Friday, March 23, 2018

Talking Point: Atheism is violence!

The Catholic Belief in the Imago Dei is crucial to the Catholic Identity, much more so than even one’s being created as male or female.  In fact, the Imago Dei IS the Catholic Identity.  Denying one is denying the other.  Thus, if denying the identities of transpeople is tantamount to denying their existence and thereby constitutes violence against transpeople (as transactivists tell us ad nauseam), then so too is the denial of the Imago Dei. Ergo, atheism is violence against all Catholics just as misgendering is genocidal violence against transpeople.

Therefore, anyone committing atheism should be locked up.  They are clearly a menace to society.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

February 22, 1943

Today is the 75th Anniversary of the execution of Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl, and Christoph Probst, three of the noblest people who ever walked the face of the earth.  The Good die young.

Friday, February 2, 2018

Germany, Kierkegaard, and Motherfuckers

An American Wetback working under the table at an English Bookstore in der Schellingsstraße was frustrated after a typically infuriating encounter with a German Bureaucrat at the Post Office. A German co-worker noticed his frustration and asked, "What's wrong, Bill?"

"Some days I wish my German were better than it is. What's German for 'motherfucker'?"

"Well, mutterficker, I guess, but it does not mean anything."

At this moment a customer who was paying for his books at the check-out counter turned towards Bill up in the mezzanine and said, "In Germany there are no motherfuckers, therefore ve have no need of the term."

Bill narrowed his eyes at the customer and said, "Sir, have you ever heard of Søren Kierkegaard?"

"No, I have not."

"Well, Sir, Kierkegaard was a nineteenth century Protestant Theologian, who once shrewdly observed that in a country where everyone is a Christian, no one is. It seems to me, Sir, that we have an analogous situation here. You say that no one in Germany is a motherfucker. Therefore, you are all motherfuckers!"

"Ungeheuerlich!" shouted the customer and stomped out.

Bill died last week. Recquiescat in pace.

Thursday, December 7, 2017


I have a compilation of Greek Recipes from some Orthodox Parish. A few years ago a friend and I decided to do the recipe for cold cucumber soup (Cold soups are the best--screw you, Archie Bunker). A fairly simple recipe, which we followed to the letter, and after we were done, we tasted it, and my friend said that there was something missing, and, yeah, well, I thought so, too--after she said so, that is. So we thought and thought and smacked our tongues and thought some more. And then my friend exclaimed, I know! Lemon Juice! But Lemon Juice was not listed in the recipe, and then I realized that this was a Greek Orthodox Cook Book. Lemon Juice is just assumed, and if you don't know that, you're either a Protestant or a hopeless and hapless Scholastic. Either way, you're damned.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

A Hypothetical

Hey, what about this hypothetical (which will never happen, but if that's an objection, trollyology would be doomed): A gay baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex 'wedding'. His justification for this refusal is that because the underpinning anthropology of 'marriage equality' is that sexual difference is as trivial and meaningless as race, acknowledging a same-sex 'marriage' is tantamount to an admission that we are all asexual and thus can have no sexual orientation at all. Thus, the logic of 'marriage equality' erases the gay identity, and the baker refuses to be erased.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

A Man for All Seasons, re-written for our times

Cromwell: Did you talk of the Queen's identity?

Rich: Yes

Cromwell: What did you say?

Rich: I said to him, "Supposing there were an act of parliament... say that l, Richard Rich, were to be king. Would not you, Master More, take me for king?" "That I would," he said, "For then you would be king."

Cromwell: Yes?

Rich: Then he said, "But I will put you a higher case. How, if there were an act of parliament, to say that everyone can identify as God?"

More: This is true and then you said--

Cromwell: Silence! Continue

Rich: But then I said, "l will put you a middle case. Parliament has declared that we now have a Queen. Why will you not accept her?"

Cromwell: Well?

Rich: And then he said,

"Quia membrum viri habet."

Cromwell: Repeat the prisoner's words.

He said, "Because he has a schlong, a dick, a penis, you goddamn fuckwit!" Or words to that effect.

The Jury: He denied Her Majesty's gender and her preferred pronouns!

Monday, November 27, 2017

A question for John Corvino

In a piece published today in "The Stone", Dr. John Corvino claims that same-sex 'marriage' is so fundamental to the gay identity that discrimination against the former is tantamount to discrimination against the latter. Okay, but how does this square with his previous claim that the question of 'marriage equality' is separate from the one about the morality of homosexual relations?

In his book, What's Wrong with Homosexuality, he writes, " “The connection between the morality debate and the marriage debate is not absolute. One can believe that homosexuality is morally wrong while also believing that same-sex couples should have the legal freedom to marry, just as one can believe that divorce is morally wrong while also believing that a free society should permit it. Conversely, one can oppose same-sex marriage without believing that homosexuality is morally wrong (although the position is rare). [What’s Wrong with Homosexuality, p. 149]”).

If Dr. Corvino can acknowledge that it is possible, albeit rare, to oppose the civil recognition of same-sex 'marriage' while at the same time thinking that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual relations, then why does he insist that discrimination against same-sex 'marriage' is necessarily discrimination against the gay identity?  If the question of same-sex 'marriage' is separable from the morality of homoerotic relations, which, as John Corvino has made abundantly clear, CANNOT be understood apart from the gay identity, then it stands to reason that one can discriminate according to the former without discriminating according to the latter.  Thus, according to Dr. Corvino's own claim, discrimination against same-sex 'marriage' is NOT NECESSARILY discrimination against the homosexual orientation.  What am I missing here?  I hope Dr. Corvino will tell me.