April 2, 2016

CathCon Saturday - 4/2/2016

Alice Stoddard - Monhegan Island Harbor

The Clash of Philosophies - Leon Aron, AEI

The Tempering of Democracy - David T. Koyzis, First Things

Nathan Deal: A Profile in Cowardice - Michael Avramovich, Touchstone

Making Progress: Dehumanizing Humanity - Michael Quinlan, Imaginative Conservative

Towards Tyranny: Why America Needs God - T. Renee Kozinski, Imaginative Conservative

Anti-Bullying: Can the Schools be Trusted? - Mike Rappaport, Liberty Law Blog

Progressivism's Dark Side - George J. Marlin, The Catholic Thing

A Literary Guide To Our Orwellian Nightmare - Marc Fitch, The Federalist

Mississippi Moves to Protect Religious Freedom on Marriage - Ryan J. Anderson, Daily Signal

April 1, 2016

CathCon Daily - 4/1/2016

Albert Rieger - Gebirgsbach

Reform Party Revenge - David Marcus, City Journal

A Break with Orthodoxy - Judith Miller, City Journal

Trump is No Pro-Lifer - Robert George, First Things

Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”: Faith Triumphant - Sean Fitzpatrick, Imaginative Conservative

Birth of a Tyrant: The Dreams of the Mob - Christopher Morrissey, Imaginative Conservative

Cruel and Unusual - Theodore Dalrymple, Liberty Law Blog

New “LGBT Rights” in International Human Rights Law - Weber & Lin, Public Discourse

Mississippi Turns Back to Firing Squads - Charles C.W. Cooke, NRO

Asceticism: The Alternative to “Hope and Change” - Timothy D. Lusch, Crisis

Euthanasia by Organ Harvesting - Wesley J. Smith, First Things

Sorry State of Free Speech at Harvard Law School - Ed Whelan, NRO

Many College Students Never Learn to Write Sentences - John G. Maguire, Pope Center

Understanding Realpolitik - William Anthony Hay, Liberty Law Blog

Sovereign Debt Crises, Justice, and State Authority - Samuel Gregg, Public Discourse

The Plea Of The Little Sisters - Richard A. Epstein, The Federalist

Equality Run Amok—Women’s Soccer Version - Roger Pilon, Cato

March 31, 2016

CathCon Daily - 3/31/2016

The site I use for my news feeds is down, and I need to travel today, so I am posting a piece from my archives. Many of my newer readers may not have seen this. It's called "Fisking the Millennial Whine," and comes from October of last year. Enjoy!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Neal Dewing, at "The Federalist" blog, has already fisked this post by Lisa Earle McLeod and her (millennial) daughter, Elizabeth McLeod: "Why Millennials Keep Dumping You: An Open Letter to Management." But it needs more response. I just have to try and get my emotions under control and try to be somewhat charitable, at least in tone.

Let's start at the very beginning: This post was cowritten with Elizabeth McLeod, a millennial and cum laude graduate of Boston University, and daughter of Lisa Earle McLeod.

If this is a post about why millennials keep quitting their positions, why is Mom a co-author? What role could she possibly fill in writing about why her daughter is quitting? Is there some truth to the claims that millennials, in addition to being "raised to believe [they] could change the world," also have difficulty managing their lives and, in some cases, an inability to function at university at all" due to helicopter parenting? Dear Ms. McLeod (the Younger): if you want anyone to take you seriously, change the world without involving your parents at every step. Everything you write and publish like this is a job interview - if an employer thinks Mom is going to be ghosting around the workplace, helping out, offering suggestions, and doing your job, you're not going to be hired. As noted by Ashley Stahl, in Forbes (which also links to this study), when she discovered a woman made a conference call with her Mom in situ:
The client paperwork I printed in advance of the call confirmed that there was no confusion on my end: Rachel was a 26-year-old Cornell graduate. She spent the last two years serving with Teach for America . She had a master’s degree in education.
She was looking to hire me because she wanted to get clarity on her next career move – arguably one of the most important and independent decisions any of us will tackle in adulthood.
… So why did her mom need to be on the call?
With that said, early in the letter comes: "One of us, Elizabeth, wrote this letter." 

