Physics and Theology

Experimental science describes the quantitative relationship between objects.
Theological science describes the qualitative relationships between persons.

Physics is non-theistic, but it is not antithetical to theology. Physics does not "equate" to an antithetical approach. It simply isn't even in the same arena.

If I use a hammer to crush a human skull, you can tell me by examining the skull about point of impact, angle, force used, damage to skull and brain, etc.

However, you cannot tell me whether the action was moral. There is no tool in the physics toolbox that can measure the morality of the action.  Does that mean that all the answers about point of impact, angle, force, etc. are "antithetical" to morality? Obviously not. It's just that none of them are RELEVANT to the morality of the act, nor is the morality of the event relevant to any of the physics calculations concerning point of impact, angle, force, etc.

In order for two discussions to be antithetical, they have to occupy the same part of the universe, and these two don't. One discusses objects, the other discusses the persons that were involved in the use of the objects.*

To discuss the morality of the act, I would need to know if one of the two was an aggressor (perhaps it was an accident?). If one was an aggressor, which one? Were they both aggressors? What caused the aggression? Were both alive at the time of the event, or was the one with the crushed skull already dead? Did the one who crushed the skull KNOW that the victim was already dead? What aspects of the moral act are known (act, circumstances, intent)? The question set is quite large, and this is just an outline.

Given what I've said, we only know the physical act. We can't judge the morality without knowing the other two aspects of the moral act.

If physics is theistic, then it HAS to possess tools that judge person-to-person relationships, because that is the ONLY way to discuss God. God is three Persons, the divine Persons are distinguished ONLY by their interpersonal relations, and our personhood is founded on our relationship with the Three Persons.

But physics has no tool to measure interpersonal relationships. It cannot distinguish, it does not even pretend to distinguish, between virtue or vice. It cannot detect the presence of grace (God) or the absence of grace (sin).

Physics is a subset of the discussion of human interaction, and it ONLY rises to the level of subset because our spirit-souls inhabit bodies. Physics has no part in the discussion of divine-angelic relationships because neither God nor angels have bodies. Physics has no part in the discussion of the disembodied human souls in hell, purgatory or heaven prior to the resurrection on the Last Day.

Physics is not an antithetical non-theistic set of propositions. Physics is, instead, an IRRELEVANT set of propositions as far as theology, the study of interpersonal relationships, is concerned.

Similarly, it is incorrect to say that physics admits teleology, a discussion of man's proper end. Sure, the PHILOSOPHY which EMPOWERS physics admits teleology. No argument there. But that is different than saying physics itself admits a teleology. Physics is a tool. The idea of "tool" is a philosophical concept, but the technique by which the tool operates in the world is not a philosophical concept, it is an act that physics describes without regard to teleology at all.

So, a hammer is an object which may drive a nail or crush a skull - two different philosophies are embodied in these two different uses of the tool, but the actual operation of the object in the world has no philosophy at all. The hammer, as it strikes an object, simply acts to concentrate force into a point. That is not philosophical. It is simply mindless action, action that can happen without any operator at all. "The hammer hit the nail" describes action, but not teleology. "The carpenter swung the hammer, hitting the nail"... now teleology begins to be described.

*Note: As an aside, this is why it is absolutely wrong to think of God as some kind of energy field. Energy and matter are interchangeable, as Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation described. Matter is solid energy, energy is liquid matter, as it were. Energy=Matter, they occupy the same part of the universe and are, for that reason, interchangeable terms. If we think of God as some kind of energy field, like the Force in Star Wars, we ultimately claim God to be an element of the created universe, which is a directly condemned heresy. 

The Logic of the Mob

Cops exist to protect criminals from angry mobs. Cops also protect angry mobs from each other.

The Kenosha rioters don't want cops. 
They got what they wanted - no cops.
As a result, the rioters got shot by someone from the other side.

So, rioters got what they wanted - direct violence.
The guy who shot them got what he wanted - direct violence.
Both sides embrace a different viewpoint about violence than you or I do, but that's America - a melting pot of viewpoints, right? So, why aren't we celebrating diversity here? Angry mobs shooting each other looks like a win-win for anyone involved who isn't a hypocrite.

And, from that point of view, why is it wrong for the cops to get in on the game and shoot whoever they want? I mean, if the rioters TRULY don't want cops, then the cops are just another angry mob willing to go mano-a-mano with them. For people who embrace violence, what's not to like? 

If you don't want cops, then people randomly shooting each other is what you get. If some of the people doing the shooting are wearing cop uniforms, well, is it all that different from people wearing antifa uniforms? If you don't want cops, why can't people in cop uniforms operate like the looters and rioters? 

Seriously, when people in cop uniforms shoot them, why do rioters get upset?
They got what they wanted, good and hard - no cops.

