We Bought a House in the City

Downtown Columbus, Ohio

The Prolix Patriot believes that the future of conservatism will depend on restoring and rebuilding our cities after decades of liberal decay and neglect, so he and the Missus purchased a house in the city to put his money where his mouth is, as it were. For the first time in the history of the world, more people live in cities than do not. If conservatism is to remain a vital force in our civilization, we must bring our values back to the cities and our core institutions.

There are many obstacles to this project of course. In a map of precinct-level election returns, cities are the deepest of deep blue islands even in states that as a whole lean solidly to the right. Municipal elections are settled in Democratic primaries and the November elections might as well be like the Soviet Union where the only answer is "Yes." This is an unlikely place to look for conservative values. Living in the city is a decidedly counter-cultural proposition for us, especially when trying to have a large family.

However, because of this, conservatives in cities know the value of community perhaps more acutely than their liberal neighbors. Whereas for liberals the many boards and committees of municipal government provide numerous opportunities for civic involvement, for conservatives the first unit of organization (after the family of course) is the parish, and unsurprisingly, the most vibrant and conservative parish in Columbus is in the heart of the city, not at its periphery.

Fortified by communities of faith and family, conservatives are better prepared to engage with people of differing opinions instead of succumbing to the liberal tendency towards oikophobia. As conservatives, we can highlight the things that we do have in common with liberals without completely surrendering to radicalism. That said, instead of seeking to find common cause where none exists, we must use every opportunity to encourage our liberal neighbors to rethink their attitudes about conservatism—and perhaps even join our cause.

As one example, conservatives can demonstrate that conservation of nature (as opposed to radical environmentalism) is best achieved by making cities a desirable place to live instead of punishing people for the economically rational decision to live in the outer suburbs. As another example, horrible schools deter families from living in the city. Groups like Southside STAY in Columbus recognize this problem. Conservatives should emphasize our commitment to school choice and teacher accountability as the means to restore urban schools and make it easier for large families to thrive.

Many years ago, the Prolix Patriot wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal defending the importance of cities even in an age where technology makes it easier to communicate across vast distances and sprawling infrastructure provides relatively quick access from the countryside to the urban core and vice-versa. These advances are wonderful in some ways but they also have their drawbacks, and they can never replace the value of proximity that nurtures and sustains communities and our society as a whole.

Conservatives recognize that human nature does not change. Instead of the Bloombergian nanny-state which tries to force people to live according to the latest fad, we recognize that the way to change behavior is by setting a good example ourselves and by providing incentives for others to do the right thing. It will take much time and effort to repair the damage (both physical and spiritual) that liberalism has inflicted on our cities over the past 50 years, but if we do not commit ourselves to the task, we cannot complain about the decaying and degraded society that our children will inherit.

Share

The Road to Damascus

The Conversion of St. Paul, 1767 by Nicolas-Bernard Lepicie

Saint Paul is no ordinary saint. Unlike much of the New Testament which was passed on through oral tradition by the apostles before being written down, we know with complete certainty that Paul's epistles were written during his life by his own hand--the same hand which had formerly whipped and shackled Christians. Aside from the divine figures of the Holy Family, Paul is arguably the most important figure in all of Christianity. As a convert, the Prolix Patriot has a special fondness for Paul's story because he shows us that it is never too late and no sin is too great when we come to that place on the road to Damascus in our own lives.

It is fitting then that in addition to the Feat of the Conversion of Saint Paul, today is also the March for Life in Washington, D.C. and many of the Prolix Patriot's dear friends will be there braving the bitter cold as witnesses to Jesus' triumph over death. The most heartbreaking and yet awe-inspiring point in the March for Life is always the women who have had abortions, but have since then come to regret that "choice" as it is so often euphemized. Like Paul, they have been stopped dead in their tracks and blinded by God's awesome love. Like Paul, these women have realized that even they can find forgiveness and hope. Their courage to speak out against abortion from personal experience is a testament to the eternal power of life over death and the victory of love over sin--and this testament must also stop us dead in our tracks as well.

Relatedly, in our national discourse we are called to consider the essence of womanhood by the Obama Administration's recent decision to allow women to serve in combat duty. Women have been endowed with the incredible power to participate in the creation of life. Just as we pray for conversion of those who have had abortions or are contemplating one, we also must pray that women can always be protectors of life--and perhaps even in the heat of in battle as medics or corpsmen--but should never be destroyers of life. It is bad enough when mothers must bury their sons as casualties of war, but a son should never have to bury his mother because of the enemy's bullet.

We live in times of persecution for people of faith, but Paul reminds us that even the persecutors themselves are nevertheless called by God's infinite love to righteousness just as the most devout believers are called to continuing conversion of heart to more fully emulate Jesus and to spread the Gospel. We must remember that Jesus in all of his dreadful power was born of a woman just like the rest of us. As a consequence, a proper respect for the protective and live-giving qualities of womanhood is essential if we seek to know the heart of Jesus.

