RSS Feed

Stop Playing Progressive Agenda Word Games that Attack Objective Morality

Posted on

The late moral thinker Monsignor William Smith oftentimes remarked that “all social change is preceded by verbal change.”  Whether he learned this insight from someone else or it is an original insight, I do not know, but the wisdom of the statement continues to manifest itself time and time again as the progressive left continues their assault on traditional morality, objective science, and common sense by creating and injecting into the culture specifically designed terminology to promote their cause du jour even when the terminology they utilize is objectively inaccurate, misleading, and frequently just pernicious.

Even sadder in all of this is the acquiescence of many people not given to progressive tendencies to accept and use the same terminology promoted by progressives, and this surrender of language plays right into the progressives’ hands.

And of course, worst of all is that too many people accept at least in part the claims of progressives despite the false nature of these claims.  Hence, after being bombarded continually for years, many opponents of abortion grant the misleading label ofpro-choice to those who favor abortion as an option.  Accurate and appropriate terminology rightly labels and describes such individuals as pro-abortion, because one does not have to be in favor of abortion 24-7 in order to be a proponent.  Anyone who favors the use of a particular action even if there is some reluctance is still pro-that particular action.  But when the termpro-choice is granted to proponents of abortion, it softens their image, it makes them look more democratic, and it even grants the hideous practice of abortion a quality of legitimacy it does not possess or deserve.  “It’s not really murder – it’s just a choice” say abortion advocates, and the exercise of such a choice is part of the freedom enjoyed by all Americans, right?

More recently, the assault on morality involves the genetic/biological impossibility of changing one’s particular gender, and how people who falsely claim they have undergone such a transformation or otherwise became such a fictional being are to be accommodated by society in general.  Progressives refer to these misguided people who suffer from the psychological disorder known as gender dysphoria as transgender or transgendered people” or simply transgenders.”  Of course, each person’s gender is determined via their basic biological make-up (this includes various anomalies/distortions that appear in extremely limited cases), and this is supported by objective science.  As such, no human being can change that which is inherently unchangeable no matter how many operations, varieties of Orwellian speak they employ to falsely describe themselves, or any other things they do that cannot and will not alter their basic biological reality.

But despite the utter nonsense of the so-called transgender claim, many people who oppose various laws and other kinds of accommodations for gender dysphoric people still unwittingly assist the progressive cause by adopting the language of the progressives which falsely describes these psychologically impaired people.  Even worse, others accept the progressive claim that these people are healthy individuals who are simply transgendered if they merely declare themselves to be so or they make physical and cosmetic changes to their appearance, and so on.

So for instance, on a recent O’Reilly Factor TV show, host Bill O’Reilly made the remarkably obtuse claim that some people are in the process of transitioning from one gender to another as if this is a real procedure that actually occurs despite the fact that such is impossible.  For O’Reilly and others of like mind, they have accepted hook, line, and sinker the irrational belief which claims gender can be changed cosmetically and physically via various medical interventions.  Despite their opposition to changing laws and making other accommodations, they have granted a victory to the progressives who continue to use the false descriptions to get society to bend to their will as has been demonstrated with greater frequency of late.

What to Do

First and foremost, right thinking individuals who oppose the attacks on morality and objective reality must cease using the misleading and/or false terminology of the progressives in support of their claims.  Secondly, the use of such terminology by progressives and others must be challenged at all times. The use and/or acceptance of the bogus terminology cannot be justified even as a matter of politeness or academic discourse protocol, and so on. As has been illustrated time and time again, abusing and manipulating terminology is a major weapon employed by progressives in the culture war, and whenever objectively false terminology is directly or indirectly treated as being even marginally legitimate in describing reality, those who use such terminology to aid their opposition to objective morality make progress in their ongoing destructive efforts, especially when the same terminology is also accepted and used by those who otherwise oppose the immoral nonsense.

If in conversation with a person who favors abortion and uses the term pro-choice,” this must be countered immediately with politeness, but it must be clearly and forcefully explained that such a term is at best misleading,…and anyone who claims to be pro-choice is actually pro-abortion since that is one of the choices they accept.  Even if this upsets the person, so be it.  He or she must be told the truth regarding the so-called pro-choiceclaim.  The same approach should also be employed whenever encountering the misleading terminology in written discourse.