Meditation On the Death of a Friend

Look up into the clear night sky and you will see a beautiful thing. 

Stars. 

Stars are born, grow for billions of years, live for billions of years, then collapse and die. And from their ashes, you and I are born. You and I, we are dead stars. And, you and I, we are more beautiful than stars, for we are not just things, we are persons. We are able to live life with joy that stars never have, we are able to burn with love no star's fire can cool, we are able to form molten memories that even a star's own sun-hot forge can never pour out.

But, in order for us, you and I, to be born, a star had to die. A beautiful thing had to die so that something, someone, even more beautiful could be born. 

And, as it is with stars, so it is with you and with me. Although you and I, and every person, has within us this unutterable beauty of joy and love and memory, we each must die so an even more beautiful being, an even better version of ourselves, can be born.

The star did not choose when it was born. It did not choose when it died. Nor do you and I. We do not choose when we are born, we do not choose when we die. Born from the ashes of a star, we simply live, carrying in our hands the life that is given to us. Each of us is born weak, but we grow strong, fiercely bright, giving light where and when we shine. 

My friend, you did not choose to leave your children. If you could have stayed, you would. You wanted for your children what all parents want for their children. And, just as none of us fully understand the death of a star, so none of us fully understand your death. But some things, we do understand.

So, my friend, for your children, this thought:  she wants you to live long, grow strong, and remember her.

And, my friend, for your children, this promise: the beauty that is to come is even greater than the beauty she gave to you.

And, my friend, for your children, this word: Live.

On Presidential Policies

 Nota bene:

Arguing for or against a policy by the current president (no matter who he is) by saying "But Obama did it!" is an atrociously bad argument.

Liberals don't care if the current White House occupant matches their man's actions, because their man can never do any wrong, while anyone NOT their man is wrong simply by the fact that he isn't their man.

Pointing out their man did something wrong doesn't convince them of anything, because that's not where their difficulty lies. Their difficulty lies in the fact that anyone who is NOT their man is, by that fact, illegitimate. For leftists, the "Obama did it!" argument falls on deaf ears.

For conservatives, anytime the president does something that matches Obama's or Clinton's moves, we should start from a position of deep, deep concern. Obama and Clinton were idiots.

Generally speaking, we never want the current White House occupant to "ditto" an Obama/Clinton policy. If he does, he better have a damned good reason, and I want to know what it is before I approve of it.

Now, sometimes he does have a good reason to continue a policy. For instance, Obama started the removal of USPS mailboxes, and Trump continued it. Given the fall-off in USPS mail, it makes good business sense, I support that activity no matter which president is involved.

But then there is Obama building and stocking cages with illegal immigrant kids, and Trump re-filling the cages. My friend, as a Catholic, nothing about that activity is acceptable to me, and I honestly don't care WHO does it. That has to stop. 

So don't roll out "Obama did it!" as a defense for any policy, ever. Either defend the policy on its merits, or admit the policy, on its merits, sucks rocks. Saying, "Obama did it!" assumes that Obama is the norm that norms all actions, and I reject that notion with lightning and fury.

Natural Born Citizen

 The question is simple. Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5 (emphasis added):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

What does the phrase "natural-born citizen" refer to? Only a natural-born citizen can be president or vice-president, but the Constitution does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question in reference to the eligibility of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate. 

There are different opinions on this matter, none of which are clearly correct. The basis for questioning "natural-born citizenship" is generally founded on theory that the Founding Fathers used Emerich de Vattel's Law of Nation as a basis for the terminology they employed in the Constitution'. According to Vattel, a natural born citizen differs from naturalized citizens in that the natural born citizen fulfills two necessary conditions: 

1. Born on the soil of the country (jus soli) and 
2. Born of at least one parent who is already a citizen (jus sanguinis).

An additional argument has occasionally been used that a candidate may not possess dual citizenship. None of these questions concerning the meaning of the clause have ever been completely settled.  This is, strictly speaking, a question of law, not lineage. Posing the question is not a commentary on separate issues (e.g. the question itself is independent of the candidate's race, culture or worldview).