As Goethe wrote and Mahler so powerfully set to music describing the epic final scene of Faust's redemption and ascent to Heaven:

Alles Vergängliche Ist nur ein Gleichnis; Das Unzulängliche, Hier wird’s Ereignis; Das Unbeschreibliche. Hier ist's getan; Das Ewig Weibliche Zieht uns hinan.

All that is transitory Is but an image; The inadequacy of earth Here finds fulfillment; The ineffable Here is accomplished; The eternal feminine leads us upwards.

Even though Dr. Faust is a fictional character, we know from the example of Saint Paul that even a man who sold his soul to the Devil would still be able to repent and seek God's eternal mercy. Like Saint Paul, we are all living in blindness, but no matter how great our small our sins, we are all on the road to Damascus and Jesus is calling us.

Share

An Appeal to Heaven

The Pine Tree Flag

The day of the election is at hand. The Prolix Patriot has written before in these pages of the attacks on religious freedom by the Obama Administration. If the President is re-elected tomorrow, these attacks will doubtlessly continue with renewed hostility and vigor. Furthermore, regardless of which candidate wins tomorrow (or in the following weeks if it's very close) people of all religions will still have great difficulty living according to their faith in our decadent society.

Whether in the abuses heaped upon celebrities like Tim Tebow or a formerly anonymous elderly bus monitor in New York, we live in a culture that despises virtue. In the 22nd Psalm, we find a description of the persecutions that have always faced people of faith and conviction. Whether in the jeers of unruly schoolyard bullies or the hectoring of the liberal media, people of faith seem to always be on the defensive, but as the scripture tells us, this is all to be expected for those who seek the path of righteousness.

Religion tolerates unbelief because we have faith that with time and love we can convert the hard of heart to a fuller understanding. All we ask is to be allowed to practice our faith in the meanwhile. When the government joins in that attack however, the situation becomes more desperate. There are many policies which a religious person might find offensive, but President Obama has crossed an unprecedented line by requiring people of faith to violate their own consciences in the service of those policies.

It is altogether fitting then that an early motto in the fight for independence of this country was "An Appeal to Heaven." The phrase alludes to the works of John Locke, the philosophical forefather of American self-government.

What is my Remedy against a Robber, that so broke into my House? Appeal to the Law for Justice. But perhaps Justice is denied, or I am crippled and cannot stir, robbed and have not the means to do it. If God has taken away all means of seeking remedy, there is nothing left but patience. But my Son, when able, may seek the Relief of the Law, which I am denied: He or his Son may renew his Appeal, till he recover his Right. But the Conquered, or their Children, have no Court, no Arbitrator on Earth to appeal to. Then they may Appeal, as Jephtha did, to Heaven, and repeat their Appeal, till they have recovered the native Right of their Ancestors, which was to have such a Legislative over them, as the Majority should approve, and freely acquiesce in.

When the fate of freedom is at its most perilous, we may find our hopes dashed and our faith tested. However, we would all do well to remember the words of the 146th Psalm, "Put not your trust in princes: in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation." The Prolix Patriot hopes that this will be the last word he ever needs to write about President Obama, but even if Obama is able to continue his attacks on religious liberty in a second term, there is a saying that God always settles out of court. Our faith may be attacked and even criminalized, but in the end, we shall prevail.

Share

A Liberal Chameleon

If You Don't Like My Principles, I Have Others

Last night's vice-presidential debate was the first time in our nation's history when two Catholics shared that stage, but this was not the only historic first of the evening. It was also the first time that a nationally televised debate constantly seemed on the edge of becoming a drunken bar brawl. Throughout the evening, Biden was playing to his far-left base, and like a chameleon, displayed all the left's most unattractive qualities. He was by turns haughty, surly, and morose. Meanwhile, on the other side of the stage, Ryan was calm and consistent. Both men played to type in a way that was deeply revealing of their political philosophies.

In the opening phase, mainly in the area of foreign policy, the Vice President laughed and sneered with derision at every word that Congressman Ryan spoke, drawing unflattering comparisons to the Joker from the Batman comics. The left's unserious mockery of opposing views is all too common in public discourse today, such as when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi snorted at the suggestion that the ObamaCare individual mandate might be unconstitutional. In the end, the joke was on her when the Supreme Court held that the commerce clause does have limits, and that the individual mandate could only be constitutional if construed as a tax.

Then, the topic shifted to the economy to entitlements in the second phase, and as Chris Wallace observed with evident dismay, "I don't believe that I've ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan tonight." Vice President Biden and so-called moderator Martha Raddatz noticeably combined forces, at one point almost constantly interrupting Congressman Ryan and cutting him off without letting him respond to Biden's increasingly vicious verbal attacks. It is telling that in the area where Ryan is strongest--on economic and fiscal issues--there seemed to be a deliberate effort to block him from speaking.