In similar fashion, the term transgender or its equivalent substitutes must never be used without employing quotation marks and/or otherwise indicating the objective falsehood of the term when writing about people who suffer from gender dysphoria.  In conversation with a person who employs the transgenderterm or its substitute labels, this must also be countered immediately with politeness, but it must be clearly and forcefully explained that such a term is flat out false for the reasons set forth above.  In addition, it should also be pointed out that anyone who uses such terminology and/or accepts the false claims underlying such terminology are actually helping to perpetuate a psychological illness in the name of that other abused term tolerance – the high god of relativism.

Other terms used to attack objective morality and reality should be similarly treated by opponents at all times.  I have read way too many articles, heard too many speeches, and witnessed too many conversations and debates that include unthinkingly or uncaringly accepting and/or using the terminology that promotes the progressive agenda.  Reclaiming a culture based on natural law, reason, and objective science starts with a relentless insistence upon and use of objective terminology that correctly reflects objective reality.

Let us always bear in mind the importance of words in service to the Word of God.


Answering Catholic Chris Matthews’ Abortion “Penalty Trap”

Posted on

Omnia Vincit Veritas

Many well meaning pro-life politicians and spokespeople seem flummoxed in TV appearances with the bombastic Chris Matthews whenever he asks them what kinds of penalties they recommend should be imposed on people who commit the crime of abortion if it is declared to be a crime of murder.

After all, as Matthews proclaims, if someone really believes that life begins at conception, then abortion is indeed murder, so there should be penalties imposed on the murderers, like jail time, etc.

In response, the kinds of well-intentioned but largely inadequate answers that fall into Matthews’ trap vary along the following lines:

■“There are 2 victims of abortion – the mother and the child, so there is no need to punish the mother any further.”

■“It’s not about punishment. It’s about getting people to stop aborting their children.”

■“Such things will be worked out in the future.”

■“Doctors who participate in an…

View original post 723 more words

How to Tell the Difference Between Radical Islamic Doctrine and Moderate Islamic Doctrine

Posted on

The terms “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam” have been bandied about in the Western world for many years, and the presumption in the use of these terms is that “radical Islam” teaches violence and terrorism and anti-Western values while “moderate Islam” teaches peace and harmony and pro-Western values. Below is a handy comparison chart so you can actually see some of the differences for yourself.

Radical Islam Teaches the Following

  1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
  2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
  3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
  4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
  5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
  6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
  7. The Quran is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
  8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Quran.
  9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
  10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.

But on the other hand….

Moderate Islam Teaches the Following


  1. Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.
  2. Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
  3. Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.
  4. Jesus Christ was not crucified.
  5. Sharia Law should be the law of every land.
  6. Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.
  7. The Quran is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.
  8. All true Muslims follow the commands of the Quran.
  9. Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.
  10. Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.


Now that you know some of the “differences,” it should be easy to understand what people mean when they refer to the teachings of “radical Muslims” and the teachings of “moderate Muslims.” It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? No wonder people like former President Bush and President Obama declare that Islam is a “religion of peace.” They are basing this claim on the significant “differences” between the teachings of “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam.”

It should also be easy to now understand why we are not at war with Islam itself or “moderate Islam,” nor should we even criticize or question any of its doctrines. It’s only “radical Muslims” with their “different teachings” that we in the West can oppose. Otherwise, we are simply bigots engaging in Islamophobia. Clear?!


*Next article under consideration: setting forth the differences between “radical Nazism” and “moderate Nazism” that were prevalent during the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Thank God we only went to war with “radical Nazism” and not Nazism or “moderate Nazism” – the “ideology of peace.”






Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam

Posted on

So-called moderate Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser have repeatedly claimed in radio and television interviews that all Islam needs in order to get away from its violent elements and also modernize itself to a more enlightened faith is to “undergo its own reformation like Christianity did in the 16th century.”  Their basic argument can be broken down as follows:

  1. Christianity as manifested by the Catholic Church in the 16th century was infected with too much corruption, barbarism, and intolerance just like Islam has been since its beginning in the 7th century.
  2. The Protestant Reformation began the process of changing Christianity for the better by rebelling against the Catholic Church, and ultimately this reformation helped to eliminate some of the more egregious forms of corruption, barbarity, and intolerance, and it also paved the way for a more “enlightened” form of Christianity in general.

So Muslims throughout the world just need to follow the way of the Protestants of the Reformation era, and Islam will also change for the better.  Easy-Peasy.

However, there are numerous flaws in this approach, and one of them that radio and tv hosts who profess a Catholic affiliation never take the time to correct (alas, they probably don’t know their own Church history well enough to do so if they were so inclined) is the bogus notion that the Protestant rebellion was a legitimate revolt against the One True Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.  Of course, as the long life of the Catholic Church has repeatedly shown, it has and will continue to reform itself from within when necessary and as prompted by the Holy Spirit, and it did so in the 16th century due in no small part to its theologically brilliant rebuff of the Protestant revolution that did indeed raise some serious issues that needed to be addressed.  It should also be kept firmly in mind that no changes were made to the unchangeable Church doctrines because of the Church’s complete faithfulness to its founder Jesus Christ.  As such, the Catholic Church continues on to this day while Christianity itself unfortunately continues to splinter from time-to-time into a variety of clubs founded by merely human (as opposed to the God-man Jesus Christ) standard-bearers with a hodgepodge of greater or lesser connections to traditional Christianity.

Nevertheless, and despite the erroneous historical narrative made by Jasser and his fellow travelers to falsely equate the 16th century Catholic Church with perpetual Islam (the moral equivalence fallacy) in order to present the optimistic vision of a reformed Islam in the manner of a fantasy Christian reformation of the past, the very notion of a so-called reformed Islam is laughable on its face.  This is so because the Quran does not permit “reformed interpretations” of its passages that could help facilitate the reform of Islam… plus even so-called moderate Muslims insist on the remarkably obtuse and mass-delusional belief that Muhammad was God’s prophet and the ideal man that all Muslims must revere and emulate despite his objectively evil acts in direct violation of God’s laws.  When confronted by the true historical record regarding the well-documented and oftentimes self-promoted acts of Muhammad, Jasser and his fellow travelers either deny that the actions occurred as reported, or they maintain that such things were necessary because of the times and circumstances.  Isn’t it remarkable how this excusing of the inexcusable closely resembles the claims made by apologists of the former Soviet Union when they downplayed the obvious human rights abuses perpetrated by the Soviet leaders?  Since those “more enlightened” Soviets were in lofty pursuit of the “workers’ paradise,” the murders of millions of innocents were just “regrettable necessities”…just like the murders perpetrated by Muhammad were “regrettable necessities” in pursuit of the world Islamic caliphate of peace.

Also very telling and laughable in this regard is Dr. Jasser’s own website with the oxymoronic title of American Islamic Forum for Democracy.  In the section labeled Islamic Reform, the following statement is all that one has seen for at least the past few years: “Section still under construction.”  This will likely remain the only entry because such a reform is simply not possible, and so despite his overall good intentions in seeking to reform Islam, this lack of any specifics provided by Dr. Jasser suggests that he may very well know that there can be no reform of Islam, especially as he apparently envisions it.

In a somewhat ironic twist, then, what Jasser and his fellow “moderates” can do to get out from under the objectively oppressive yoke of Islam is not imitate the wrong-headed Protestant Rebellion against the Catholic Church that was not justified, but actually follow the Protestant lead in making a clean break from Islam that would be justified. They can even practice some of the more benign practices of Islam they believe are valuable if they like (of course the best choice would be to convert to the Catholic faith), but no illusions of this constituting a reformed Islam should be entertained in the process.  Unlike the Catholic Church of the 16th century that was capable of and did legitimately reform itself to clean up some abuses that should have prompted all Protestants of that time to return to the Church (but many had more selfish aims than just “reformation”), Islam does not and never will have the capacity to engage in self-reform, especially when its unchangeable foundation is based in large part on irrationally adhering to and perpetuating a galactically false myth that compels irrational behavior.