Below is a list of candidates whose eligibility has been questioned on the basis of the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" eligibility clause. As can be seen, this question has been around for well over a century, with no resolution in sight :

Presidential or VP Candidate	Born on US soil?	Parents capable of passing on birthright citizenship?	Questioned by
Chester A. Arthur  (1881-1886)	Canada???	US mother, Irish father	Democrat opponents, including attorney Arthur Hinman, argue he was born in Canada and thus ineligible.
Christopher Schurmann	Yes	German nationals	New York Tribune
Charles Evans Hughes	Yes	British father made him dual nationality with Britain	Breckinridge Long, one of Woodrow Wilson's campaign workers, Chicago Legal News
Franklin Delano Roosevelt	Yes	US mother,  US Father	Political opponents backed rumor he was born in Canada.
George Romney	Mexico	US mother,  US Father	Various
Barry Goldwater	Arizona territory, not yet a state	US mother,  US Father	Various
Lowell P. Weicker	France	US Father, British mother born in India	Various
Marco Rubio	Yes	Neither were naturalized citizens	Alan Keyes, New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo, St. Petersburg Tmes
Bobby Jindal	Yes	Neither were  naturalized citizens	Charles Kerchner, St. Petersburg Tmes
Ted Cruz	Canada	American mother, Cuban father	CBS News, Washington Post, Mary McManamon, Widener U. Delaware Law school. Newsweek, Laurence Tribe (Harvard), Thomas Lee, (Fordham)
John McCain	??? (Canal Zone)	US mother,  US Father	Peter Williams NBC News
Barack Obama	??? Hawaii??	US Mother, but too young to impart citizenship if birth was not on US soil.	Hillary Clinton
Tammy Duckworth	Thailand	US father,  Thai mother	Joe Biden
Kamala Harris	Yes	Neither were naturalized citizens	Newsweek, John Eastman, former Dean of Chapman University, Fowler School of Law

 

BLM's Marxist Roots

BLM started July, 2013, but did not become nationally recognized until July 2014. In 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said she and her fellow organizer, Alicia Garza, are “trained Marxists”. The book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist." Included on its list of beliefs is one consistent with Marxism: 

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

Marx (and Engels, the man who bankrolled him), was an avowed racist who deeply disliked black people, regularly referring to his own son-in-law and his political enemies with racial slurs. Marx and Engels repeatedly and explicitly said their goal was to destroy the family so that everyone held allegiance only to the state.

Patrisse Cullors and her BLM co-founders, were the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years with him, absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview. 

In 1968, Mann was a coordinator for Students for a Democratic Society, which eventually became the terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who called for terrorism, seeking the overthrow of the US government. Ayers's close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers's girlfriend, Diana Oughton, famously blew themselves up while making bombs to attack government buildings. Bill Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. He dedicated his autobiography to Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Robert Kennedy.

As a member of the Weather Underground, Eric Mann was himself sentenced to two years in prison for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with intent to commit murder. 

So, Marx was an avowed racist, Eric Mann was a Marxist terrorist, and Mann trained the founders of BLM in Marxist ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc

Silverware as Sin

St. Peter Damian: “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks – his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating.”

Have you gone to confession for using silverware?

Augustine's Rule of Magisterial Interpretation

I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1:350)

If you encounter an apparent error or tension in the Bible, check for textual errors or translation difficulties. But be prepared to blame your own (fallen, finite) powers of understanding before blaming the Bible or any other Magisterial document. Remember, the Bible is the foundational Magisterial document, but the saints, the popes, the Fathers and the Doctors are similarly free from error. That's why they are held up for example. 

So, it is simply impossible to take a statement from one pope, even the current pope (whoever he may be), and claim that another part of the Magisterium (another pope, a saint, a Father or Doctor) contradicts him. There are no contradictions in the Magisterium.  Augustine complains about readers who try to wriggle out from under what the Bible is saying by claiming textual corruption:

When these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny their genuineness. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4:178)

Similarly, a lot of traditionalists and liberals both make the same claim about papal statements, or other Magisterial statements, they don't like. They claim, "Oh, Pope XXX is mis-teaching, because his statement doesn't match the statement of Doctor YYY. Thus, it falls upon me to correct the Pope!" So, unable to bear the idea that they may have a wrong understanding of Catholic Faith, an understanding that has to change, a lifestyle that has to change, these people deny the genuineness of papal teaching by claiming it is erroneous.

Yeah, that's not how it works. I don't look for errors in Scripture because I don't judge Scripture. Scripture judges me. In the same way, don't bother looking for errors in papal teaching because I don't judge papal teaching. Papal teaching judges me.

And it isn't just me who cannot make these judgements. Even ecumenical councils cannot make these judgements. Nobody can. Nobody judges the pope. No one has the authority to do so. 

Now, the next refuge of the scoundrel is to claim that I am advocating some kind of papal idolatry. Ironically, the same people who cheer on Pope Pius IX's statement  “I am the church! I am the tradition!” will immediately deny the principle when anyone points out that this statement applies to every single one of Pius IX's successors. 

But the very denial betrays the fact that these same Catholics, whether liberal or trad, don't actually accept the Magisterium. They aren't actually Catholics, they are actually Protestants, differing from Martin Luther only in the specific papal statement they have chosen to deny. 

Catholics need pay attention to only three people in the world: their parish priest, their diocesan bishop and the Pope. If there is a question about either of the first two, the teachings of the first two are to be weighed against papal teaching.