On this point, many conservatives might complain of media bias, but during his debate preparations, Paul Ryan probably knew it was going to happen and decided to take the high road anyway. In the aftermath of Obama's humiliating defeat in the previous debate, many liberals criticized Jim Lehrer for not being assertive enough and Martha Raddatz obviously got the message. Both were terrible moderators for different reasons, but whereas Jim Lehrer's legacy as a well-respected veteran news anchor from an earlier and more civilized age remains intact, Martha Raddatz's fifteen minutes of fame are over, and she will now return to the comfortable obscurity she deserves as a correspondent for a network news program that hardly anybody watches anymore.

As the debate entered its mercifully brief final phase, Biden's tone changed dramatically when questioned about his views on abortion in the context of his professed Catholic faith. Shifting from his earlier jocosity and bravado, he suddenly seemed to bow his head and assumed a very serious and reverent tone of voice--almost as if seeking absolution for his many sins--as he tried to explain his own warped personal vision of Catholicism which somehow permits murder of the unborn under one of the most grotesque abortion policies in the entire world. Even atheist liberal European countries have some limits on when and how abortions can be performed, but not in Joe Biden's America.

Through it all, Paul Ryan maintained his composure and, like an accountant, stuck to the numbers and the hard facts throughout the debate. His performance was entirely consistent with his whole worldview, as a man of faith who is guided by principles over political considerations. Conversely, Biden constantly changed his mode of attack, just as he has changed his positions on the issues many times throughout his long career in the Senate. In the end, the liberal chameleon finally showed his true colors, and we were offered the clearest picture so far in this entire election of how extreme and how unhinged the political left has become.

Share

From Tucson to Turtle Bay

Don't Shoot the Messenger

On January 12, 2011, President Obama delivered perhaps the finest speech of his presidency eulogizing the death of six innocent Americans at the hands of a deranged gunman in Tucson, Arizona just a few days earlier. Now, in the year of an election, four Americans--including an ambassador--were murdered in a barbaric and savage attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. For all the differences between these two events, they both have one thing in common: neither had anything to do with the exercise of free speech.

In his moving oratory at the campus of the University of Arizona, the President silenced a raucous crowd of students and sternly rebuked the politicians and commentators on the left who in the preceding days had tried to lay the blame for the massacre on the vibrancy of political expression and debate in this country. Earlier this week at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, the President once again spoke about the death of innocent Americans, this time at the hands of terrorists, but the emphasis of his speech was very different.

After the rampage in Tucson in which Jared Loughner ended the life of a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl and severely wounded a congresswoman among his victims, liberal commentators pushed a narrative of violent rhetoric and incivility to explain the tragedy. However, as immediately became clear, the perpetrator had no political motives, but was and is very mentally ill. Moreover, despite the calls for more restrained and civil discourse, political debate and the coverage of it in the media quickly resumed the same incendiary and vitriolic tone as before the murders.

Just as with the Tucson massacre, the motives of the killers in Libya are very clear. This was not a "protest" against an amateur video. This was an act of pure slaughter in violation of every precept of international law and diplomacy. Despite this, and even though leaders in the intelligence community, the Secretary of State, and his own Press Secretary have all admitted that it was a premeditated and overt act of terror aimed directly at the United States, the President only mentioned the word "terrorism" once in his address—and not even in reference to the violence in Libya.

Some commentators on the right have observed that instead of unambiguously defending the sacred American right to free speech as he did in Tucson, the President's remarks were more calibrated for an international audience that is openly hostile to American values. Instead of speaking with determination and resolve, it seemed that the President was searching for common ground with people who wish to destroy us. Unsurprisingly, there was not much in common to be found. This is a valid criticism.

However, the focus on free speech misses the point. In Tucson, the murders were the work of a madman. In Benghazi, the amateur video that probably got more views after the attack than before was merely a pretext for a long-planned act of terror by religious fanatics who despise the United States. In both cases, we make the mistake of trying to explain and rationalize evil on our own terms, when in truth, the innocent and the virtuous are always the first casualty when we pretend that pure and incomprehensible evil does not exist in the world.

Share

Is Barack Obama a Tory?

Lord Protector or Protection Racket?

Last week, a correspondent at Britain’s Spectator (not to be confused with the American Spectator) posed this seemingly nonsensical question. If Toryism--or more broadly, conservatism--has any meaning at all, obviously the answer is no. However, on deeper reflection, this question is a good starting point to explore President Obama's governing philosophy. Clearly Obama is no conservative, but what sort of man is he? Using British history as our point of comparison, it is clear that Barack Obama has much more in common with the Roundheads than the Tories.

