Every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

Today real marriage and true sexual identity was dealt a blow by one of the most dangerous institutions on the planet, the Supreme Court of these United States of America.

What was the reaction of “The First Gay President”?

Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.

“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”


Fr. Z responds:

To paraphrase the famous fight: Every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

This is the result of “creeping incrementalism”.

And it is not over.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. markomalley says:

    In case anybody, ANYBODY, is so naive as to think that the ultimate goal is not to force the Church to perform their perversions of marriage, I refer that person to Time from 6/26/2011 (right after NY State approved this simulation of marriage):

    The Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn’t Marriage


    But in one very important way, gay marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York, even 30 days from now when the law goes into effect. That is because the psycho-sexual-financial-commercial-legal dramas that entangle the domestic lives of straight people often have another component: religion. And religious institutions have an exemption in the new law over accommodating gay people. It was key to the passage of the legislation.

    Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn’t the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now also rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights — no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.

    Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079861,00.html

  2. jacobi says:

    I am a UK citizen, so it is not proper for me to comment on your President.

    But what I have noticed over the past year or two is the increasing readiness with which all politicians, in the UK and elsewhere, will stand, look the camera in the eye – and lie!

  3. HyacinthClare says:

    Markomalley, you’ve put your finger on it. Since the reason the SCOTUS gave for overturning DOMA was so that mean, evil people couldn’t hurt homosexual people’s feelings, which is the only reason anyone would ever support DOMA, here are the hurt feelings again, demanding to be soothed by jackboots in our sanctuaries. This is a truly horrifying article.

  4. StJude says:

    “But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith ”

    we all know what religion they are talking about here…..

    we live in evil times.

  5. acardnal says:

    Like his immediate Democratic predecessor, I don’t think Obama understands the meaning of the word “is”. So “the” and “and” could mean anything to Obama that he wants them to mean.

  6. OrthodoxChick says:


    Unless or until the Catholic Church divorces itself from taking money from the government, they’ll never be able to fight this, nor any other government intrusion. Just as a teenager cannot borrow money from a parent and expect the parent not to dictate how the parent’s funds must be spent, so the Church should not accept federal tax dollars and demand that the government have no say over how that money must be spent.

    Our first step toward religious freedom should be financial freedom. We need to get off the government dole and go cold-turkey to do it. No weaning. Cutting the government’s purse strings, and thus their tie to us, should be a top priority.

  7. iPadre says:

    He is a liar and I wouldn’t trust him on anything. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. How our nation (especially our Catholic brethren) could have been fooled once is sad, but a second time is despicable. We deserve what we are going to get. God always uses His enemies to punish His people. We will pay for our sins of abortion, contraception, and the justification of every kind of sin and aberration under the sun, while we sat by silently and did nothing. (Isaiah 64:12)

  8. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:


    Please pray for our priests, that they may not put their souls in jeopardy by cooperating in any way with the celebration of a simulation of a sacrament. No one’s going to go after “liberal” or “progressive” christians, but rather after the real prize: a Catholic priest publicly celebrating such a simulation of a sacrament.

  9. StJude says:

    Amen IPadre.

  10. markomalley says:


    You said, Unless or until the Catholic Church divorces itself from taking money from the government, they’ll never be able to fight this, nor any other government intrusion. Just as a teenager cannot borrow money from a parent and expect the parent not to dictate how the parent’s funds must be spent, so the Church should not accept federal tax dollars and demand that the government have no say over how that money must be spent.

    I agree wholeheartedly. I have borrowed the little cliche, With Shekels Come Shackles! for many a year now. I think in coming months and years I tend to believe that we will see the impact of that truism more and more.