No priest, no bishop, no parish, no religious order can be trusted to accurately represent the Faith. Ultimately, we can trust only the saints, the Fathers, the Doctors and the popes. When faced with a doctrinal conundrum, we may not have a saint nearby to ask, we are less likely to have a Doctor on call to consult, and all the Fathers of the Church are dead, so that's done. But we always have the pope. He is the one who tells us how to steer course through current problems, how to apply, into any current situation, the principles given by the saints, the Doctors and the Fathers. 

So, in questions of doctrine and dogma, the Pope is always correct. In areas of discipline, his opinion is to be preferred over our own, for we are the children and he is the Holy Father, not the Random Stranger. While he may be wrong on discipline, we start by assuming he is correct, as any child would assume when directed by his father. Augustine had the right of it. Follow his lead. 

Why "Systematic Racism" is a Conspiracy Theory

I have recently come to realize that the left's insistence on "systematic racism" is a canard, a knee-jerk habit, pure drivel. It is the left's conspiracy theory that racists will take over the world. The left's previous conspiracy theory, back at the turn of the 20th century when eugenics had the fresh-car smell of solid science, held that Jews were going to take over the world. While 21st-century progressives still retain remnants of that original eugenic anti-Semitism (Governor Cuomo, call your office), they now use the new "systemic racism" conspiracy theory because it plays to a wider audience. At the end of the nineteenth-century, pretty much everyone hated Jews, so the old anti-Jewish theory worked to bring liberals together and outsiders into the fold. Today, pretty much everyone hates racists, so they play that conspiracy card instead.

But that doesn't make it any less a nonsensical conspiracy theory. After all, systems only exist where intent, acted out logically, exists. Logic is not natural, in the sense that fallen man is not naturally attracted to being logical. God is pure reason. Logic is participation in a divine attribute, and systems require logic to operate.

In order for systematic racism to exist, you have to be able to point to powerful government or non-governmental organizations that are intentionally enforcing rules that explicitly differentiate on the basis of skin color. The old Jim Crow laws and other segregation rules, all of them created and enforced by Democrats, were certainly systematically racist. But all of those rules are gone. There is no intentional system, there is no governing body saying "Do this to blacks, but don't do this to non-blacks" or "accommodate whites in this way, but do not extend this accommodation to non-whites."

Certainly the simple fact that Asians, Jews and Nigerians are arrested much less often than whites show that no such "skin test" system exists anywhere in the US. Even Harvard (which famously denied Jewish and Asian students entrance, and even tracked its own Jewish students through the 1980s), admitted as much. The systems are gone, which means the forethought and expressed intent is gone. At most, all we have left is habit.

Habit is the result of a previous logical sequence which, by its very definition, is no longer being thought about. I am ruled by habit precisely because I am NOT thinking. For example, while Harvard opened up its entrance requirements so that Jews were as acceptable as any other kind of student, they did maintain the habit of tracking their Jewish students for decades. Why? Force of habit. They had established the system for a reason at the beginning of the 20th century, and continued it even after the reason no longer existed.

To say that a society has a habit is NOT the same as saying society has a system. System implies rational thought, it implies foresight and intent. Habit implies no rational thought, nor foresight, nor even intent. Habit implies unthinking, knee-jerk response.

Habit might be what bureaucracies do, but insofar as a bureaucracy does it, that bureaucracy is not a system, it's just a convulsive reaction. It may be a pun, but it is also true: bureaucracies are considered "unthinking" and irrational for a reason. People who reject rational thought, or find it difficult and burdensome, embrace bureaucracy precisely because its habits replace the need for rational thought and rational thought is too much a participation in the divine nature, it is too much work, to embrace.

Unfortunately for those who wish to wage a war so as to unite their coalitions, "habitual racism" has not the power of "systematic racism".  Precisely because "system" implies intent, "system" implies a legitimately bad actor. "Habit", on the other hand, implies lack of intent, lack of thought. Anyone can fall victim to habit. There is no bad actor to attack, no evil person around which we can coalesce, no malice to wipe out. The person who falls prey to a habit is barely a victim, and without victims there can be no war to unite our side.

But, given that there is literally no system of racism left to identify, all that is left is the vestiges of habit. If you want to talk about habitual racism, I'm not prepared to disagree. But systemic or systematic racism? That's ridiculous.

UPDATE:
Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams and Coleman Hughes all question whether there is such a thing as systemic racism

The End of Logic

As automation takes on more and more aspects of life, human beings will be boxed into smaller and smaller areas of activity. Paid work is increasingly circumscribed into that which is not, or cannot easily be, automated. Automation only works where systems exist. Computers excel at implementing systematic, logical thinking. They are not very good with non-systematic, emotional reaction.