The argument advanced in the piece is that "the goal of the Obama Administration has been the preservation of the status quo" and "minimally disturbing existing economic and political arrangements" which is falsely given as the core of "small-c" conservatism. This sounds like Burkean pragmatism, and while Edmund Burke is certainly an intellectual father of modern conservative thought on both sides of the Atlantic, he was a Whig and spent his political career opposing the Tories in pursuit of reform, especially religious and economic freedom for Catholics in Ireland.

Moreover, Burke argued that change is "the most powerful law of nature" and since it cannot be avoided, should be guided "by insensible degrees" to the best possible outcomes. Many modern-day conservatives accept this decidedly Whiggish maxim and are willing to make short-term compromises in order to gradually advance a principled agenda that strengthens individual rights, the family, and the role of faith in society. This is not what Obama has done.

Then-candidate Obama campaigned in 2008 on the now-tired slogan of "Hope and Change," which is to say, he did not merely accept change as inevitable, but actively sought to cause it--and by the most radical means possible. Indeed, Obama has been deeply antagonistic towards long-established businesses and civic institutions in a way which would horrify Burke. While being heckled by Occupy Wall Street protesters last year, he even said as much.

Rather than a Tory or even a Whig, the President's philosophy is frighteningly similar to the Puritan revolution lead by Oliver Cromwell. In particular, Obama and his supporters have engaged in an all-out attack on faithful Catholics and religious conservatives. While preaching "tolerance" and "choice," Obama's policies are in fact quite the opposite. Even the liberal wing of the Supreme Court recognized Obama's attack on freedom of religion went too far in the landmark Hosanna-Tabor case.

At the same time, the mob mentality of Obama's most ardent supporters is becoming more evident. Just this past month, we have seen a rash of vandalism against Chick-fil-A franchises due to the religious beliefs of the restaurant chain's founder. Meanwhile, a gunman attempted to murder the employees of a conservative non-profit while toting a backpack full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches. It is also worth noting that the Occupy Wall Street movement has repeatedly employed anti-Semitic rhetoric. To be sure, these are isolated actions of deranged individuals—-but for how long?

Insofar as Obama is using his power to attack the rights of religious people and to delegitimize freedom of worship and expression in the public square, he bears some of the responsibility for this disturbing trend towards unruly mobs and hateful violence. His radical governing philosophy of intolerance and coercion has been adopted by his supporters with increasingly disconcerting results. America is generally a peaceful and democratic society, but even we are not immune to outbreaks of political violence.

Burke himself bitterly opposed the French Revolution and watched with horror as the chaos quickly devolved into what we now call totalitarianism. As a community organizer from the mean streets of South Chicago, Obama may have fooled himself that he can control the mob to do his bidding, but this is a dangerous course. If he were really a conservative and a student of history, he would know that, as with Cromwell, it's easy to stir up a mob into an agitated frenzy, but it's impossible to stop the mob when heads begin to roll.

Share

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Birth of St. John the Baptist, by Jacopo Pontormo

This Sunday is the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. The feast has been celebrated for millenia across the world as Midsummer--the same midsummer in Shakespeare's famous play--with festivities similar to Halloween in many ways, but emphasizing life instead of death. The media-created myth of the solstice as the first day of summer is a very recent innovation of our modern and decadent age.

Who can ignore or obscure the signs of summer all around us: the roses and tigerlillies have bloomed, lightning and lightning bugs fill the nights, the tender buds and shoots have changed to dark and thick green foliage, the wind now comes from the sea instead of the land, the winter wheat in farmers' fields is ready (or almost ready) for harvest, and of course, the pools have opened.

Do we really need the calendar or the television to tell us that summer arrived weeks and months ago?! Summer was already here long before the charlatans decreed that nature and the seasons must wait for the false precision and pseudoscience of the astronomical solstice. The profusion of life in nature waits for no man, and least of all the sham intellectuals and urbanites who are completely detached from nature, religion, history, and it seems, reality itself.

Share

Discourse vs. Deception

Liberal role-model?

It seems like an eternity has passed since then-prospective presidential candidate Governor Mitch Daniels was calling for a “truce” on social issues so that conservatives and liberals could unite to focus on much-needed economic and entitlement reforms. Even the last faint dying glimmers of hope for such a truce are now gone. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration and its allies have launched an all-out attack on religious freedom and especially the Catholic Church. Worse still, liberals are employing shockingly dishonest tactics to advance their radical agenda.

Sandra Fluke has emerged as the standard-bearer of the Obama Administration’s push for “free” (i.e., government-mandated and employer-funded) birth control, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs. Initial media reports identified her as a 23-year-old law student at Georgetown University, but a look at her online profile at LinkedIn reveals that she is actually a 30-something agitator for something called “reproductive justice” and has a lengthy résumé of feminist organizations.

