If we are of the left, then we are damned. Because it is a matter of their religion that there is racism.
Even if there is no racism, such things must be manufactured: the texts of envy must be read. And if there is no minority, one must be imported, regardless of the cost.
One is not to question, and people can be quite explicit about that. For example, in the “Conversation” about race that we are so often told we need to have, the tacit idea is that black people will express their grievances and whites will agree—again, no questions, or at least not real ones. Here and there lip service is paid to the idea that the Conversation would not be such a one-way affair, but just as typical is the praise that a piece like Reni Eddo-Lodge’s elicits, openly saying that white people who object to any black claims about racism are intolerably mistaken and barely worth engagement (Eddo-Lodge now has a contract to expand the blog post into a book). Usefully representative is a letter that The New York Times chose to print, which was elicited by David Brooks’s piece on Coates’s book, in which a white person chides Brooks for deigning to even ask whether he is allowed to object to some of Coates’s claims. Note: To say one is not to question is not to claim that no questions are ever asked. The Right quite readily questions Antiracism’s tenets. Key, however, is that among Antiracism adherents, those questions are tartly dismissed as inappropriate and often, predictably, as racist themselves. The questions are received with indignation that one would even ask them, with a running implication that their having been asked is a symptom of, yes, racism’s persistence. As such, even Brooks has gotten the religion, critiquing Coates’s book while also making sure to say that “every conscientious American should read it.” Brooks, here, is genuflecting, as America now does in general to Antiracist scripture. One is to accept that beyond a certain point—and one arrives at the point quite quickly—one is to treat logic as optional and simply have faith.
I think it is time to go full Gideon.
Find the temple of this idol, geld the priests, put the idol through a woodchipper and then burn it all to the ground. Before this rots what is left of our fallen society.
From Ian Bibby’s Facebook Feed, and because the other idol we need to smash involves animal rights over everything else.
"Fricking thank you. All the idiots weeping over a lion- an animal- and not one peep about the extreme suffering of the PEOPLE in the country said lion lived. Do yourself a favor and look up Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, where the lion lived, and the atrocities he's committed. Check out the wholesale slaughter of innocents and the sex slave trade going on **right now**in Africa and the Middle East. Or how's about we take a gander at the 58,000,000 babies slaughtered in the womb in this country, many of whom, it's become apparent, have been chopped up and sold off for parts. We literally have modern-day Mengeles IN THIS NATION and I'm supposed to get worked up about a lion. I swear people. What the heck is wrong with you all."
Our Catholic Lawyer Brethren have proved they are not lizards or lower life forms, but human. Hat tip Mundabor: this is a superb smackdown of the five tyrants of Washington.
In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003] Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.
Excommunicate the judges: and consider if there is a time for deliberate and systematic disobedience of tyrants, both sitting on the throne of power and wearing legal robes in judicial chambers.