Everything that is systematized will be automated because that's what computers do: they automate systems. Any systematic body of knowledge with rule-based procedures is subject to automation. Remember, people are the largest cost in any production system. Once an area is automated, once people are removed from the equation, the human work value associated with that area drops close to zero. Which means, as time goes on, humans can increasingly generate value only by engaging in areas where logical, systemic organization is not an advantage.

So, as automation advances, available job categories decrease. The primary job areas that will survive the current automation apocalypse will be in entertainment, as the explosion of Youtube entrepreneurs and social media "influencers" already demonstrates. But this won't last long. As people pour into the entertainment space, among the last spaces that cannot be automated, the income  streams for entertainers will drop across the board. Too much product, not enough audience. 

Thus, ironically, as the remorseless logic of computers take over various aspects of industry, the value of logic and systematic thinking in human interactions drops. Why should I train myself to think logically if the job which requires me to be logical is already automated by a machine, a machine which can do logic much more remorselessly, effortlessly and speedily than I can? Similarly, it is useless for me to train myself in logic if the only place I can earn money is in the entertainment space, that is, the only way I can earn money is by generating emotions. These twins, disincentive to be logical, incentive to be emotional, are even now driving society away from logical thought.

This is the world of Star Wars, where the robots do the logic, and all rigorous training goes into "feelings". "FEEL the Force, Luke!" The Apostle Luke "carefully investigated everything from the beginning", providing logical evidence of God's incarnation. The 20th century Luke trains only in feelings, refusing the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction.  In the 21st century, Jesus is not God, He is a Sith Lord. 

Just as technology lowered the social value of motherhood to essentially zero, so, technology will render the social value of logic obsolete. Society will become more and more subject to wild emotional swings because logic will no longer carry human economic value. Any logical, systematic approach to the universe, whether it be Aristotelian, Thomistic, even deconstructionist, is increasingly discarded as irrelevant within the human interaction space. While the people who move in this direction are to be pitied, the people who move in this direction are not wrong. Euclid alone may have looked on beauty bare, but the beauty of Euclid's logic, which has always been somewhat esoteric, is becoming increasingly ephemeral. Machines apply logic. Increasingly, people apply only emotion. Man is no longer homo sapiens, the creature of logic, reason, and it's fruit, wisdom, but now only homo motus, the being that can only feel and react. 

Kente and the Slave Masters

In order to represent their position in reference to George Floyd, Democrat leaders wore the kente cloth of African slave traders. Politifact has tried, and failed, to change the historical facts on this, facts which are quite, quite clear.

As the Ultimate History Project points out:

"While Kente cloth was a product of a global trade route which stretched from Asia through Europe to Africa, this cloth and the people also came to be associated with another global trade route---the slave trade. In fact, the history of the Ashanti people, who lived on the West Coast of Africa, is strongly tied to the history of the slave trade.

As was true of many pre-modern societies in Africa, Asia and Europe, the Ashanti practiced slavery. When Europeans, specifically the Portuguese, came into contact with the Ashanti during the sixteenth century, both Europeans and the Ashanti traded gold, ivory, and slaves."

The University of Pittsburgh agrees, but notes that it is a part of the area's history that no one wants to acknowledge. History professor Rebecca Shumway wrote The Fante and the Transatlantic Slave Trade (University of Rochester Press). The university's review of her work includes this:

"While at the University of Ghana, Shumway studied with a Fante professor, John Kofi Fynn, who earned his PhD in the United Kingdom and wrote about Fante state formation. He was a proud teacher, a man of noble birth who was unafraid to critique Ghanaian politics and who often held class in a local pub. He rarely, however, covered Fante history and never even whispered about the slave trade. It was almost as if the slave trade didn't exist, recalls Shumway. The silence only made her more curious about those unspoken years.... 

In documenting an era when it was either enslave or be enslaved, Shumway's own march across the archives and fields of Fanteland reveals the light and the dark sides of Africans' agency in the slave trade. Here, the elite Asante were among the most powerful and wealthiest in West Africa, but they were also the main slave traders in Ghana. In the 18th century, their brilliant Kente cloth was woven with threads of silk, cotton, and wool— textiles imported from abroad and often paid for in human lives."

In All You Need Is Love: The Peace Corps and the Spirit of the 1960s, by Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman, the author notes:

The slave trade... brought treasure to warrior tribes like the Ashanti of Ghana, who displayed riches from the slave trade in gold furniture and regal kente cloth, in which they wove silk from the Orient together with native cotton. Adinkra cloth, also made by the Ashanti and decorated with their ancient symbols, even had a special marking for the lucrative traffic in captives: two interlocking squares meaning "You are the slave of him whose handcuffs you wear."

Suppressing the Rioters.