Furthermore, when Ms. Fluke decided to attend Georgetown University, she did so precisely because she knew that, as a Catholic institution, they would not cover the cost of her contraceptives and thus she could use her opposition to the Church’s teachings and longstanding university policy as a means to advance her personal political agenda and her career. According to a friendly biographical piece at the Washington Post, she has been lobbying the school to sacrifice its beliefs in favor of her own from the moment of her matriculation, even before the HHS contraceptive mandate was a twinkle in Obama’s eye.

In another instance, the New York Daily News reported that Barbara Johnson was denied communion at her mother’s funeral because she happens to be a lesbian. The mainstream media did not report that she approached the priest before the Mass and introduced him to her lesbian lover which prompted the priest to tell her that he could not in good conscience give her the Eucharist. Nevertheless, she insisted on approaching the altar anyway and then later complained to the press about her supposed “ill-treatment” when the priest again refused. Predictably, the liberal response was outrage that the priest could be so insensitive.



However, a quick glance at the Facebook and Twitter pages of her art school (for children!) reveals a series of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual links which are clearly and explicitly at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. A small sampling is reproduced nearby. Ms. Johnson is entitled to her beliefs, but instead of also respecting the beliefs of her dead mother and the congregation at her mother’s parish, Ms. Johnson crassly used the occasion of her mother’s death to advance her personal political agenda. Just as in the case of Ms. Fluke, the timing of this incident is suspicious, as Maryland passed a gay marriage bill the same day the story broke.

The liberal narrative is that the Catholic Church is oppressing women, but the truth is that radical liberals who do not believe in the Church’s teachings are manufacturing controversy with the help of manipulative media elites. The freedom of religion is inextricably linked to the freedoms of speech, expression, and even thought itself. More importantly, for people who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings, the freedom of religion gives each of us the right to not believe. Nobody is compelling anyone to ascribe or adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church—or any church.

These small deceptions are part of a bigger lie. Whenever conservatives oppose government mandates and taxpayer funding for policies which violate their consciences, it is a liberal cliché that conservatives are trying to ban those things outright. The freedom of religion gives us the right to believe or to not believe, but the freedom of religion also gives us the right to do what we believe or to not do what we do not believe. In these two cases especially, one doesn’t have to agree with the Catholic Church on contraception and homosexuality to respect faithful Catholics who do not want to engage in or support these behaviors.

Winston Churchill once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” President Obama’s liberal allies in the media and elsewhere have taken that maxim and stood it on its head. The American people are not at war with their government. We deserve a basic level of honesty in public discourse. Especially when it comes to something as fundamental as the freedom of religion, the truth should be able to stand on its own. If liberals have to resort to deception to make their case before the public, it only underscores the weakness of their cause.

Share

The Contraceptive Mandate, Occupy Wall Street, and Anti-Semitism

They were the 99 percent too.

In his remarks this past Friday, President Obama repeated the bogus statistic that "99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives." We will examine the provenance of the 99% figure presently, but first, we must understand what is really at stake. Liberals are trying to frame the debate over the HHS contraceptive mandate as an attempt by conservatives to ban or limit access to birth control, but that is not even at issue. This is a debate about the fundamental meaning and structure of the Constitution.

Think of it this way: more than 99% of Americans will drink tap water at some point in their lives. But water is not free. Even in the bluest-of-blue states, you (or your landlord) get a bill for fresh drinking water supplied to your home. Perhaps low-income households get some help to pay this bill, but according to the President’s logic, because 99% of Americans drink water, the federal government should not only require every American to purchase public water (as opposed to say bottled water or rain water collected in a cistern) and furthermore, that employers should be required pay everyone’s water bill.

Likewise, the real debate today is about the ObamaCare individual mandate which requires every American to purchase insurance which covers birth control and the HHS employer mandate which requires every employer to provide insurance which covers birth control. Regardless of one’s opinion about birth control, this is an unprecedented exercise of government power in the private lives of every American. As the Prolix Patriot tweeted the other day, "Even if the socialist HHS mandate did not target religious freedom, it would still be socialist."

That said, perhaps it is true that most Catholics have used birth control at some point in their lives, but Lydia McGrew at the blog “What’s Wrong with the World” has examined the 98% number and basically, all you can really say is that 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception have used artificial contraception. That’s not saying much. The statistic does not include women who are either celibate or actively trying to get pregnant—which is far more than 1-2% of Catholic women. As a corollary, there are probably also many Catholics who are have used birth control in opposition to Church teaching, but who nevertheless oppose government intervention in this area.

