Friday, April 24, 2015

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

CATHOLICISM Series - Episode 6: The Mystical Union of Christ and the Church

Donovan - Brother Sun, Sister Moon [from Franco Zeffirelli's "Brother Su...


Let Them Eat Cake

Made By Someone Else

     There are kinds of discrimination that are deemed acceptable. For example, the catholic church discriminates against anyone not officially a member in receiving the eucharist- this discriminates against Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and anyone who hasn't received catechal instruction and been confirmed in the faith or a correlate apostolic faith recognized as catholic enough. Should a Jewish Orthodox synogogue be forced to allow Non Jewish men to read the Torah at services on non-discrimination grounds? Clearly, religious convictions have to be honored in a free society.

Now imagine a state law saying the church must serve communion/the eucharist to anyone who shows up and wants it or be fined, sued for damages and bankrupted out of business. No one would abide such a law. Its deeply offensive.

So why does a Christian baker have to make a cake for anyone who shows up and wants one?
Its a private business enterprise- run by a person of a faith conviction who  does not approve. To quote John Stossel- forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake 'IS NUTS.'

That baker might make a cake for a gay person's birthday or his bar mitzvah or mother's day. But a WEDDING CAKE is something that entails a baker's blessing of sorts- or participation in a ritual he finds offensive. Baking a wedding cake is a special labor of love entailing meeting with the clients to determine what kind,  what flavor icing, how many layers, etc. to make a wedding cake- and even if it were not and merely a business transaction, the art of making it for a wedding is different than for another occasion.

There are plenty of people who would not think twice about it and would want the business. There are other people who on principle wouldn't want to get near it. The state should not be in the business of forcing ANYONE to violate their conscience or principles by transacting a sort of business they find offensive on religious grounds.

Suppose a man wanted to marry his dog- should the state be in the business of forcing a baker to make a cake for the blessed union of Fred and Fido or be put out of business so NO ONE gets to eat cake?

It is perhaps tolerable that there are certain enclaves of sexual topsyturveydom- Fire Island, San Francisco, West Hollywood. But for the Supreme Court to force the entire country as a matter of universal law of the land to acknowledge gay marriage and force every enterprise to capitulate to its acceptance is beyond looney tooney, its obscene.

The Story of Jonah as Told by The Cutest Little Girl

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

What is Man

That you are Mindful of Him or Her.

      What an astounding proposition that there is One God who is 'mindful' of or actually thinks about beings he created called humans.

     So mindful in fact that he wants them to operate at maximal capacity reaching their potential.
Actions falling short of that potential and the immense human dignity of their person in God's image can be another word for 'sin.'  A non-judgmental way of describing 'sin' might just be- acts against the God designed maximal potential diminishing human dignity.

  When someone is murdered, it is an affront against the intrinsic dignity of the life of a person. When someone is prideful it  diminishes potential because a spiritual law is that the meek shall inherit the earth and God despises the proud. If you think you are already something you don't try to become better maximizing your potential.

   What of actions that are against what is called the natural "complementarity" of male-female conjugal unions? An adulterous act will diminish the dignity of the union. A gay act will diminish the procreative potential of the parties.  Perhaps God isn't condemning so much as deeply sad at the loss of potential.

    But maybe He is as condemning as in an Adulterous situation. Scripture classifies it as sexual immorality. It is scripturally considered condemned and chastised. It will be prolific in the 'end times'. People will call good bad and visa versa.

    People can be deeply in love with people of the same sex, and people are who don't have sexual urges tied to their emotional feelings or desires. These are different things. When people argue that gay people have no choice over whom to fall in love with that may be true, but it is not true that they have no choice regarding whether they allow that to flourish into full sexual contact with the other person.

    God clearly thinks people have capacity to resist Adultery or he wouldn't have outlawed it.
God clearly thinks that people can have renewed minds and not fall into what he considers a depraved state of mind in expanding emotional feelings into sexual acts with an inappropriate person. One of the same sex is deemed inappropriate. Just like someone married to someone else is inappropriate, someone under the age of consent, a close family member, etc.