    I’m of half a mind to suggest that ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony refuse to sign civil marriage licenses in those jurisdictions where the homosexual simulation of marriage is been given sanction by the State. The reason why is not for the purpose of throwing a tantrum, but if the minister acts as the agent of the State, that may come back to haunt said minister when a “public accommodation” suit is brought against him (“of course, not for the religious ceremony, we only think he should be required to perform the civil part of it without discrimination”). I would be interested in others’ thoughts…

  11. Kathleen10 says:

    Agreed, ipadre, and all.
    He is a consummate liar, and it’s all for the cause. We are about to have some other words come back to haunt us ala “you’ll be able to KEEP your insurance” and “your premiums will go down”.
    Yes, that Catholics voted for him is hurtful indeed. It hurt then and now that chickens are coming home it hurts even more.
    These are glaringly unprecedented times. It’s tempting to quit, but we can’t. We just can’t. It can’t be an option because then there would be no doubt about the victory. There is a wee bit of consolation in that no constitutional right to same-sex marriage was stated. It’s something.
    For my part I hope to increase my prayer life and pray specifically for our nation. I’m not sure about celebrating July 4 this year. What would we celebrate, when democracy used to be? That leaves a bad taste.
    I am waiting for the bigger news, on a personal level. What will be the reaction and response of our Catholic leaders. Please God, don’t let it be dead silence. That’s how we got where we are.

  12. Kathleen10 says:

    One last thing. Gay rights activists have money and aren’t afraid to use it. They spend gobs of money on this issue. We need to better financially support our state organizations that try to protect our states from the onslaught, that will increase now, and our larger organizations that work on the federal level, or who try to support state battles. National Organization for Marriage is a good one, and of course the lawyers who do such good work for the American Center for Law and Justice are always worthwhile. If people have funds it would be a good time to open that wallet and have more than a moth fly out.

  13. Jack Hughes says:

    Fr Finelli

    I don’t see how when we are finally starting to right the Barque of Peter inflicting persecution helps save souls why can’t God selectively punish those Catholics who did vote for him instead of me for something I did not do?

    Using your logic the last 50 years have been a punishment for something that someone did during the 1920’s, and the roman persecutions were punishment for St Paul going to bed before saying Compline one night, St John Eudes may have been a fine priest but his arrogant prattle that bad bishops are punishment for sin is dumb, if bad bishops are given to us then that’s hardly going to to reform morals

  14. Mari Kate says:

    Finally we hear the word “liar”. It’s The Emperor’s New Clothes. This is his presidency. Meanwhile no one says anything. He is not my president as he does not speak for the America that I have known all my life. He speaks for a different kind of America, one that is in fast forward towards communism and an end to freedom of religion, an end to life as we have known it. Not once have I heard the word ‘impeachment’. Any previous president with his kind of track record would have been impeached. He has no conscience and will say anything to hold his powerful grip. I think that is called a sociopath. This is why they are so easy to believe. They believe their own narcissistic lies. We need to wake up, fast. Catholics need to start voting according to the teachings of the church. Cardinals need to start speaking out and calling out Catholics who hold office and vote against the teachings of the Church. Our Cardinals and Bishops must begin to support their priests in the use of freedom of speech to form the conscience of their flocks through their homilies before we lose this freedom of religion. Always so afraid of offending the sensibilities of pocket books, lest the coffers bring in fewer dollars to build a new hall. Better to go down speaking truth than participating in the escalation of evil through silence. Better to save the souls of our people.

  15. Giuseppe says:

    There is no way churches will be required to marry anybody. Why would you think this is so from this decision? Heterosexual marriage has been legal for centuries, and churches do not have to marry any heterosexuals who do not meet their criteria for marriage. I cannot get married in a Jewish ceremony, no matter how many lawsuits I file.

    There is a lot to be upset about with the increasing social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but the thought that churches will be required to perform marriages seems far-fetched to me. Don’t get me wrong – Catholics will be ostracized for their ‘retro’ values. It might get as bad as a voluntary ghettoization like ultra-Orthodox Jews in the NY area, who seem to happily live in many enclaves. And this is the absolute worst scenario I can envision. Or Mormons, who are social and polite in the business world, but who practice their faith in very restrictive enclaves.

    Call me an ostrich, but the scaffold is not being built. The secular-progressives don’t have to do much to peel away most young Christians from the faith. No need for them to execute — look how many have fallen away over the past decades. They will happily and smugly let the quaint Christians mingle among themselves, knowing that the lure of secular society will peel away many. Why execute, why compel, when so many have been lost to the siren song off selfishness?

  16. maryh says:

    Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages
    I didn’t know the POTUS personally had the power to do that.

    Saying he “won’t” do something means he thinks he has the power to do it, and has simply decided not to.