Wait. You said Mom was a co-author.  Then, she's explicitly taken out of that role. Apparently, Mom is not a "co-author" but simply a person who gave you a place to voice your concerns. But, one is left with the sneaking suspicion that Mom was also involved in the editing and composition of the letter itself.  Let's talk about this for a moment. Soon after your authorial confusion, you (both of you? one of you?) claim that retaining millennials is a "burning issue" because:
We’re the ones who’ve mastered social media, who have the energy of a thousand suns, and who will knock back 5-dollar macchiatos until the job is done perfectly.
Except, apparently, many of you cannot do the job perfectly. Look at your incoherence about who, exactly, is filling the roles in the blog post. Many millennials cannot write, and they often cannot read. For example:
I'm a millennial, but quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by our laziness. We have a hard time reading something longer than an odd-numbered numbered listicle. We don't have the patience to absorb a text or question the arguments embedded in the sentences. We want to reach a conclusion without having to think critically. Preferably, in under 140 characters - Madeline Hill
(or)
While they are undoubtedly social-media savvy, living their lives online in 140 characters or fewer, many of the younger potential workers lack very basic skills because of it, according to some employers.
“Writing skills -- people don’t write as much as they used to. They’re texting, so they forget to write in complete sentences and articulate their written skills professionally,” said Jeff Dunn, an Intel campus relations manager. - Claire Doan
(or)
“I spent a considerable amount of time explaining the process, sent a detailed document on how to write a nonfiction book proposal, and offered help along the way in his preparation of the proposal,” says Garner, author of the book “Raising Respectful Children in a Disrespectful World” and founder of Manners of the Heart, which teaches children, parents and business professionals how to increase respectfulness in daily communication.
His response: “Oh, I understand. You don’t want to really help me. You want me to do all the work.” (Mike drop.) - Mackenzie Dawson
Your mastery of social media has come at the expense of being able to write and read coherently. Of course, you may have been informed someplace along the line that grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. are not important in "today's world." You were fed a gigantic lie.

Dewing has addressed the issues with your desire to tell people how to do discipline your co-workers, how you want to "make a difference to...customers" and have "on fire" co-workers. I do not think I can, nor need, add much to his on those counts. But I will note the conspicuous lack of something in your blog post.

You never, anywhere, address doing it yourself. Oh, you want to "give you everything I’ve got" and you "need to know it makes a difference to something bigger than your bottom line," but you cannot conceive of going out and doing something to actually make a difference? Mark Zuckerberg became a billionaire at age 23 because he dropped out of Harvard and took a huge risk. G Adventures was founded out of an apartment by a 22-year old risking his credit and the easy life to found the company. Google was founded by two Stanford Ph.D. students who had to go around seeking venture capital, reaching out to giants of industry, and putting working for other companies on hold.

Let's face it. You want it your way, right away, without having to work for it, and without having to take risks to get it. You don't want to actually risk anything to change the world - you want to get hired by someone else to do it and let someone else worry about the hard work. And, if you don't like the way they want to save the world, you can always quit....

March 30, 2016

CathCon Daily - 3/30/2016

Weymouth Bay - John Constable

The Biggest Abuse of the False Claims Act Ever - Ilya Shapiro, Cato

Niskanen and Welfare Policy - Will Wilkinson, Niskanen

A Kirkian Renaissance - H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Liberty Law Blog

How Liberal Policies Destroyed Black Families - Crystal Wright, Daily Signal

A Prescription for Religious Liberty - Ed Whelan, NRO

Lifetime Marijuana Use Correlated With Troubled Middle Age - Alexandra Ossola, Popular Science

Things That Can't Change - George Weigel, First Things

Jail v. Execution - Steve Kellmeyer, New Reform Club

Walker Percy’s Last Self-Help Book - Peter Augustine Lawler, NRO

If Adjuncts Are Treated Unfairly, Is There a Solution? - George Leef, Pope Center

State Department Loses Another Round in Clinton Email Fiasco - Hans von Spakovsky, Daily Signal

Tolkien & Anglo-Saxon England - Bradley J. Birzer, Imaginative Conservative

Ethical Dangers--or Benefits?--of New Technology - Daniel Ross Goodman, Public Discourse

The State: From God, or the Devil? - Bruce Frohnen, Crisis

Left Panics Over Commonsense N.C. Bill - Jane Clark Scharl, NRO

The Constitution of Habeas Corpus - Bruce Frohnen, Nomocracy in Politics

Who Said it? Sanger or Rand? - John Ellis, PJ Media

The Citizen's Share - Jack Quirk, Distributist Review

March 28, 2016

CathCon Daily - 3/28/2016


Seascape Sunset - Martin Heade

On Play and Seriousness - J.V. Schall, University Bookman

Walker Percy and Donald Trump - Peter Augustine Lawler, NRO

The Misleading Science of Bill McKibben - American Interest

Old-Time Hollywood Religion, Part II - Carl Eric Scott, NRO

Belgium and "Our Values" - Robert Royal, The Catholic Thing

Even as They Retire, It's Still About the Boomers - Joel Kotkin, New Geography

Mother Angelica - RIP - Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Stupid Psychopath Problem - Kevin D. Williamson, NRO

The Emperor is Wearing Pajamas - John Horvat, Imaginative Conservative

Advice for a Catholic Neophyte - Rachel Lu, Crisis

We're in a Mess, So to Speak - Jim Geraghty, NRO

History versus Ideologies of Oppression - Mark Pulliam, Liberty Law Blog

The Psychology Behind The Trump Phenomenon - A.D.P. Efferson, The Federalist

Why America Is Obsessed With Survivalism - M.G. Oprea, The Federalist

The Catholic Enlightenment - Today and Yesterday - William Doino, Jr., First Things