It is indeed a very, very strong myth, and even some presidents of the United States have ignorantly referred to and believe that Muhammad is a legitimate prophet despite the record.  Even more, millions of people who continue to wonder how a man like Hitler could have mass hypnotized a whole people into following him in pursuit of his Aryan “caliphate” don’t hesitate for an instant in ignorantly accepting the claim that Muhammad was a messenger of God despite his own Hitleresque track record.

Many gullible folk also foolishly believe that Islam is at bottom a “religion of peace” that can be reformed to make it even more enlightened, but perhaps some slack should be cut to some of our fellow Americans who are members of the world-wide duped class.  After all, they also believed that you could keep your doctor and your premiums would go down by supporting another delusion imposed on the people by another would-be world prophet.  This “prophet” also promotes the killing of innocent people, and his particular favorite is the killing of innocent people in the womb as yet another “regrettable necessity” in the pursuit of “enlightened peace.”


Saving and Promoting True Marriage…Once Again

Posted on

Many of us saw the handwriting on the wall for many years, but many others still pretended that the secular world could be fought on its terms. It is long past time to divorce the Church from the secular State.

(Below is a slightly revised copy of an article I first published in May, 2012, and a few times over the past year or so. The inevitability of the secular trend set forth below should be more apparent than ever, so I am posting the article once again to provide some alternative considerations on how to counter secular advances with an ever greater emphasis on spiritual realities.)

It seems inevitable that so-called gay (Always keep in mind that the term GAY is also an acronym – G.A.Y. – promoted by homosexuals to stand for Good As You in the sense that homosexual morality is just as good as heterosexual morality.), or same-sex marriage will become legally recognized by more and more regions throughout the world as secular forces continue to promote and make gains in this area. While the entire concept of same-sex marriage is absurd and offensive on its face, and a desire to prevent greater recognition of the perversion from occurring is most admirable and rightly motivated, some good can still come out of a revised secular definition of marriage if it carries the day as seems likely.

For starters, the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches can emphasize and publicize that the lone word marriage will no longer be adequate from a church perspective, and so it will necessarily be referred to as Sacramental Marriage, along with the idea that Sacramental is to be emphasized and always included when speaking about marriage from X date forward. This will help to maintain the appropriate distinction between marriage proper as a sacred union of a man and a woman and any secular or perverse definition/understanding of marriage the secular world can come up with. For other marriages recognized by the Church as legitimate but not sacramental, these can be referred to as Recognized Natural Marriages (or some other appropriate term).

Let the homosexuals and their fellow travelers cry and whine about being treated “unfairly” once again by the renewed emphasis on Sacramental or Recognized Natural Marriage being essentially different than their twisted understanding of marriage. If they and their fellow travelers are hell-bent on changing terms to suit their perverse behavior, and too much of the world accepts such satanic lunacy, then people of faith and good will can certainly emphasize appropriate terms to reflect their faith, and also maintain important distinctions that honor the Lord, His Divine Law, and the Natural Law.

Next, the Catholic Church could use the new emphasis to re-educate the faithful on what marriage is truly all about, focusing on the procreative, unitive, and parenting aspects of marriage at all times. By doing this, it will expose the weakness and stupidity of the secular world’s recognition of “same-sex marriage.” As an added bonus, many people who continue to see marriage as nothing more than a simple partnership will be compelled to understand the distinction between any kind of secular marriage and Sacramental Marriage, and why Sacramental Marriages and Recognized Natural Marriages are holy institutions while the secular perversion is anything but.

Now, for anyone who thinks that churches adopting such a change in descriptive emphasis is a form of caving in to the secular and homosexual world, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of arguing about the proper meaning of an appropriated term, people of faith go on the offensive for a change by emphasizing what true marriage is all about, and that can only be a Sacramental or Recognized Natural Marriage.

Is such a renewed emphasis on True Marriage likely to take place in the churches? Probably not, at least not in the foreseeable future, but even without church leadership implementing such an approach, people of faith can adopt and emphasize the more precise and powerful terminology in all conversations, writings, and so on to fight against the secular darkness that seeks to appropriate many terms in order to distort reality.