  17. Priam1184 says:

    Father this nation and this society are dying. It is better not to have to much nostalgia over what was, especially since what was has now led to this. Nor is this country anywhere near as strong as the Roman Empire was; it will not go on for centuries with this immorality but will suffer a catastrophic collapse as soon as the first storm winds blow. It is better to look to the future, to beg the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (such as it is) in this country through the collapse so she may work to communicate the saving message of Jesus Christ to whomever and whatever comes after.

  18. AGA says:

    The danger here is not forced church weddings.

    Totalitarian regimes have often let churches maintain their worship customs.

    The Left in the USA could care less about what happens or doesn’t happen within our churches.

    The key threat of both Obamacare and New Marriage is what it does to Catholics living and working in the secular realm. These new laws will force anyone in any type of position of significant responsibility, be it within the government or within a private enterprise, to cooperate with evil.

    Faithful Catholics will sell their businesses rather than be forced to extend benefits to same sex partners or provide abortifacients.

    Faithful Catholics will avoid promotions into positions of responsibilities where they are compelled to recognize New Marriage.

    Simply put, faithful Catholics will be forced out of the economic life of America.

    Many Catholics however will not be faithful. Many Catholics will be convinced by the vast majority of priests and bishops that their cooperation with the evils of Obamacare and New Marraige is only material cooperation.

  19. tjg says:

    maryh – excellent pt. There is nothing obama doesn’t think he can’t do…

  20. Bosco says:

    I have said it before; I’ll say it again: “Antichrist”.

  21. rcg says:

    He won’t make Churches have gay ceremonies. But the people will demand it and he is, well, required to do their will. What a moral slob.

  22. govmatt says:

    This comment also caused me to shake my head this afternoon. However, let’s be clear (as FrZ has pointed out) this is “creeping.” We all know, and I’d wager most other denominations and even the “unfaithed” (read: pagans?) would have significant qualms about a directive from the White House ordering Bishop X to perform gay marriages.

    Now, that’s not to say some alarm isn’t justified. First, as people above have wisely pointed out, the fact that the President stated he “wouldn’t do something” means he has the power to do it (and thus is acting by choice). That’s concerning, but it’s politics. He couldn’t.

    Cue the “reductio ad Hitlerum” argument: Fascists think they can do whatever they want, you just wait! Fair enough. American liberties have been slipping away for quite a while, mostly because of lack of real resistance. It’s far easier for tyranny if you boil the water slowly (I’d say we are jacuzzi level now)

    Why would the President make a sweeping “ruling” when his is the “long con” (c.f. the playbook of Lucifer et al.)
    The Progressive “long con”: 1) Marginalize religion: the stuffy old men have no use in modern times, 2) Offer the easy alternative: there’s no good and evil, here, the State will take care of you, 3) State replaces God (charity): The Church? Provide healthcare (food, shelter, etc.)? Ridiculous!, 4) Repeat until no one is alive who remembers an older generation.

    So, I guess it’s not really the fact that the President insinuated he could force Churches to do his bidding (mere puffery!) but the fact that we have come so far down the road so quickly that even “moderate” religious voices (Apb. Lori et al. for “Religious Freedom”) are considered radically outside the mainstream of the 18-24 demographic.

    I’ll say, though, that I’m not discouraged. Certainly frustrated as I can sense FrZ and the rest of you are… but, we all knew Satan’s better at marketing to the masses (he gives out free samples). Remember: our Church survived Rome, Genghis Khan, the Fall of Constantinople, Nazism, and the martyrdom of countless Popes.

  23. Johnno says:

    Yeah, like anyone ought to believe Barack NSA Obama.

    Obama may not ‘make’ the Church do anything (except pay for contraceptives of course), but he and his ilk sure can pressure and undermine the Church’s members into doing so through many creative ways (like paying penalty fees for only having heterosexual marriage liscences, or not renting out the Church or parish halls to homosexuals so they can enjoy the trappings in front of the Blessed Sacrament and put the statue of Our Lady somewhere in the corner). You can bet some Catholic priests and parishes will be willing to go along too. The bishops will look the other way as is the norm and encourage us to get along and love one another or some claptrap like that.

  24. MarkJ says:

    Remember that POTUS in Latin means “drink”… Obama is the cup of God’s wrath being poured out on a rebellious people.