   The premise that people don't have any control over sexual direction of their bodies should insult the intelligence of every thinking person. An attraction is not a sexual act. Behavior has intrinsic moral value- one way or the other.

   The law regulates behavior, and all behaviors are not created equal.


Monday, April 20, 2015

Is there any actual scriptural evidence that being gay is not an original sin?
Who decided being gay is not sin? 

It is a condition of mind, hormonal and physiological reaction all of which can be changed. So long as you think being gay is not a sin, you will seek likeminded people enforcing that it is not a sin (and not a depraved state of psycho-social hormonal malajustment conditioned from perhaps early trauma) then you will insist you have a right to it and that everyone must accept it. All hell breaks lose from the premise. 

What of all the people who once were gay and now are not? Thousands of them.  Who is to say that the feeling and physiological reaction of gay wasn't more nurture than nature? I have yet to meet a person I know is gay (there are a few I don't know i'm sure and i prefer it that way)whom I could not identify immediately with some childhood trauma or unusual situation in their upbringing that caused a psychosocial collapse from trauma which could trigger a firm commitment to seek same sex comfort. 
Here are true accounts of the backgrounds of some gay men I know or know of:
--A man's brother commits suicide, and father dies in close proximity-he will forever seek the missing brother, 
--a man's mother was a smothering phobic neurotic who wouldn't leave the house suffocating her overprotected son, he then loathes women and seeks adolescent sexual experiences with men, 
--a man's mother dies as a child and he hates her for abandoning him to a wicked stepmother, so he runs from the company of woman having only early childhood trauma associated with females,
--a man was molested by a "loving" priest as a youth and became gay, etc....
--a man's father abandoned the family at pre-school age and he became gay seeking father figures.

.It is a fair question to ask -are we coddling illness into civil rights? Homosexuality has been removed from the DSM as a mental illness for thirty years now, but is it perhaps a mental condition- 80 percent of sex being between the ears. Is it a condition of mind that triggers hormones? The testimony of all the people who found themselves 'cured' or not wanting any homosexual lifestyle any more should speak to the issue. There are THOUSANDS of people who once self identified as Gay and who now believe they have excised an unclean spirit from their minds. We don't give civil rights to practicing alcoholics to drive cars do we?

How dare anyone deny them healing?

To Be or Not To Be

Gay- that is the Question, Whether it is Nobler in the Minds to

    Renew one's mind in the Spirit.

Alcoholism is a condition not a disease. A condition can be managed, a disease must either be 'cured' or it flourishes. Some claim alcoholism and other addictions cannot be entirely eradicated if a person possesses it- the biochemical make up is permanent. Others disagree and say the biochemical composition of an alcoholic can change so the person is not an alcoholic any longer. But both models agree it can be managed by not drinking alcohol. A person who self identifies as an alcoholic can manage their condition by not drinking any alcohol. Its the premise behind AA meetings-if you can recondition yourself not to take a drink you won't manifest the alcoholism. If they do not drink any alcohol they may still be considered in their minds an alcoholic but a sober one. In the state in which they are not drinking anything they can't be considered a drunk. The difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is in behavior. A gay person may always consider themselves gay but this is a condition. There should be two different terms as there are in for "alcoholic" and "drunk" because one connotes a condition and the other a manifestation of the condition under certain circumstances. "Same Sex Attracted" is a condition which some say is curable, some not. However, Doing -Acting Gay is not the same as Being Gay. Thousands of people attest to the fact that one can condition oneself to being Not Gay Acting by Not Acting Gay. It is a manageable condition. The difference between same sex attracted people and gay acting people is in the behavior. Its a manageable condition- worth repeating. The only reason one might not wish to manage it is because they do not believe it is wrong. So the Being Gay entails an implicit moral judgment that one is entitled to be Gay and this is not wrong. There is where the Constitution has a right to make a moral judgment as all laws are predicated on morality. To claim some civil right on equal protection grounds over something that is a manageable condition intrinsically unavoidably is loaded with the moral judgment that this behavior is moral. Neither the founders intent, nor The Constitution can support that conclusion.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015


Galatians 6:7

1st Corinthians 6:9

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…

and another translation reads "men who sleep with men" in place of "homosexuals."