Victimhood Culture and Emory - Jonathan Haidt, Heterodox Academy

Lessons From Jim Harrison’s ‘Legends Of The Fall’ - Nicole Russell, The Federalist

March 27, 2016

The Modern Iconoclasts

On the Wikimedia Commons site today, there is a beautiful picture of the Church of the Cross and Resurrection at the monastery of St. Anthony in Egypt. I place it here for your consideration:


As I looked at it, I pondered the actions of ISIS and the Taliban in destroying sacred images of any variety, such as the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the Temple of Bel in Palmyra. In both cases, destruction was suspected not only because ISIS wishes to show strength, but because ISIS, like other fundamental Muslim movements, believes that any religious symbol is problematic as it may lead to idol worship.

Being ADHD and INTP, I cannot help but think of other instances of iconoclasm. For instance, the Iconoclasm of the 8th and 9th centuries in the Eastern Church. However, I have in mind also the iconoclasm of our modern era.

Before I get into that, I want to have a brief discussion of symbols and the symbolic. This is a somewhat difficult proposition. The field of semiotics is implicated heavily in any such discussion. Pursuant to Wikipedia: "Semiotics (also called semiotic studies; not to be confused with the Saussurean tradition called semiology which is a part of semiotics) is the study of meaning-making, the study of sign processes and meaningful communication." For those who want to delve deeper, there is a more extensive discussion here.

In essence, what I propose for this post is to use the idea of a symbol as pointing to something beyond itself. We infuse symbols with meaning, which then come to "represent" those meanings. In this post, I am thinking of symbol on a cultural level, whereby groups of people assign meanings to objects, art, or other symbols. I should also note that symbols are complex - any given thing may represent different ideas to different people, and in fact, clashes over the symbolic run deep beneath many political and personal disagreements.

Christianity, especially Catholicism and Orthodoxy, are "symbolic" faiths. Among most Christian churches the symbol par excellence is, of course, the cross and crucifix. But there are many others - the Eucharist, Icons, Churches, the Pelican, the Fish, and so forth. However, Christians also view their works as an outward symbol of an inner faith. In the Epistle of James, from the New Testament, the author mandates works to be associated with Faith, saying:
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. James 2: 14-26 RSVCE.
So, as it has long been mandated that Christians do good works, Christians have long been involved and public and private charity, which continues to the present. Examples include hospitals, nursing homes, food banks, clothing banks, and hospice centers. In addition, due to the importance of educating the young, part of Christians' works have involved operating schools, catechesis, Bible studies, and so on. David Bentley Hart, in his book "Atheist Delusions" gives the following examples:


Returning to the present time, we can see what can only be described as a concerted effort to force the visible symbols of Christianity out of the public eye. One may think first here of the various lawsuits aimed at removing the Cross, Crucifix, and 10 Commandments from any public lands. However, there are many other examples, such as the government's passage and implementation of the PPACA (a/k.a "Obamacare") which contained an exception to its insurance requirements only for religioua entities which ran their own mutual aid system (rather than buying insurance). In addition, in order to obtain an exception from covering birth control under the PPACA, an entity would have to share these characteristics:
(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under the Internal Revenue Code”
This would exclude the majority of Catholic charities who serve any comers, as well as hospitals, schools, and other Christian institutions.

Christians are often at a loss as to why secularists (and here I use the term to refer to those who want to secularize the public square) want to push coverage of contraception on groups like Little Sisters of the Poor, or Christian companies like Hobby Lobby. As is often repeated in atheist vs. Christians groups online, by Christians (as an example): "If you don't believe in God, why are you so worried about crosses on public land?" There are many other, related, arguments. Secularists just as often state that, while they have no problem with Christians and internal belief, it should not be permitted in the public square.

What secularists do understand is that these works and symbols have meaning to Christians. However, secularists often (though not all and every one) have a completely different set of meanings attached to Christian symbols, such as the cross. To secularists, Christianity represents a backward and patriarchal system, which is, at its core, deeply anti-modern. To secularists, especially of a progressive bent, therefore, the manifestations of  faith in works is a visible sign of the anti-modern, regressive, anti-progress and so on. This is why it really does not matter that Christians do good with any given institution, to these militant secularists. Rather, they seek to eradicate the icons (loosely speaking) of the Christian faith as used in public, in order to remove the symbols' power to influence, in order to forward progressive ideals, such as (enforced) (in)tolerance, radical equality, and so on.

Therefore, Christians should not be at all surprised that secularists oppose even the operation of religious schools or charities, especially if they receive public funds. To them, this is the feeding of a symbol or symbols which should no longer exist in the public square.