  25. Juergensen says:

    The sodomites won’t stop until they get the Supreme Court to grant them “equal rights” to the children of others. I suspect right now there are two or three justices on the Court who would “find” such a right in the Constitution, much like the Court already has “found” rights to abortion and sodomy in the Constitution.

  26. Giuseppe says:

    Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages
    I just clicked on the link – nowhere in his statement did Obama actually say this.

    I still think that Roman Catholicism’s greatest enemy is not government persecution, but rather Satan’s sensuous wiles of selfishness. Satan wisely spends his time on the internet, recording music, creating videos, making movies, filming porn, etc, and not even bothering with orthodox Christians, as he can peel away most of our young with the lure of of turning themselves into the center of their universe (Genesis 2). Why kill Adam or Eve? It’s a lot easier to tempt them.

    But if it makes people more comfortable to view the president as the antichrist out to execute believers, that’s fine, but I really do not think he cares enough to kill Roman Catholics. I am reminded of a black friend of mine who says things like this:

    Friend: “Did you see that guy? He’s a racist. He wants to kill me.”
    Me: “Dude, he didn’t even look at you.”
    Friend: “Exactly! Just what I said. A racist who wants to kill me.”

    I know that my friend thinks that people are racists out to kill him. I know that many people believe they will be killed in a reign of terror in the next few years. I think you both are a little off.

  27. Athelstan says:

    “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

    That’s a standard you can trip over. I mean, does anyone really think that this might happen?

    This is the conception of religious liberty that this administration has: it’s hermetically sealed inside your church buildings. And we’ll just rely on social pressure to make you feel ostracized about what you do inside that.

  28. Peggy R says:

    So, if the liberals want the Catholic priests to preside over nuptials between 2 men or 2 women, will they also say a Muslim Imam should preside over the nuptials between a practicing Jew and practicing Catholic–either party could be of either sex? They can’t have it both ways. Either religious belief means something to people and they’re entitled to that belief, or not.

    Heck, why don’t we say that a rabbi must provide a bar mitzvah to an evangelical boy, because he or his family wants it. Remarried Catholics demand communion…Protestants demand communion…What is the standard otherwise?

    As far as the wedding businesses are concerned, those markets are often already segmented by religion in many regards. Some planners, photographers, florists, etc., are “in” with their own religious community and may exclusively serve their co-religionists. Will states go after the wedding vendors for that “discrimination” too? Why not?

    Some wedding vendors may say they work with only certain houses of worship to cover themselves…it may or may not fly…but something to consider.

    Catholic authorities would need to show that homosexuals are not singled out among the people who do not qualify for Catholic wedding ceremonies in the Catholic Church. No guarantees of justice or logical argumentation any more, however.

  29. tjg says:

    It never fails to amaze me when some folks claim “over reaction!” when obama or one of his minions does something to promote their agenda. Even on this blog. The enemy is among us.

  30. Colonel Sponsz says:

    Is it a good thing or bad thing that I’ve returned to the Church when everything looks set hit the fan? Our new “christian” Prime Minister down here in OZ will try to push through sodomite “marriage” too. If not straight away then some time early next year imo.

  31. tjg says:

    To paraphase Abp Chaput…..WAKE UP PEOPLE!

  32. frjim4321 says:

    I don’t find myself among the Obama haters. I doubt the history will prove him to be great, but good enough for the times by comparison to other choices. I don’t see him bending the truth more than any other president. The most honest president in the past 50 years was Jimmy Carter and he was derided for his integrity. We don’t elect a Boy Scout in Chief, we elect a Commander in Chief. I wish I would have had a better choice in 2012 but a better choice did not present itself.

  33. Pingback: Christ Carrying the Cross Painting, Traditional Form - BigPulpit.com

  34. Sword40 says:

    with all due respect, you have to be the dumbest Catholic on the planet to not see Obama as a threat to our nation and our religion. I imagine you even voted for him.

  35. Gratias says:

    This victory for the Commies/Gays is just one more increment in the ratchet that keeps Western Civilization in a vise. Next up Homomarriage in Catholic Churches under penalty of loss of all Federal subsidies and tax breaks. When Barack Hussein Obama says “I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages” it means exactly the opposite will happen. Sadly this will happen with the help of fellow travelers like FrJim4321 and other priests that keep their emancipated silence. Have we heard anything from Pope Francisco on this momentous day in the disintegration of the human environment?