There were a lot of false teachers so it bore repeating: Do Not Be Deceived.     What is the context of these sayings?  

And do only backwoods backwater racist anti-gay KKK people believe these sayings from the bible to be true and not antiquated draconian mean sentiments that should be jettisoned like the prohibition on eating shellfish in the age of refrigeration?

   Jews of the time of Jesus had a strict morality code. There were marriage contracts which were both sacred and legal. Men and women's conduct with regard to their interaction and their sexuality was regulated as a matter of religious piety and righteousness which was believed to exist as a holiness code external to their desires. This was fundamentally at odds with pagan Greek culture which reveled in excessive sexual exploration and had no prohibition of morally on any type of sexuality which was called 'hedonism' as a philosophy. In Jewish culture homosexuality was considered as unspeakably condemnable as it is in Muslim culture today. Large portions of the Muslim world live in the morality code regarding homosexuality that the Jewish ancient world lived in. It was considered so perverse a person could be stoned for it.

  Paul founded a church in one of the larger cities in first century Greece called Corinth. He wrote three letters after he travelled from Corinth to the fledgling congregation there instructing them in the Faith of the Jews' Messiah Jesus (Yeshua) and giving them encouragement. 
Corinth was on an Isthmus, it was a large trading port city.  It was most famous for one thing: it had the enormous Temple of Afridite in it.  The Temple was a building three times larger than the Supreme Court .People from all over the Greek pagan world came to importune this fertility godess by sleeping with the male and female Temple Prostitutes that lived in the Temple and fed off the offerings.   
Like a lot of "hello Sailor" port towns it was a hotbed of sexual freeforalldom. 

   Paul, a very righteous Jew, a learned trained Pharisee who preached to the Gentile world wrote to the "Corinthians" (inhabitants of Corinth) and said in extremely firm, clear, strong terms- DO NOT BE DECEIVED. There was a lot of false teaching he was combatting. 
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Homosexuals, Men who sleep with Men WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. They don't go to heaven. He clearly coupled conduct with belief or faith (the very definition of a religion) and said that there is a certain kind of conduct that is flatly not acceptable. By Jewish standards, which Jesus never changed, the Corinthians were a mess in their sexual promiscuity. This was not on for Paul.

    Gays will often say (and even some gay false teaching so called theologians with high degree pedigrees teaching in prominent places) that Jesus never mentioned a word about gays or homosexuals and hung out with 12 guys (wink wink.)   We should infer from the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality exactly the same thing that we should infer from the fact that he never says Do Not Throw Acid On Your Child's Face- because both things were considered so unmentionably disgustingly wrong to the Jews it went without saying. In the roughly three years we know of Jesus teaching it was predominantly to a Jewish audience (there are exceptions-syrophoenecian woman, samaritans, woman at the well, etc..). He lived in Galilee, mostly we think around Capernaum, and he travelled around what we think of as Israel, likely got to Jordan and Lebanon, still largely addressing Jewish congregations of people likely to have heard about the great Jewish healer and miracle worker.  He simply would never have thought it remotely necessary to address a Jewish congregation about men not sleeping with men-because the Jews would have stoned on the spot such a person. 

   People who use the moral teachings of the bible (even cling to them as a matter of life and death) of every Christian denomination in the world still believe Saint Paul on the subject of homosexuality. People with Ivy League degrees (such as myself), people who run corporations, the vast majority of people who attend Mass every week (twenty percent of the United States).