As the wise Monsignor William Smith once taught, “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” Alas, the term “marriage” appears to already be a casualty in our ongoing war against the principalities and powers of this world, but we can resurrect it and make it stronger than ever by adding the words Sacramental or Recognized Natural to it, and by so doing, we will engage in the kind of social engineering that is badly needed at this time.



First Things On Board Second, but Now Seeing What’s Necessary to Confront the Secular World on True Marriage

Posted on

Omnia Vincit Veritas

On 11/18/14, First Things editor R.R. Reno published “A Time to Rend,” which claims in its very first statement that “It’s time to make a clear distinction between the government-enforced legal regime of marriage and the biblical covenant of marriage.” This is indeed a wise admonition on the part of R.R. Reno et al. because such is necessary to properly deploy spiritual and intellectual forces for the upcoming battles against the secular hordes. Along similar lines to what is proposed in “A Time to Rend,” I wrote two articles in May 2012 (slightly revised and re-published over the past few years) that I am now combining into one article below as a “call to spiritual arms” that presents additional proposals to what is set forth in “A Time to Rend.”

The War is On!


Saving and Promoting True Marriage

It seems inevitable that so-called gay (Always keep in mind that the term GAY…

View original post 1,256 more words

How much do you know about Islam and Islamic history? Take this simple quiz to find out if you know a few basics.

Posted on

1. Islam primarily means:

A. Peace
B. Submission
C. Mercy
D. Tolerance

2. Muhammad first had sexual relations with his bride Aisha when she was:

A.18 years old
B.15 years old
C.12 years old
D. 9 years old

3. Under the principle of abrogation, which of the following is true?

A. When confronted with contradictory passages in the Koran, Muslims are free to interpret the Koran anyway they like.

B. When confronted with contradictory passages in the Koran, Muslims are directed to follow the earlier written and generally more peaceful passages of the Koran.

C. When confronted with contradictory passages in the Koran, Muslims are directed to follow the later written and generally more violent passages of the Koran.

D. When confronted with contradictory passages in the Koran, Muslims must seek interpretation assistance from Western politicians like Barack Obama and John Kerry.

4. Which religion is practiced by and motivates members of Isis?

A. Buddhism
B. Hinduism
C. Islam
D. Methodism

5. According to the Koran, which of the following is declared?

A. Jesus Christ was crucified by Jews
B. Jesus Christ was crucified by Romans
C. Jesus Christ was never crucified, but Allah deceived many into believing this
D. Only Muhammad was crucified and rose from the dead

6. According to Sharia (basically the Islamic legal code for living all aspects of life), which of the following is acceptable behavior?

A. Lying to and/or deceiving non-Muslims
B. Wife-beating
C. Raping female slaves
D. All of the above

7. Who ordered the torturing and beheading of prisoners, and also permitted sex slavery?

A. Buddha
B. Muhammed
C. Jesus
D. Gandhi

8. According to a 2009 Pew “Global Attitudes Survey,” which percentage of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers to death?

A. 83%
B. 53%
C. 23%
D. 03%

9. Which religion is practiced by and motivates members of Boko Haram?

A. Lutheranism
B. Mormonism
C. Anglicanism
D. Islam

10. Under Sharia, any Muslim who chooses to leave the Islamic faith is:

A. Subject to the penalty of death
B. Given a monetary tribute
C. Considered a free human being exercising free choice
D. Still allowed to visit Mecca


1. B
2. D
3. C
4. C
5. C
6. D
7. B
8. A
9. D
10. A

How did you do?  Here’s a way to interpret your score:

9-10 Correct: You possess good awareness of some basic tenets of Islam and Islamic history.

7-8 Correct: You possess decent awareness of some basic tenets of Islam and Islamic history.

5-6 Correct: You possess modest awareness of some basic tenets of Islam and Islamic history.

Less than 5 Correct: You either don’t care or rely way too much on mainstream media for news and a “correct” understanding of Islam and Islamic history. 🙂