But for argument’s sake, let’s take the 99% argument at face value. It is an actual fact (as opposed to a bogus statistic) that 98-99% of Americans are not Jewish. Of the 1-2% that are, only about half attend synagogues regularly and then only half of those are Conservative or Orthodox Jews. That leaves perhaps 0.25-0.5% of the total American population. According to the 99% argument, does that mean the First Amendment does not protect the religious expression of the very small minority of Jews who still conform to the Law of Moses and the Talmud?

Jews have historically been oppressed in their religious expression for centuries, so it is not a coincidence that Meir Soloveichik, a prominent Orthodox rabbi, joined with an the leader of an evangelical non-profit and a Catholic cardinal in a letter to the Wall Street Journal opposing the HHS contraceptive mandate. Furthermore, the 99% argument sounds suspiciously like it was borrowed from the Occupy movement which has been a well-documented hotbed of anti-Semitism. Indeed, there are liberal voices which make an explicit connection between the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate and the Occupy movement.

The First Amendment was created precisely to defend the rights of a small minority against the tyranny of the majority. Any time you hear the 99% argument as justification for Obama's policies, remember that Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein routinely won 99% of the vote in their sham elections. Whether in the anti-Semitic ranting of Occupy Wall Street or the anti-Catholic vitriol of liberal journalists and bloggers, the 99% argument is in essence an appeal to mob rule no less disturbing than Robespierre’s reign of terror or the Bolshevik purges. It is easy to stand with the 99%. It takes real courage to stand for the rights of the weak and the oppressed—especially when the heads start to roll.

Share

The Devil is in the Details

In an election that was supposed to be about jobs and the economy, President Obama now finds himself in a battle over the signature accomplishment of his presidency--namely, ObamaCare. Democrats made a huge miscalculation by rushing the law to passage with a nakedly partisan majority, but now the Obama Administration is compounding the error by pushing ObamaCare through the courts and using its regulations to attack religious freedom in the midst of an election year. This chain of errors stands a good chance of costing Obama re-election.

More than half the states and numerous other parties have joined together to challenge the individual mandate provision which would require every American to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Meanwhile, although the Catholic Bishops initially supported some form of healthcare reform, they are now united in opposing the implementation of the law by the Secretary of Health and Human Services which will require religious institutions to provide contraceptives that can also be used for do-it-yourself abortions.

As the battle for ObamaCare reached a climax in the spring of 2010, all of the maneuvering and political posturing was exhausted and the final sticking point was an amendment to the bill to ban the taxpayer funding of abortions. The Democratic majority had succeeded in quashing any objections over the enormous cost of the bill and the weakness of many of its policies, but a small cohort of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak of Michigan had managed to hold out. By folding on this issue, Bart Stupak committed political suicide, but he may ultimately end up taking President Obama with him.

Conservatives are hopeful that the Supreme Court will strike down ObamaCare either wholly or in part on the basis of the individual mandate, but if the Court does not strike down the law, this will open up an even more horrifying possibility. If the individual mandate and HHS regulations are upheld, it will mean that there is effectively no limit on what the federal government can compel citizens to do. Indeed, because of Stupak’s cowardice, there is nothing in the law to stop the government from requiring abortions in difficult pregnancies if a bureaucrat decides that saving both mother and child is too costly.

It is ironic that as the debate over ObamaCare is being reignited the Gospel reading yesterday tells of a battle between Jesus and the Devil:

The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes. In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit: he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"

Jesus rebuked him and said, "Quiet! Come out of him!"

The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, "What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him."

Like the possessed man of scripture, ObamaCare suffers from a Devil inside. As the old proverb states, “the Devil is in the details,” and in the rush to win passage of the law, Democrats failed to consider the full implications of its various provisions. Indeed, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously said, “…we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” By failing to scrutinize the law and allow deliberate consideration of its many provisions, the Democrats have unleashed a terrifying power that is already being turned to evil designs.

America is a nation of laws and although our laws sometimes seem contradictory and inefficient, they are the only protection we have for our most basic freedoms. In the dramatization of Thomas More’s final days, the film “A Man for All Seasons” spells out what is truly at stake in the fight for religious freedom today:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake

We would do well to remember this and to consider the full implications of every new law before we consent to it. Unless ObamaCare is overturned and repealed, we are only witnessing the beginning of a descent into a tyranny that resembles the forced eugenics of Nazi Germany or the population control policies of Communist China. It may seem unthinkable that this could happen in America, but when the law is perverted and its safeguards removed, we are truly at the mercy of the Devil—such as it is—and our destruction is all but certain.

Share

Render unto Caesar

As Americans, we hold religious freedom and the freedom of conscience as the most essential of all rights. The First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and protest all in their own right, but at their heart these rights all depend on the basic right of belief. At Mass this past Sunday, the Gospel reading centered on Jesus' command to the Pharisees and the Herodians to, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Almost two thousand years later, this is an important insight into the debate over separation of church and state in our country.