This teaching is true. 

     For the Supreme Court to undermine it, nullify it, mock it or demean it would be in the eyes of some Mocking God even if it caters to a principle of anti discrimination or equal justice for all consenting adults. If "all consenting adults" were the non discrimination template we would have to forget that any religion said anything wrong with adultery. To others at least it would be the height of moral outrage. To others still it would be just plain cowardice. 




Sunday, April 12, 2015

Losing the Plot

How the Rule of Law is undermined by  Gay Religion

   The Supreme Court will have totally lost credibility if it rules in favor of gay 'rituals' akin to marriage as a national anti-discrimination mandate.

We can discriminate legally in a variety of areas. We discriminate when we treat anyone who is a sex offender differently by putting their name on a registry to warn people. I will discriminate against anyone I believe to be drunk by not giving them car keys. I will discriminate against anyone I think will have sex in the back of the car by not giving them car keys- and whether or not you approve of sex in the back of the car, I reserve the right not to do it in my car and few people would have a problem with that. People's morality in matters of their enterprise or private life should be honored.

   Gay rituals they want to call marriage cannot be analogized to inter-racial dating or marriage and it is a borrowed shoe that does not fit. The conflation or confusion of the two as discrimination issues is what is motivating people like Obama to insist that the entire world has to accept gays together ritualized for so long as they both shall want it until their gay divorce.

   The distinction is in conscious behavior, compulsions coupled with actions versus something that is a physiological trait. Gay is both an identity and an action. Being Gay and Acting Gay are two different things. We don't know enough to say that Being Gay is completely immutably an identity trait or not, and there are notable examples of people who once self-identified as gay and now are married to opposite sex people with children, so we know that it can change. Ellen DeGeneres' First Wife, the Mayor of New York's wife and Angelina Jolie all once were in gay relationships and are now happily married with children. They trained their minds not to go there. It is hubris to suggest that because the loudest contingent of gays thinks they were 'born that way' immutably that all gays are like them. Who is to say that gay is the same for everyone who at one time self identified that way?

    What makes gay discrimination more like the example of not condoning having sex in the back of the car with not discriminating against inter-racial marriage? The difference is in what you allow yourself to think is moral or not. Is it a behavior that has been universally condemned by most major world religions and their scholars as a behavior that is not only not productive for social progress but against what is perceived to be the will of God? Inter-racial  marriage never had this condemnation, but to the contrary scripture supports it. In Numbers 22 when Moses married someone of another race (we assume darker) his sister Miriam scoffed and was put out of the camp for a few weeks to chill out as punishment for her racism. God doesn't like racists-he made them all beautifully in his image. On the other hand, God wiped out two towns for flagrant homosexual debauchery and there are warnings after warnings in scripture regarding how sexual immorality of the same gender kind is an automatic bar from the kingdom of heaven. One of the defining features of early Christianity was that it separated itself from the greek pagan homo-erotic sexually exploring neighbors who were indifferent to homosexuality and in fact had pagan temple same sex temple prostitutes whom one could sleep with in order to get to pagan heaven. Don't you know, Paul and others warned that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. This category is put right up there with drunkards in that regard.
So scripture is clear. Homosexuality for Christians and Jews  was such a no-starter that it didn't have to be expounded upon much. "Don't you know" means- what! have you people been living under a rock?? Have you lost your minds? Don't you know that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom! How do you not know this?

    So there are religions- ones that have been operable for thousands of years, who maintain as an intrinsic part of their moral code that homosexuality is not something that should be humored. It existed in the pagan world during Jesus' time. We don't have to guess about these things-scripture is clear enough.

   So in modern America where the Supreme Court has to balance First Amendment interests of freedom of religion with individual liberties on equal protection grounds, how should it rule? First, it has to recognize that the gay rights movement is a religion also. The (non) establishment clause prohibits the imposition of one religion over another which is what the gay rights movement seeks to impose. A religion is a belief structure coupled with a behavioral code. The gay rights movement and agenda is a religion that is one hundred percent at odds with traditional Christianity and some say Orthodox Judaism.