  36. av8er says:

    “Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages”. Obama reserves the right “evolve” on that statement as well.

    @frjim: haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Now that was funny!

  37. ncstevem says:

    Another pearl of wisdom from presider jim still trying to justify his vote for evil.

  38. jacobi says:

    Colonel Sponsz

    It’s a good thing. All hands to the pumps!

  39. Dennis Martin says:

    Of course he personally will not do this. He won’t need to. The courts will do it for him.

    Everyone MUST read Hadley Arkes in National Review. The optimism on the thread here yesterday is unwarranted. Anthony Kennedy has laid the groundwork for the total nationalization of gay marriage and the breaking down of all state barriers. The key is what Scalia pointed out–the basis upon which the majority reached their conclusion. It can be leveraged a million times beyond what yesterday’s decision seems to say. Scalia saw that clearly, which is why he used unprecedentedly blunt criticism of his colleagues in his dissent. Yesterday was a day that will live in infamy.


    Father Jim and Giuseppe: “tsk tsk tsk you guys are overreacting” was what a lot of Germans said in the early and mid-1930s. Eventually they stopped saying it. When it was too late.

  40. Dennis Martin says:

    Obama: “I won’t make churches conduct gay weddings.”
    Richard Nixon: “I am not a crook.”

    I think the lady protests too much.

  41. Kerry says:

    The last time the Pres spoke the truth was January 2009, when he said, “I, Barack Hussein Obama…”, quickly followed by the first lie in office, “…do solemnly swear to …” . Sometimes I think events are moving in such a way that we will all experience the defenseless and helpless state of the child in the womb. The murder of the innocents is the great civil rights and moral issue of our time. When the blood of the innocents cry out for justice, are any among us not culpable?

  42. Kerry says:

    A few sentences from Lincoln’s House Divided speech: “Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.
    Have we no tendency to the latter condition?”

    I suggest reading all of it, and his Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The reflected light of history is bright.

  43. JonPatrick says:

    I think that what is behind all of this is a long term trend in which we have allowed the Federal and (to a lesser extent) State governments to become too powerful. This trend has been going on at least since the Depression and WW2. This started out with efforts to deal with immediate threats (Depression and WW2) then expanded to less pressing but important issues (“war on poverty”, education). The natural logical extension is into the social arena, with the government seen as competent to deal with all issues.

    Obama may be evil in his intents, but he is merely using powers that have accumulated over the years. Most likely even if Romney had been elected we would still be having these same issues because once the government has access to power the temptation is there to use it.

    The Church is supposed to stand for a distributist approach where things get done at the lowest level that is appropriate. Unfortunately the Church has tended to go along with this “federalization” perhaps because it is easier to deal with one larger organization that a lot of smaller ones. Whatever the reason, we have bought into this idea that we must look to the Federal Government for healthcare, fighting poverty, education, and so on.

    It will not be easy to turn this around and go back to a more local community approach. If some of the more dire scenarios come to pass, this may happen out of necessity. Or the current government structure just collapsing under it own weight (I can see this possibly happening in the health care area).

  44. ckdexterhaven says:

    Frjim thinks this guy was the better choice:, the guy who tweeted this in support of a woman who stood for 10 hours for the “right” to dismember a baby in its mothers womb. “Something special is happening tonight #standwithwendy”. Nice.

  45. bookworm says:

    Kerry, of late I have been noting a lot of eerie parallels between the hardening of divisions regarding slavery in the 19th century and the hardening of divisions over abortion, gay marriage and (now) gun control in the 20th and 21st centuries. At the time of the Founding Fathers, even in the South, there seemed to be general agreement that slavery was a bad thing that should be abolished eventually, just not right now because it would be too troublesome. With the advent of the cotton gin and the rise of the cotton economy came greater demand for slaves; this led to the Missouri Compromise — an event I consider to be in some ways, more analogous to Roe than Dred Scott, since it involved an attempt to set geographic limits on slavery as Roe attempted to do chronologically for abortion (by trimester). Now the consensus is that slavery is here to stay, but we will try to keep it confined only to certain areas, but due to westward expansion and other factors, this policy was (like Roe) on a “collision course with itself”. By 1850, however, the pro-slavery crowd is demanding more and we get the Fugitive Slave Laws followed by the Kansas Nebraska Act and finally Dred Scott — attempts to impose a “right” to slavery anywhere, anytime, that slave owners want to go. And, of course, what happened next was not pretty.