Whether by requiring taxpayer funded abortions in the healthcare law and by executive order, allowing military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages, or by providing taxpayer funding to openly political groups like Planned Parenthood, the Obama Administration has waged an all-out assault on traditional Christian--and especially Catholic--belief. Indeed, while many of President Obama's initiatives have met with failure, his attack on religious freedom has been devastatingly successful.

Meanwhile, the persecution of Christians by liberals has reached a new low as the Occupy Wall Street protests have spread to Europe with a new decidedly anti-Christian twist. Whether in the Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, or the anarchist protests of our day, left-wing politicians have always been hostile to religion. Obama appears to be no different. Although nominally a Christian, he has nevertheless provided encouragement, if not an outright endorsement, to the Occupiers' reign of terror.

Even for non-Christians and non-believers, the lesson of history is clear. When a democracy is intolerant of different views, disaster and tragedy soon follows. In one especially vivid example, Ken Burns' recent documentary demonstrates that the deadly consequences of prohibition were in large part fueled by religious persecution. When a minority is persecuted, it is never long before the majority begins to suffer as well. As our laws encroach more and more into the private sphere of our daily lives, the danger only increases.

In all this, we can look to the example of Thomas More who was forced to choose between allegiance to his king and to his faith. When King Henry VIII made it a crime to deny his supremacy as the head of the Church of England, Thomas More stood fast to his faith as a Catholic. Throughout his life, More was obsessed with the meaning of virtue. In his study of theology, philosophy, and the law, he came to believe that above all, virtue cannot exist without integrity. In the end, he chose to die rather than sacrifice his integrity.

Whether Christian or not, pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay marriage or not, we have a duty as Americans to be tolerant of the views of others, but it does not mean we should accept the views of those with whom we disagree. Although it is inevitable that the government will do things that are objectionable--even to a majority of the people--it is also imperative that the government does not violate the essential freedom of belief. It is one thing to pay taxes for dubious government projects, but it is quite another when the government uses tax dollars to persecute those who pay the bill.

Share

The Last Day of Winter

For Catholics and many Protestants, today is the last day before the fasting and penance of Lent. Known variously as Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, or Shrove Tuesday, this is a day that started as a celebration and anticipation for the joy of Easter but has lately become another commercialized excuse for bad behavior. However, what many people have forgotten is that today is also the last day of winter--or at least it should be.

A popular urban legend has it that spring does not begin until March 20 this year. In recent years, calendar makers and the mainstream media have popularized the misguided idea that the equinox is the precise moment that winter ends and spring begins even though the changing of the seasons is a natural and gradual process that cannot be exactly predicted from one year to the next.

As the name implies, March is a month of changes, so instead of an abrupt switch at March 20, evidence that the process of spring has already begun is everywhere. That process is reminiscent of the adage that March “comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb.” The high winds and freezing cold of February are already giving way to the verdure of spring.

We now live in an age where, for the first time in the history of the world, a majority of people live in cities and are detached from nature, so it is easy to understand why this urban legend has become so popular. Worse still, we are now subjected to faux-intellectual clichés such as the perennial, “it’s snowing in December but it’s not even winter yet.”

Such oxymoronic statements are evidence that the choice of any particular date for the beginning of each season is at best arbitrary. However, if we must choose a date, Ash Wednesday seems as good a choice as any, especially if we consider that the word “Lent” is derived from the old Germanic word for "spring." In the Mid-Atlantic region, this is a particularly good fit for the reasons below.

From a meteorological standpoint, the coldest and snowiest days of the year run from the first week in December to the first week in March:

1) In the Mid-Atlantic region, the average daily temperature drops to its lowest level almost exactly at the midpoint between December 1 and March 1, not at the midpoint between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox. Although temperatures are different, the midpoint of the temperature curve is similar in other regions.

2) Comparing daily temperatures for December and March, almost every Day in December is colder than the same day in March.

3) Average daily snowfall is highest in the throughout the months of December to February, not from December 20 to March 20.

From a botanical standpoint, deciduous plants start growing in late February and go into dormancy around early December:

4) The first blooms of spring--especially crocuses and daffodils--can be found in early to mid-March, or sometimes even late February, well before the vernal equinox.

5) Depending on location, the changing leaves achieve their peak color in late September through early November and start to fall very soon thereafter.

6) The average date of the last overnight frost of spring, and thus the time for planting crops ranges from mid-February in the South to mid-May in the Mountain West. Thus, the equinox is actually closer to the midpoint of spring from an agricultural standpoint.

From a cultural and historical standpoint, the season of spring has always included most or all of the month of March and possibly even February, whereas Summer is understood to begin in June, May, or even late April depending on who you ask:

7) Groundhog Day (or Candlemas) which is celebrated on February 2 is a tradition which sometimes results in a proclamation of “early spring.” Although the predictions of Punxatawney Phil and his cousins are wildly inaccurate when compared to actual weather data, the tradition is nevertheless a recognition that mild weather sometimes comes before March 1 and certainly long before the vernal equinox.