The 2nd Amendment says that we are armed so we can form militias if we want.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 says the militias are supposed to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

So, the one thing the Constitution does NOT say, is that we have the right to bear arms to START an insurrection against the government.

On the other hand, the only time a sitting president ever personally led troops into battle was when President Washington mounted up and led troops into the field to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. At no point did he disarm anyone, not even the men and women who were rebelling against the government.

Should the federal government suppress the rioters by calling forth the militia? Well, Washington's action certainly looks like precedent for that.

Over 80% of black men die at the hands of other black men. In America, black men constitute 6% of the population, but they comprise 50% of the murderers and 50% of the murder victims.

Corrupt, racist cops are a serious problem, a problem that should be dealt with and eliminated.

But, the black community has much more serious problems than corrupt, racist cops. If we saw riots, with widespread burning and looting, every time a black man killed a black man, not a building in the black community would be left standing today.  Martin Luther King Jr. said it best. The black community needs better responses to their own violence.

A List of Looting

Seen on the web

Man stomped and stoned for trying to defend a bar from being looted

https://streamable.com/xkcvkk

Destroying store and beating unarmed woman and her husband

https://streamable.com/rvrwil

Beating and stomping guy on the ground Santa Monica

https://streamable.com/x6ue5x

Restaurant manager beaten and stomped for trying to defend his workplace

https://streamable.com/ila4dh

Stopping, beating and stomping a truck driver while protesters yell to kill him

https://streamable.com/8zk9dq

Protesters attack a media member and then pummel him

https://streamable.com/p4i3jb

Chasing guy and kicking him in the face for defending flag in Portland

https://streamable.com/ky6jyh

Police officer beaten on the streets

https://streamable.com/je4ki5

Car runs over a cop

https://streamable.com/q4nat7

Protesters set homeless man’s belongings on fire

https://streamable.com/sdjvfa

Throwing fireworks at the cops

https://streamable.com/7sv4a9

Looting a FedEx truck then looter gets dragged when truck tries to escape

https://streamable.com/n1azx3

Chasing and beating guy with red had

https://streamable.com/rcsmi0

Rioter sets himself on fire while trying to set a building on fire

https://streamable.com/w5wa8l

Fireworks thrown into CNN hq / Police officers

https://streamable.com/7dw6g7

Protester runs over the cops with an SUV

https://streamable.com/ttijvn

Destroying/looting/setting on fire Old Navy

https://streamable.com/oceqqg

Guardhouse in front of WH set on fire

https://streamable.com/vfopia

Dozens of cars destroyed/torched near CNN hq – Atlanta

https://streamable.com/ubjohz

St Louis neighborhood on fire

https://streamable.com/8lnd7v

Building on fire while self-proclaimed Mexicans say fuck white people

https://streamable.com/yvkek4

Destroying police SUV

https://streamable.com/2b7fic

Near a torched car audio speakers propaganda that all crime is legal

https://streamable.com/t76kdn

Destroying/looting bank in Montreal

https://streamable.com/3hwkx2

Pharmacy destroyed/looted in Dallas

https://streamable.com/fl7e5z

The remains of whole neighborhood destroyed

https://streamable.com/dtptr1

Destroying stores – Dallas

https://streamable.com/hn1qng

Destroying police SUV – Austin

https://streamable.com/v8zk1e

Police SUV torched LA

https://streamable.com/61mdlo

Looting target/beating disabled person in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/oyjgbk

Future apartment building destroyed with fire in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/dxmc0w

Looting pharmacy – Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/53nl1p

Destroying business in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/5lm779

More businesses on fire in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/f1zcmy

Ransacked Target Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/b3u92p

Building burning in neighborhood Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/vh5nyu

Boy drove car into a store

https://streamable.com/nrm2pn

Post office looted/destroyed

https://streamable.com/v4vflf

Minneapolis third police precinct set on fire

https://streamable.com/o27w75

More buildings on fire Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/8au2lf

Autoparts Store getting destroyed/looted

https://streamable.com/dum1r8

Autozone on fire

https://streamable.com/vq9hrp

Looting in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/jfor5g

Adults loot with their children

https://streamable.com/m4cr5j

Cars torched – Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/mmk9gr

Looting an ATM in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/ht2oxv

Remains of destroyed/looted Cub Foods

https://streamable.com/qhzlm7

Business and stores on fire in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/jcpdvv

Brenda Lenton’s home and belongings destroyed by a fire – Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/3s9l17