  46. wmeyer says:

    There is a film now available on Netflix: The Freedom of Silence. From the summary:
    “It’s the year 2030, and the government has outlawed Christianity…”

    Not an inconceivable premise at this point.

  47. wmeyer says:

    JonPatrick, the issues I think have been critical to our present decline are a good deal further back than you suggest:
    Railroad land grants (1862)
    14th Amendment (1868)
    Interstate Commerce Act (1887)

    Each of these was an action which took the Federal government further into territory which was supposedly proscribed by the 10th amendment. The railroad land grants introduced Federal meddling in the economy. The 14th Amendment was a direct override of the 10th Amendment, and the Interstate Commerce Act was the most insidious of all, as it created the notion that the Federal government had the right to tamper with economy at any level it wished, premised on totally subjective arguments. It is on this precedent that most of the subsequent Federal legislation–arguably unconstitutional–has been based. And for good measure, add the Sherman Anti-trust Act, as it is another totally subjective collection of nonsense which invites the Feds to meddle.

    At any event, I would argue that the essential changes began 150 years ago.

  48. PA mom says:

    It is my opinion that these are not “just” lies, they are more like an invitation. The planting in the minds of the followers that the time is right for this next step.
    Very disturbing.

  49. Scarltherr says:

    It’s not that POTUS will FORCE gay weddings on us. He won’t need to. Those Catholics who voted for Obama and are formed by “conscience” in the “spirit of Vatican II” will take their walkers and plead to their priests for the blessing of the unions of their gay grandchildren. If they are denied, the grandchildren will sue. I offer a hypothetical vision of how this will happen at http://www.rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com

  50. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Jack Hughes said: “….why can’t God selectively punish those Catholics who did vote for him instead of me for something I did not do?”

    There’s this thing called cause and effect. Effects persist in the world after their causes are gone. For example, we’re still working on the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. So yeah, if this were the kind of videogame world that resets to the beginning every time someone enters it, none of us would have to deal with other people’s sins and mistakes. But we’re all in this world together.

    On the other hand, Jesus had to pay for all our sins, and He didn’t even commit one Himself. So He’s the one you should really feel sorry for.

  51. Suburbanbanshee says:

    On the good side, the effects of our good deeds are also persistent, and Jesus’ deeds are the most persistent of all. So be of good cheer!

  52. wmeyer says:

    frjim, I do not hate anyone. I do, however, hate what Obama has done and continues to do, to dismantle our republic. Nor am I surprised that you consider Carter, he of the interest rates over 20% and repealing laws against usury, an exemplar.

    What Obama is doing is taking us ever closer to lawless tyranny. And moreover, he is waging ware very clearly against religion. So far, most visibly against the Catholic Church, but only because it is the single largest denomination. Once the Church is tethered, he will have little difficulty with the others.

    By time for the next election, I fully expect that elections will be suspended, and that will be under martial law, or worse.

  53. Angie Mcs says:

    frjim: Jimmy Carter? Honest? The man was arrogant, ineffectual and came to Washington with his own group of Georgians, ready to prove to everyone he was right. He got nothing done, offended everyone, he brought no respect to thenoffice, and we had Americans held hostage for over a year as a slap in his face. They were released when Reagan took office, as another slap in Jimmy’s face. Since then , he has been bitter and has made the rounds of the talk shows as a “Statesman” , often to promote his books which show his side of history. He wasn’t derided for his integrity- he was derided for his ineptitude. But since he’s been busy promoting himself as such a decent man, doing charitable work, he has been reshaped into a better President – and person – than he was.

    This week he took a swipe at the Catholic Church about ordaining women, and he didn’t do it in a nice way, using nasty words. Why? Because he has always had a nasty streak and because he wants to be a big man in the picture again. He still cant get over himself for what happened in his term. He is a perfect sample of a ” pious” man, born again, who thinks he’s better than anyone else and he’s willing to tell anyone who listens. Let him go paint houses for Habitat for Humanity- and stop talking as if he’s our country’s conscience.

