Quote of the Indeterminate Time Interval – GhettoPuter

In his latest screed, ‘Puter tackles how the Catholic Church got themselves into this mess. RTWT.

2. The American Catholic Church currently reaps what it has sown post Vatican II. For far too long, Rome and the local bishoprics have allowed Catholics in place of public prominence to misportray Catholic teachings. Even worse, the Church has stood idly by as “Catholic” politicians from Kennedy to Cuomo have treated the Church’s positions on adultery and right-to-life as optional. Worst of all, ‘Puter’s Church has utterly failed to catechize the several generations raised during and immediately after Vatican II, leaving no one to act to protect and to defend the Holy Mother Church.

2a. Much of the priesthood ordained from 1970-1985 are self-loathing Catholics. They don’t like the choice they made, but see no way out. They vote against the Church’s teachings. ‘Puter’s pastor announced in a homily that he voted for pro-abortion Obama. These men are doing a grave disservice to a great institution, both religious and societal, through their sinfulness.

Now, I’m not Catholic, but I don’t see how the HHS requirements can possibly be squared with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment; there’s no way this would survive any kind of meaningful scrutiny. And given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the so-called ministerial exception (which was essentially 9-0, affirming the right of churches and religious organizations to ignore federal law (sex/age/disability discrimination, etc.) when making hiring and firing decisions for positions whose duties are primarily religious), they’re not likely to see this much differently.

If the Catholic Church had been less inclined to bring in Big Government for dealing with social issues, they might have more allies in this matter; instead, they appear to have been hoist with their own petard.

Repeal the First Amendment!

A Draft Amendment Resolution, and Subsequent Legislation:

Phase 1: The Amendment Resolution

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and to petition for redress of grievances.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article–

1. Any right to freedom of religion, the press, assembly, speech, or to petition for redress of grievances, whether under the First Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.

2. The privileges to worship, assemble, speak, and petition for redress of greivances throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’

Phase 2: Legislation

Public worship, assembly in groups of more than an immediate family for worship, and proselytizing shall be unlawful, except with express written permission from the Department for Religious Equality.

Any religious tract or text is subject to a tax equal to 20% of its wholesale price, paid by the manufacturer; sale of such tract or text without the qualifying stamp shall be unlawful. The Department for Religious Equality shall process such tax stamps in a timely manner upon receipt of the necessary forms.

All journalists, reporters, columnists, authors, writers, bloggers, tweeters, and users of other such social media, internet communications, and mass communications technology shall be licensed with the Department of Speech; failure to register within 365 days of this act’s passage shall be unlawful.

Gatherings of groups larger than one’s immediate family, except for activities expressly approved by the various Departments, including the Department of Grievances, shall be unlawful; the Department of Grievances shall allow protests of policies, laws, and persons after appropriate screening and consideration.

Inspired by Mike Barkley, Candidate for Congress (H/T Linoge, Sebastian, Weerd, and Joe).

Read it all!

It’s long, but you really should read the whole thing.

He talks about the nanny state, rebelling for the sake of rebellion (after all, who hasn’t done something just because someone else didn’t want them to?), and how libertarianism could save us all (ok, I may be overstating things here).

I’m sure I qualify as one of the natural libertarians Lee Harris discusses; I don’t like being told I can’t (or shouldn’t) do something (hell, the whole reason I got interested in shooting in the first place was the big dustup during the 2008 presidential election).  If there hadn’t been a panic about reinstating the assault weapons ban or other new gun control laws, I have no doubt my bank account would have more money in it than it does now.  I don’t want much from the government; if it left everyone alone and concerned itself with its enumerated powers, we’d get along just fine.

Unfortunately, our elected officials (for the most part) are more concerned with enriching themselves (mainly) and their districts (if there is enough left over) than they are with fulfilling their actual duties; while we may not have institutionalized what the Japanese call amakudari (天下り), we have essentially the same system here.  Public officials routinely leave government “service” with large bank accounts, which are only further enlarged by new jobs in private lobbying firms or other beltway specific businesses; it’s not literally a “descent from heaven,” but it’s pretty damn close (I have no problem with lobbyists as such; one of the rights protected by the first amendment is petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, and lobbying is the most effective way to petition the government).

I don’t know how to solve these problems; it may be that there isn’t a good way with our current system (term limits would put a damper on the ability of everyone in office to make their fortunes there, but it would probably result in everyone scrambling to get as much as they can as fast as they can).

Part of the problem is the type of people who go in to politics; I am afraid, though, that an even larger part is the electorate itself.