelings. For a whole lifetime after the movement called the “Reformation” had started (say from 1520 to 1600), men remained in an attitude of mind which considered the whole religious quarrel in Christendom as an Oecumenical one. They thought of it as a debate in which all Christendom was engaged and on which some kind of ultimate decision would be taken for all. This decision would apply to Christendom as a whole and produce a general religious peace.

        That state of mind lasted, I say, a whole long lifetime – but its general atmosphere lasted much longer. Europe was not resigned to accept religious disunion for yet another lifetime. The reluctant resolve to make the best of the disaster does not become evident – as we shall see – till the Peace of Westphalia, 130 years after Luther’s first challenge, and the complete separation into Catholic and Protestant groups was not accomplished for another fifty years: say, 1690- 1700.

        It is of first importance to appreciate this historical truth. Only a few of the most bitter or ardent Reformers set out to destroy
        Catholicism as a separate existing thing of which they were conscious and which they hated. Still less did most of the Reformers set out to erect some other united counter-religion.

        They set out (as they themselves put it and as it had been put for a century and a half before the great upheaval) “to reform.” They
        professed to purify the Church and restore it to its original virtues of directness and simplicity. They professed in their various ways (and the various groups of them differed in almost everything except their increasing reaction against unity) to get rid of excrescences, superstitions and historical falsehoods_of which, heaven knows, there was a multitude for them to attack.

        On the other side, during this period of the Reformation, the defence of orthodoxy was occupied, not so much in destroying a specific
        thing (such as the spirit of Protestantism is today), as in restoring unity. For at least sixty years, even on to eighty years – more than the full active lifetime of even a long-lived man – the two forces at work, Reform and Conservatism, were of this nature: interlocked, each affecting the other and each hoping to become universal at last.

        Of course, as time went on, the two parties tended to become two hostile armies, two separate camps, and at last full separation was
        accomplished. What had been a united Christendom of the West broke into two fragments: the one to be henceforward the Protestant Culture, the other the Catholic Culture. Each henceforward was to know itself and its own spirit as a thing separate from and hostile to the other. Each also grew to associate the new spirit with its own region, or nationality, of City-State: England, Scotland, Hamburg, Zurich and what not.

        No one with historical knowledge contests the fact that reform was greatly needed in the Church in the 16th century – it had needed it just as much in the 12th and 13th centuries. The difference is that in the 12th and 13th century, Christian unity was maintained – Benedict, Aquinas, Catherine, Francis and others picked it up, cleaned it off and revitalized it. And if you go back through the centuries, you’ll see that this happened again and again. People often forget just how old the Church is – and like all things run by humans, every now and again a reform is necessary…as long as it is understood that a “reform” is a restoration of things as they were, not the creation of a whole, new thing. Luther didn’t set out to start a new Church – he started out to reform the Church (and this is why Lutheranism is still in many ways similar to Catholicism in basic theology). Others did set out to destroy, but they tended to come later (the prime example of this was Calvin – and he stripped as much Christian belief out of his theology as he could consistent with just barely remaining Christian…but mostly he was greatly embittered against the Church over some personal matters that had gone wrong).

        Jesus never intended that there be a plurality of churches, nor a variety of belief among Christians. He brought one truth, not several. It was just a pity that by the 16th century, secular rulers were greedily eying Church property (which had been built up over more than 1,000 years) and figured that if they broke away from the Church, they could steal all the Church wealth (even Luther was dismayed by this – and by how little the secular rulers left over for Christian charity after despoiling the Church). Of course, once you break away and rob the Church, you’d better be sure you don’t come back under control of any authority which would uphold the rights of the Church…and, so, the “religious wars”, which were not religious at all but were mere attempts by secular rulers to keep hold of the stolen goods (though, in this matter, Catholic rulers weren’t helpful – when they did get control of stolen property, they often as not awarded it to their own secular retainers rather than restoring it to its rightful owner). In the end, neither side could conquer and so stayed separate – but in the separation came the ultimate evils of our times.

        You see, if there is no Authority all can refer to in matters of faith and morals, then eventually every sort of immorality will eventually be embraced by someone who will call the immorality, “good”. Everything vile in our modern world stems from this break up of Christian unity- not the fact of sin, of course (that we’ll always do until the End), but in those say that sin is no sin and, indeed, is morally laudable…those who engage in sexual licentiousness, in abortion, in mass murder…none of them say to themselves, “I am doing evil”. No, they all consider themselves good people doing the right thing. And they can do it because they can say, “who can judge me?”. Once upon a time, we had a general moral Authority in our civilization which could and did judge…and called upon all people to condemn and fight against it. Now, if the Pope declares that something is immoral – say, abortion – then not only will he get hammered from agnostics and atheists, but even plenty of people who claim to be Christians will say that Christian belief disagrees with the Pope’s statement. And as far as some pastor of an Evangelical Church – that person will get even shorter shrift…after all, at least the Pope can claim to speak on behalf of a billion people…the pastor of the local Evangelical Church, maybe a few hundred…a couple thousand, tops.

        Do keep in mind, I’m not condemning – I’m just pointing out the historical facts. And here’s the kicker – until we get some unity, we’ll never really get anywhere. To be sure, what is best in Protestantism and Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well) is pressing forward for a unified, Christian Church. The difficulties are immense as so much time has passed and so many people have taken up positions difficult to retreat from…but if the Great Schism of 1054 (that between the Western, Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church) can be repaired (and many are hoping that by 2054 a formula for full re-unification will be agreed to), then we can eventually get everyone on board. But make no mistake about it – the split up of Western Christianity was a disaster of the first magnitude for us…and the results are plain as plain in Europe: where probably not 1 in 10 people are Christian these days.

  5. percybeezer March 12, 2014 / 8:46 pm

    Political Correctness -Wishing Common Sense into the Cornfield.

  6. Jeremiah March 14, 2014 / 12:16 am

    I think Ronald Reagan said it best – “the problem with our liberal friends, isn’t that they are ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Comments are closed.