  54. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    The most honest president in the past 50 years was Jimmy Carter and he was derided for his integrity.

    I have never heard anyone deride Carter for integrity. On the other hand, he was widely considered incompetent.

  55. wmeyer says:

    Actually, the hostages were, in the end, rescued by our Canadian friends. Carter was inept, and almost as bad in office as the current occupant, but less sinister. I believe a good deal of what happened on Carter’s watch was simply from incompetence, not evil intent.

  56. Sissy says:

    frjim, Jimmy Carter is an open, unapologetic anti-Semite whose book Palestine, Peace not Apartheid, was a pastiche of lies stolen straight from Palestinian terrorists’ propaganda. He is probably the least honest President in history, and that’s say something.

  57. cjp says:

    The “state” will continue it’s slow erosion of all things “religious”. This will be it’s avenue to ultimately attack the church. In the eyes of the “state”, sacramental weddings will eventually be considered civilly invalid. Step by step, piece by piece, the totalitarians will try to dismantle over 200 years of republic history, and thousands of years of human history and natural law.

    Saint Francis Xavier Cabrini, Pray for us and the Rebublic

  58. HeatherPA says:

    frjim, I sometimes wonder if you go out of your way purposely to provoke people to offense, incredulity, or wonder at your seemingly deliberated attempts at being the token liberal moderator here, and then I wonder if you are a temptation sent to lose peace.
    At any rate, you are a good source of offerings. In addition, I also pray a lot, lot, lot for any souls you are in direction of.

  59. Kerry says:

    Bookworm, have you read Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural? I believe in the hopefully not too distant future, though sanguine about it, that people will look back at abortion as we do regarding slavery and say to themselves, “What were they thinking?”
    Interestingly, of Dred Scott, Justice Taney wrote, (if the Negros were recognized as citizens) “… it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”. (From Powerline, Dec. 26, 2012.) One of my imaginary signs to be held outside of PP reads: “The Supreme says it’s not a person. They also declared Negros were property”.)

  60. iowapapist says:

    Juergensen referred to an inevitable result of “creeping incrementalism”; legalized pederasty is on the horizon. I suppose we could refer to it as legalized pedophilia, but the main targets of the perverts in question are boys. Some may think that this is the Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” mentality, but did you really think, even 10 years ago, that legalized same-sex marriages would occur within your own lifetime? The change has happened with lightning speed. There are already organizations seeking to have the age of consent lowered (some to age 7). Think about it logically; why would a society that has no qualms with torturing and killing an unborn child object to merely sexually abusing those “fortunate” enough to be born. Our society will soon be desensitized to homosexual marriage and, when the time arrives, to legalized sexual relations with children. (there are historical examples of this type of normalization including areas of the Middle East). You say you’ve never seen Satan? Think again.

  61. PostCatholic says:

    You know, the American foundational documents like the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, along with their kissing kin the French Declaration of the Rights of do not rest on Catholic doctrine. They can be said only to be secondarily influenced by Christian teaching or the bible. The main philosophical sources for those documents are the Age of Enlightenment thinkers. Those names should begin with Baruch Spinoza and end somewhere around Immanuel Kant, and include Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes and most especially John Locke. They were the intellectual powerhouses answering the Counter-Reformation. I’m saying the political science that founded the United States was not only not Catholic, but decidedly not so.

    Locke was a Socinian and his ideas about natural rights “life, liberty and the pursuit of property” (familiar?) included early on a Letter on Toleration that proffers the ideas that 1. the state can’t reliably evaluate competing religious claims to truth; 2. even if they could, the state can’t forcibly compel belief (our minds are free) ; and 3. religious uniformity causes more disorder than allowing diversity. Not particularly Catholic idea, but they are very American ones and deliberately written into the US Constitution by Madison. And that’s what the President swears to “preserve, protect and defend.” So help him, (nature’s) God.

  62. PostCatholic says:

    That’s the French “Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.” And I had intended to add the Constitution of May 3rd, 1791. I was perhaps a bit overtired to be discussing the philosophes last night.

Comments are closed.