    Second the discrimination framework should be rejected as an equal protection matter because clearly some discrimination of immorality is permitted. All of law is predicated on moral norms that give preference to moral behavior over immoral behavior. To do what the gay religion is asking is tantamount to the Supreme Court declaring that homosexuality is not immoral. The Supreme Court would be thus institutionalizing a moral structure one hundred percent against what 80 percent of the country believes-that there is a moral law outside one's preferences or desire and this moral structure has spoken on the issue of homosexuality as dictated by the scriptures that guide their religion.

    To nullify a moral code is nihilistic. In this case it seeks to favor the religion of hedonism and fleshly compulsion over the religion that says a mind can be renewed and regenerated into righteousness and that righteousness has a meaning ascertainable not merely by self referentially looking at one's carnal desires but exists as an objective moral code of behavior and such righteousness prohibits carnal acts of a same sex type.  The religion that says self-restraint in fleshly matters is a fruit of the Spirit is something that has guided people trying to live righteously in this country since its puritan founding and that religion would be discriminated against if the court were to rule that all the demands of the gay ritualists prevail on equal protection grounds.

  All laws are based on morality. When looking to say whose is more valid or should be preserved in legal codes, it is not wise to jettison two to three thousand years of wisdom of the sages.



Wednesday, April 01, 2015

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene - Secret Knowledge from the Ultimate Disciple



Everyone wants to claim me and you
are you red or are you blue
are you gentile are you jew
are you straight or are you not
with us as we demand rights alot
to fight and demonize
those who despise us,
are you christian of the sort
who turns a platform into dirt
or are you secularly inclined
to wave the religion into twine
by which to hang infidels
sublimely deluded into your belief
of your superior relief.


I couldn't in a million years
restrain the torrent of your tears
as you weep silent at the sight
of your chosen taking life
of those your image made.

Happy end of Lent and April Poetry Month.

You keep demanding surreptitiously
by anonymous proxy
my forgiveness for your insanity
to which I replied
i forgive all your lies
i forgive your despised
cruelty and hides
from civility
I just don't wish your company
because you are beneath
my dignity.
(Happy April Poetry Month)

My heart is healed 
and on its way
it doesn't wish to stay
one more day
in the place
 it was shredded.


     Were I a bard hailed
or a poet major sailed
a Gerald Manley Hopkins
or a William Butler Yeats
an e.e. cumming on roller skates
a Walt Witman in leaves
of grassy green, a Queen
of Kubla Khan at dawn, a raven
quothing Poe, I would show
you how deep does flow
the Love running vein down
my toe from my head
does go, just so you
know my heartbeat singing.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Inclusive Capitalism Conference - H.R.H. The Prince of Wales

Weekly Address: It’s Time to Confirm Loretta Lynch

In case you missed it, Saturdays White House message championed Obama's pick of US Attorney General.  This blog strongly

affirms the need to VOTE and approve the Attorney General nominee. It is inexplicable and unprecedented that any President's choice for AG of Justice would be upheld by non-vote for this long. It appears more than politics is at play but perhaps also sexism and racism. The Republicans want to run Holder out of town and leave us apparently with no replacement. Here it is appropriate to say-Are You People Crazy? or just racist or sexist? Or do you perhaps not understand the importance of what an Attorney General does in America? We are watching. And we are not amused.

Saturday, March 21, 2015


The Voice of Another Intern.

    I was an intern in the White House Transition Team during the first Clinton period in 1992-3 in the Justice "Cluster" and State Department "Cluster."   I wasn't there long before I found more substantive legal work in the DC private sector- But this gives me some perspective on Monica Lewinsky's latest taking to the public sympathy waves at a Ted Talk that was splattered all over the media.