Aftermath of whole neighborhood being set on fire in Minneapolis

https://streamable.com/eat2c0

Nashville city hall set on fire while rioters cheer

https://streamable.com/b3y0ep

Fox reporters chased out with projectiles thrown at them near White House

https://streamable.com/1qzyua

Attacking drivers Tulsa, Okla

https://streamable.com/ixpxh9

Setting St. John’s Church on fire

https://streamable.com/u3y4ch

Destroying/looting stores Montreal

https://streamable.com/92h4rr

Destroying/looting store in Downtown Oakland

https://streamable.com/y9s4x9

Bar destroyed/Trying to loot a safe

https://streamable.com/yzprm5

Stolen Bulldozer in Oakland

https://streamable.com/lhf5ze

Two police SUVs torched in Seattle

https://streamable.com/eketpr

Multiple cars torched in Philadelphia

https://streamable.com/13784m

Ohio Statehouse being destroyed

https://streamable.com/k13b3l

Trying to breach Justice Center/central police precinct Portland

https://streamable.com/avcfq0

Destroying/Looting Justice Center Portland

https://streamable.com/1j6fof

Looting small business in Portland

https://streamable.com/bfs08c

Destroying/looting small business Portland

https://streamable.com/adfxxt

Looting Louis Vuitton store

https://streamable.com/f4ysu9

Driving stolen cars into stores – Portland

https://streamable.com/o1w92j

Destroying Chase Bank – Portland

https://streamable.com/o1wtom

Setting Chase Bank on fire – Portland

https://streamable.com/nanakz

Destroying/Looting Apple Store – Portland

https://streamable.com/2wncgk

Looting in St. Paul

https://streamable.com/6fouwt

Looting Shoe Store

https://streamable.com/60v3xh

Looting apple store

https://streamable.com/1wzq39

Looting North Face store – NYC

https://streamable.com/ux7djn

Nike Store being looted – NYC

https://streamable.com/6sdcb3

Looting in Union Square – NYC

https://streamable.com/jiz3zd

Looting T-mobile store

https://streamable.com/ag5kwc

Shop owner saves store from looters with a firearm

https://streamable.com/5oj1jl

Business owner defends his store from looters with a firearm

https://streamable.com/pmdjkb

On the Death of George Floyd

Fact 1: The death of George Floyd was not divisive. Everyone agrees it was murder.

Fact 2: Everyone wants the same thing for that cop: try him for murder, throw him in jail for murder. In fact, try and jail every cop who commits any crime. In fact, cops should be subject to special guidelines wherein they have to serve TWICE the normal penalty for any crime they commit. Get rid of "qualified immunity" for cops and politicians. SCOTUS invented that in 1982, and it has been an unqualified disaster.

Fact 3: The riots ARE divisive. Blacks are destroying the lives of other blacks. IF we are not supposed to stand by while whites kill blacks (and of course, no one should stand by), then why do you want us to stand by while blacks destroy blacks? That is exactly what the riots are doing. One black man died at the hands of a white man, and already over 170 black businesses in the black community have been destroyed, the lives of thousands disrupted and destroyed, by these riots.

Fact 4: The riots are not being caused by locals. This isn't local outrage, this is manufactured outrage, people who were imported, or who imported themselves, to destroy communities they are not themselves a part of. Shouldn't we be trying to stop that?

Fact 5: 50% of murderers are black males between the ages of 15 and 30, 50% of murder victims are black males between the ages of 15 and 30. Of the 3203 black murder victims in 2017, 2627 were black on black murder. That's 82% of murder victims being killed by their own community.

Most murders in the US result when two young men who know each other get in a fight and one kills the other. Half the time it is young white men, half the time it is young black men. But, since young black men only make up 6% of the population, yet commit 50% of the murders, it is pretty clear that young black men do this on a per capita basis far out of proportion to other young men.

Fact 6: Blacks are in FAR MORE DANGER from their own community than they are from cops. But, as Van Jones points out, racist whites - who tend to be white liberals - refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Conclusion: be careful
Now, I have undoubtedly upset some of you. Your feelings are raw, jaded, etc., and you want to deny one or more of the facts above, because you FEEL that there is something wrong.

Aristotelian logic says:
Facts are infallible.
Feelings are facts.
Therefore feelings are infallible.

Yeah, that is a valid line of reasoning, but it isn't true. "Valid" means you constructed the argument properly, according to the rules of logic. "True" means the conclusion accurately describes reality. But the conclusion does not do so. Why is the argument wrong? Because the terms don't match.

Now, facts are infallibly true, and you truly do feel the way you feel,

BUT

A fact is a statement that accurately describes external reality.
A feeling is an emotion that accurately represents your internal reflection/reaction to reality.

And your internal reflection/reaction absolutely can be wrong. You may not have all the facts, you may think about those facts in the wrong way. Your reactions, your emotions, your feelings can be totally wrong. Feelings are NOT infallible, feelings are often complete bunk, wildly inaccurate. You aren't infallible, so your feelings are not infallibly correct.

The facts are listed above.
They cannot be controverted.
Your feelings are facts, but your feelings are an internal state that don't necessarily match or accurately respond to external reality.

What is Worship?

