The Truth About Voting on Supposed Probability

This is quick and easy, a syllogism for voting:

Each moral decision ought to be based on the natural law.
Each moral decision ought to be unaffected by the trends of how other people make the same moral decision.
Voting is a moral act.

Therefore, the act of voting ought to be based on the natural law and be unaffected by the trends of how other people vote.

So, if you actually care that your act of voting be good rather than sinful, then you must not weigh probability of candidate victory in your choice about for whom to cast your ballot.  Simply: Using “electability” to help determine your vote is evil.

No Catholic Teachers, No Catholic School

I’m tired of hearing about how “we need faithful Catholic schools.” One, the term Catholic needs neither qualifiers nor modifiers. But more than that, I cannot stand half-baked ideas. If you want more butterflies, you cannot have them without first having more caterpillars. There are precursors without which certain things cannot be accomplished. You want more priests, you need more Catholic parents raising Catholic boys, who actually understand and value the priesthood. [Side note: we currently have one of the best ever priest : parishioner ratios in the U.S.]

Similarly, you don’t have Catholic schools without Catholic faculty. So, if we “need faithful Catholic schools,” then what we are really saying is that we need Catholic teachers, because they are the constitutive elements that make for a school which is Catholic. You know what’s not helping anyone, neglecting to correct the idea that one can be Catholic while disbelieving and not professing “all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

And this situation is remarkably bad because countless children and parents are exposed to a caricature of Catholicism in these schools, but they are under the impression that, since they’re parochial schools, “this is Catholicism.” The result is anti-evangelization. Few things are presently so damaging to the Church and her evangelical mission as the misrepresentation of Catholicism by faculty at nominally Catholic schools, under the implicit approval of Catholic dioceses.

Legalese Can Sound Pretty Harsh

A legislator (literally: “proposer of law”) recently said that, “The state doesn’t own your children; parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” The response from some people has been to characterize the legislator’s idea as a form of slavery. [Why didn’t they just go all the way down that road to the eventual Hitler references?]

Not that it takes two brain cells to know that this legislator does not think of his children as slaves, but I thought I would note something in the legislator’s defense:

From a legal standpoint, he is right!

Some people might not like it, but the whole reason that parents have the power to make virtually every decision for their minor children is that the *legal reality* is that children are property. They certainly are more than that, even from a legal standpoint, but nothing changes the fact that the law has for centuries dealt with children as property of the parent. Property on a different plane than regular, inanimate possessions, but property all the same. Dogs are property too, and even they have more rights than a TV. Children should be treated far better than a television, and even far better than a pet — and the law demands it, because the law recognizes the child’s personhood. Yet none of that contradicts the legal property aspect. Have I ever thought of my own kids as property? No, not really, because I have never considered them from a legal standpoint. You know who is prone to think of children from a legal standpoint — and for whom I hope that he/she does think of children from a legal standpoint? A legislator.


The state demands that we treat our children as persons, even while maintaining that they are our property. “Put your kid in a child-seat.” Why? Because despite the parent’s legal property rights over the child, that child is a person with certain rights that are greater than property rights. The kid has a right to be free from abuse and undue risk, so you need to put him in a car-seat.

The state has the responsibility of securing the rights of all people, even and especially those who are vulnerable, such as children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. So, the state demands car seats, and the state demands an education be provided. The state even demands medical attention when necessary. But the state is not and should not be stepping on the property rights of the parent. The state should only be acting to protect the personal rights of the children. It may be nuanced; it may be complex, but it is the legal reality. And I hope it stays that way, because if it goes, I’ll no longer have the right to decide how to raise my children.


Side note: Do you know which rights can in some instances trump the state’s right and responsibility to dictate certain things of a parent in regard to his child?  The first right.  The right enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The right to free exercise of religion.

Secularism is Stupid, Very Stupid

There’s something so braindead about the responses elicited by the violence by Islamic extremists. On one hand you have this push to stand up for freedom of speech. Yet you have at the same time a culture that is pushing for us all to COEXIST. While the coexist mantra has more to do with an intellectual relativism that pretends all ideas are equal, what it espouses is peaceful relations between persons of varying creeds. Of course, peaceful relations requires forgiveness and tolerance, but it also means showing respect for others. It means not acting maliciously, not only in deed. It does not mean foregoing criticism, but it does means using kind words in criticism.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre is a tragedy. There was nothing good or redeeming about it. Without gainsaying that in the least, there was also nothing redeeming about malicious jesting. If the secular world really wants peaceful coexistence, it cannot exclude itself from the demand of non-violence. I’m not painting the Charlie Hebdo victims as deserving. They ought to have been left alone to say and draw whatever they pleased. What I am saying is that we are more likely to enjoy peace by acting peaceably. Legal restrictions on free speech are not the answer, but personal meekness will go a very long way.

Nobody should shy away from speaking freely. Nobody should penalize those who speak freely. Nobody should commit unnecessary verbal violence. Nobody should commit unnecessary physical violence.