   I should note that the comments below are not motivated by a desire to see Hillary in the White House (I am equally a fan of Al Gore or  John Kerry for whom I also volunteered as Presidents I think), nor are these comments meant to in any way excuse real cyber-bullying. For that cause they need another champion.

  Here I go- Monica, you are Shameless. Admittedly. She boasts she's over the Shame thing now. The problem with Monica's shame, like that of all self-justified adulteresses who hit on married men or entertain their roaming eyes and other parts is that they don't couple the Shame with Repentance because the remorse is situational.  The remorse she explains is because she was caught. Were she not caught and dragged through the legal nightmare of FBI stings, threats of jail and prosecution for lying on an Affidavit, and legal harassment, she would have found it perfectly acceptable, normal even to be in love with her boss who just happened to be married and happened to be the President of the United States. That's not real remorse. Its really pathetic.

  When I met Bill Clinton briefly (twice) he struck me as tall, pudgy (it was his Big Mac days) with a funny W.C.Fields bulbous nose and he struck me as someone from a Southern State who likely wouldn't make partner in a big Manhattan firm so why not run for President. I was not remotely attracted to him or impressed with his charisma. He never remotely tried to hit on me and if he did I wouldn't have hesitated to tell him I wasn't that kind of girl. In fact I first volunteered for Jerry Brown  and after he gave his sad concession speech at the Convention I switched teams I was so not into Clinton. I was not attracted to the sleazy single attorney in the White House counsel cluster from Yale either who shall remain nameless, who kept asking all the female interns for back-rubs and shoulder massages (provoking my thought of -get a girlfriend loser). But had I been strongly overwhelmingly attracted to Bill as some dimwits are to men in power because of their position, I would have said to myself- WHAT ARE YOU MAD STARKING CRAZY?  HE'S A MARRIED MAN AND THE PRESIDENT.  Monica had no such inner voice.

   Monica was and is missing a morality filter. Its the filter that says DON'T YOU DARE. Its the lack of any solid moral foundation that would have educated her to the fact that adultery is on the top ten hit list  of DON'T YOU DARE right up there with murder. When you murder a family bond, you destroy a marriage united soul bond and potentially even future fruit of the marriage. DON'T YOU DARE. I wondered if anyone bothered to take the girl to church or synagogue. You don't volunteer on campaigns to start flipping your thong at the candidate- (I repress here my instinct to be brutally unkind out of respect for Lent.)

   A person who admits she knew the game because she was 'in love' with a married man before (busy girl for 22) who boldly on and off blows the President for two years under massive delusions that she meant anything to him other than the girl who was stupid enough to blow him off for two years could only have been raised in a broken home in Beverly Hills. Delusions of grandeur must have prompted her to think he would actually dump his Ivy League lawyer wife for someone who barely graduated from college apparently majoring in bad musicals because she was a daughter of a rich doctor from Beverly Hills.

   Someone who is called out for what they actually did is not being cyber-bullied. She is not the light shining against innocent victimhood of gays jumping off bridges because she is neither innocent nor a victim. She made her bed, or bathroom closet, and she didn't get to sleep in it- because she was servicing someone she had no business carrying on with. You get to leave, and yes, shut up about it, because your mouth should be sanitized with rubbing alcohol before you get to air it ever again. Again, I repress here my instinct to let her have it out of respect for Lent (we are told to be Kind.)

   The fact that the Washington Post, and Ted organizers and anyone else who invites her to peddle her OBSCENELY OFFENSIVE recreated Innocent Victim lying tripe around nationally is purely political.  This is a girl who has no moral judgment, who has no appreciation of the gravity of her sins, who has no concept that she did anything wrong in any sense other than  run afoul of that pesky thing called American perjury law.

   I am beginning to believe there is a Right Wing Conspiracy against Hillary. Keep it up and I may be tempted to help her run for President.