From a friend of mine on Facebook: 

I asked a simple question in this new theological discussion forum I'm in. Answers so far are enlightening. It is a question I have pondered and meditated on for years and years. So, I thought I would ask it of my broad range of FB friends out here as well.

What is worship?

...Catholics have a very specific focus in answer to this question, or can, by pointing to the reality of what happens in the consecration at Mass. Non-catholics have the same general sense of personal union with God, but sometimes it seems diffuse in its expression because of a lack of a sort of experiential category.

My reply: To be fair, they can't afford to have a precise language. The purpose of the Mass, and all liturgy, and all the sacraments, is our divinization. "God became man so that men may become gods." That sentence, right there, sums up the entire purpose of everything in the Catholic Faith.

Throw that sentence in front of any Protestant and watch them run, wild-eyed, away from your "heresy". But that's what union with God requires - divinization. Can't get union without it. And Protestant theology has literally no mechanism by which to accomplish that, nor can they even create language to describe it because it is totally at odds with their "total depravity" theology.

So, all they can do is talk about "a sacrifice of praise" and such. They try plowing around the stump because they can't afford to acknowledge it.

Friend's response:

"I have brought 2 Peter 1:4 up repeatedly, in many contexts. In my experience, before being Catholic, there really are certain parts of the Bible that just go like water off a duck's back. They don't necessary meet any disagreement, just sort of like no handle, no way to pick that up."

My reply:  Right. Exactly. They literally have no words. Even though their particular denomination may not buy into total depravity, the fact is that their CULTURE does, at least to some degree. Apart from the Mormons, there is no Protestant culture that has the ability to even conceptualize what Peter is talking about.

The whole purpose of the communion of saints is to introduce divinization at a child's level of understanding, without the need for precise language. The Protestants don't even have that much, thus they don't even have the symbolic language of the cult of the saints to build on.

Now, to be fair, if you told most Catholics about divinization, they would ALSO call you a heretic. I've had FUS grads tell me that divinization is heresy, and I've had to point out CCC passages to break it to them. Most individual Catholics literally have no words for it either.

But Catholic CULTURE endorses divinization, and Catholic theology DOES have actual, precise language to describe it, so Catholics are more able to handle the concept once the precise language is brought forward.

You know, back in the first century, Catholicism was a mystery cult, like all the other theological systems. A mystery cult is a system whereby the candidates who wish to enter are not told everything until after they have already committed to it and entered. That's how Catholic teaching worked.  Candidates would be taught for a couple of years about the basics of the Faith, but they wouldn't find out about the Eucharist, they wouldn't even know the Eucharist existed, until AFTER they were baptized.

As catechumens, they were never permitted to attend a complete Mass. As soon as the homily ended, they were ushered out, the doors were locked by certain women in the assembly (deaconesses - that was pretty much their only job) and only the fully formed Catholics were allowed to be present for the consecration.

Thus, it was only after their Easter baptism that the catechumens were finally allowed to attend a COMPLETE Mass, it was only then that they found out about the consecration of the Eucharist. They would be soaked from their baptism in the baptistry outside the church, they would be smelling sweetly from the baptismal chrism, each clothed only in a white robe, they would enter the darkened nave, the room lit by hundreds holding candles to light their way. Holy Saturday readings were a summation, a completion of all they had learned, followed by a Holy Saturday homily that taught them, for the first time, about the Eucharist.  This was the very last lesson imparted to them before they saw their very first consecration and received Jesus for the first time.

It took literally years of education before the pagan Romans, Greeks, even the Jews, had built up the vocabulary necessary to understand what they would experience on Holy Saturday night at their very first complete Mass.

Well, I got news for you - we still ARE a mystery cult. We don't teach RCIA candidates about the sacraments and divinization until roughly Lent, at the earliest. We cannot teach it any earlier. We have to build up in the catechumens and candidates a vocabulary and culture that allows them to grasp 2 Peter 1:4.

Sure, pretty much all of them know, walking in the door in August, that Catholics teach the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. But they do not understand the implications of what that means: divinization. We hold that back until the very end. They need to have the cultural vocabulary built up before they can get a handle on this last, this supreme, teaching.

So, they don't understand what worship is, not really, until they fully grasp and accept divinization, which is union - UNION - with Christ.

Friend's response:

And of course there are a whole lot of the Catholic baptized who have never really experienced mystagogy (or evangelization) at all, and so the sacramental experience is sometimes reduced to mechanics and ceremonies amidst (or, kind of "next to") stirrings of faith. What I try to wrap my head around is "how to be" in the face of all of this reality.

Exactly. All you can do is try to give them the vocabulary, the culture. Feed them milk, not meat. Answer their questions about statues and idols and Mary and yada, so that they can see the language makes sense, even if they can't understand what the language says yet.