8) As mentioned above, Lent, which is derived from the Germanic root for "spring," begins between February 4 and March 10, but the average date of Ash Wednesday is on February 21.

9) Especially in the South, Easter is the first day it is considered acceptable to wear white pants, shoes, etc. which are traditionally associated with summer. The average date of Easter is on April 8.

10) Similarly, the feast of the Nativity of St. John is a popular holiday celebrated across Europe in late June which is known as midsummer, implying that spring has already ended and summer has begun long before the summer solstice.

11) The name of March comes from ancient Rome, when March was the first month of the year and named Martius after Mars, the Roman god of war. In Rome, where the climate is Mediterranean, March was the first month of spring, a logical point for the beginning of the year as well as the start of the military campaign season.

12) Data going back to 1974 indicate that retail prices for gasoline are higher on average for the months of May through September because the summer months are traditionally associated with car trips and vacations.

Finally, from a bureaucratic standpoint, no agency or body of the United States government has ever declared the solstices and the equinoxes as the “official” start and end of the seasons:

13) According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration which falls under the U.S. Department of Commerce, Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30 and thus coincides exactly with the traditional dates for summer and fall.

14) According to the Energy Information Administration which falls under the U.S. Department of Energy, the “winter heating season” runs from October 1 through March 31 and thus corresponds to the traditional dates for winter, with some extra padding on either end. The midpoint of the winter heating season is December 31.

15)The U.S. Naval Observatory which falls under the U.S. Department of Defense, provides a listing of the exact times for the equinoxes, solstices, perihelion, and aphelion which is titled “Earth’s Seasons” but does not state that these astronomical phenomena are in any way the “official” start or end of the seasons.

16) By law, Daylight Saving Time (DST) now starts on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November. Prior to 2007, when the new law went into effect, DST started on the last Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday in October. Just as the government definition of “winter heating season” includes padding on both ends of the traditional season, so too does DST includes padding on either end of the traditional summer season. The midpoint of DST is in mid-July.

In summary, the folklore of the equinox as the first day of spring is a modern idea which did not become fashionable until very recently. The idea has been popularized in the last few decades, because the exact times of certain phenomena are variable and can only be noted after they have occurred. At the same time the dates of many phenomena such as the last frost or peak fall leaves vary across the vastness of our continent.

However, instead of relying on the false precision of the astronomical equinox, we should base our understanding of the seasons on natural phenomena that we observe around us. Indeed, at this moment here in Virginia, the first tender green leaves and pink buds are coming out on the trees and shrubberies, the grass is starting to turn green again, and chirping birds are once again heralding the arrival of sunrise. Regardless of what the calendar makers would have you believe, spring is here.

Share

Don't Get Cross With Me

The Washington Post reports today that the Supreme Court has reversed an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit which banned the display of a cross on federal lands in the Mohave Desert.  As the Post reported at the time of the earlier ruling, the Ninth Circuit had held that any effort to remedy the situation by the government would effectively constitute an endorsement of religion.

Congress declared the site a national memorial, and proposed to cure any constitutional problems by transferring one acre on which the cross stands to the VFW in exchange for five acres owned elsewhere in the preserve by the Sandozes.

But Buono and the ACLU went to court again, and the courts agreed that such a plan would not resolve the constitutionality question. The deal "would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve," the appeals court said.

The picture above shows the state funeral of Ronald Reagan which was held at the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Peter and St. Paul in Washington, D.C., which is also known as the National Cathedral.  By the logic of the Ninth Circuit and the liberal dissenters led by Justice Stevens, this funeral should have never taken place.  As the Washingtonian Magazine reported on the cathedral's 100th anniversary:

...In 1893, largely as a result of efforts by civic leaders such as Riggs Bank president Charles Glover, Congress granted a charter to the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation to establish a cathedral "for the promotion of religion and education and charity." President Benjamin Harrison signed the charter into law.

...The first activity on the new land was the raising of a Peace Cross to mark the end of the Spanish-American War. The cross stands south-southwest of the cathedral, across from St. Alban’s parish church.

Fortunately for us, the ACLU was not around when the National Cathedral was being planned.  The cathedral is visible for miles around in the D.C. area and, to quote Steven's dissent, stands as a "continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message."  After all, it is clearly a Christian church right in the middle of our nation's capital!

However, if you look closely at the picture, you can see that several Muslim heads of state were in attendance at the funeral, wearing their distinctive kūfiyyāt.  Ironically, the Muslims pictured are more tolerant of a Christian funeral ceremony held in an Episcopal church than the only Protestant on the Supreme Court.

Share