judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

David Silverman’s Regret

What happens when you defeat your opponent only to unleash something worse? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the new atheists? For a while, they were all the rage with people talking about them regularly. They made atheism more public than it had been before. While they had declared a war on religion, it was mainly Christianity. After all, Sam Harris began writing The End of Faith when 9/11 took place, and yet most of that was not geared towards Islam but Christianity.

And what is Sam Harris doing today? He’s well-known now for his remark about the 2020 election that he didn’t care if Hunter Biden had the bodies of dead children in his basement. All that mattered was getting Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, Harris’s statement is extremely problematic. He was willing to go with a known lie and sacrifice truth and lie to the public because, well, he knows what is better for them.

Silverman looks at what he saw and is aghast at it. I was recently pointed to an article he wrote on substack.

I cannot quote it entirely seeing as it is behind a paywall. (Remember, I have a Patreon below) However, I do have a friend who quoted a large part of it in sharing it. Basically, it’s about how the new atheism was supposed to destroy religion and thus create a utopia of freethought and rationalism where the days of insane religious ideas was behind us.

It didn’t work out that way.

First off, I am in no way saying the new atheists were really a formidable force. They weren’t. I have several blogs here on that front. However, they were certainly a force rhetorically. They had cute little slogans that seemed sensible, but most people weren’t interested in the unpacking necessarily to show their numerous errors.

Second, I am also sure if he were alive today that Christopher Hitchens would be one against this movement as well. That cannot be known for sure, but I do remember him as being one very interested in American history. When he visited SES for a debate, I was told he was impressed by the seminary and even offered to teach a course on Thomas Jefferson.

Third, and this is really important, I do want to commend Silverman on this. It takes a lot of guts to write a public article and say “I was wrong.” Silverman did that. We should not be attacking him for this. We should be commending him.

Now let’s look at the part that I have to quote.

I failed to consider that the members of my movement could reject skepticism yet label this rejection as skepticism to excuse their actions—and get away with it! I never envisioned that every significant player in the movement (save the fledgling Atheists for Liberty, on which I currently serve as Advisory Board Chair) would abandon our core principles and embrace the political hard Left, forsaking every belief and individual that was even slightly to the Right. I did not anticipate that the movement would leave the movement, become swallowed in Critical Social Justice, and lose its relevance and effectiveness in the process. I did not see it coming.

Man by nature is a religious creature. If you remove something for him to worship, he will find something else. That something could be himself, his own happiness. God is often a restraint in many ways on what a man can do. If a man knows there is a judge that He will stand before someday who has all the omni qualities, that can affect his living. If he knows what he does impacts for eternity, that should definitely affect his living.

While there is often something consistent between Christians and the right, the atheist movement saw it necessarily so. So why jump on the bandwagon to defend the LGBT group? Well, they oppose the Christians so let’s go for it! Anything that opposes Christianity is a friend since Christianity is seen as a great evil that has to be eradicated.

If man becomes the god, ultimately, that will pass to the state and who will become the new rulers? It will be those who consider themselves the elites. (Perhaps the term “brights” comes to mind?) It is a parallel with how the new atheists saw Christianity. After all, their opponents were the ones who were people of faith (Which they did not understand) and the new atheists were the people of reason. Obviously, reason is superior to faith. Right? Obviously then, what should be rejected are the standards the Christians lived with.

Thus, get rid of all of this outdated morality, especially when it comes to sex. Get rid of anything that is said to be “Faith-based” (A term I don’t like anyway.) If the Christians tend to want the people on the right to be our governing leaders, then we will reject that. Whatever we can use to paint Christians as the enemy, it will be done. If your identity is not to be found in Christ, then it will be found in your tribe instead.

So, what has happened since we “killed God”? Not atheist Utopia. We won the booby prize—the religion of wokeism has completely taken over the Left side of politics, splitting both families and the nation itself. Riding on a wave of vapid emotion and a juvenile refusal to apply skepticism, the Woke Left—mostly atheists—have embraced this belief system as though it were the greatest new religion ever. Maybe it is.

Any attempt by man to bring about Utopia on Earth has always failed. Always. My ex-wife was once going through a book about how what was being sought was progress and not perfection. Progress though requires a true goal. If progress is just wherever you are going, then everything is progress. However, if you are going the wrong direction, progress is turning around and going the other way.

Silverman is also right in that this has split families and our nation. The best way to split the nation is really to split the family. The family is the foundation. Remember that meme that was shared years ago before the Supreme Court redefined marriage about what would happen if “same-sex marriage” was allowed?

That bottom one? Yep. Happening now. It didn’t start falling apart when marriage was redefined, but that was a killing blow in many ways. I blame a lot of this going all the way back to the sexual revolution. We unleashed a power that we did not know what it was capable of.

And ironically as a Christian, I think what the chart says would happen didn’t, since two people of the same sex can’t marry each other no matter what the court says.

Could it be the sexual standards of Christianity had a point? Could it be there was a reason abortion was a great evil and reproduction was a great good? Could it be that there was a reason that marriage should be for life for the majority of people and that marriage isn’t about your personal happiness? Could it be there’s a danger that happens when sex is removed from the confines of marriage? Could it be there was a reason marriage was established as between one man and one woman?

The new atheists also saw Christians making their decisions based on emotion alone, something I have spoken against as well here, but made a mistake of thinking themselves immune to that. After all, they were the men of reason. They would not fall to such a thing. Unfortunately, they have. One of the surest signs you will fall for something is that you think you cannot fall for it.

I have said before that I am the man who has avoided pornography throughout my life. So in my dating life, I throw caution to the wind. Right? Wrong. Nowadays, I don’t go up elevators alone with women or ride in cars with them and if on a date, I would never go back to her place or have her come to mine. The moment I think I am above the temptation, I have started my fall.

However, lacking a deity, it allowed wokeism to reside within—and be propagated by—the state. This is why the Left has adopted it. We may have subdued the lion of Christianity, but we failed to eradicate religion; we merely revealed that the lion might have been safeguarding us from the Woke Kraken. This creature is now unshackled, entrenched in our government and education system, and is literally coming for your children.

Pay attention to that first part. Remove the deity, and the deity becomes something within. What is the means of the new evangelism? It is the State. When the Christians disagreed with you, they disagreed. They didn’t try to force their way. When the left disagrees, here comes the power of the State!

Silverman did not eradicate religion as was his goal. He instead just moved it somewhere else. He defeated in his mind what was the greater evil without realizing that that “evil” was keeping something else at bay. Chesterton said years ago that before you remove a fence, you should see why it was put up in the first place.

Christianity did serve to contain man’s great evil and propel him to something greater than himself, and not the state. It still does for many of us. It teaches us that there is a real king named Jesus and we owe our allegiance to Him. It teaches us that there is a real right and there is a real wrong and there is a purpose to our lives here and we are to seek more than just the temporary good.

This idea—that atheists should stop resisting and instead actively promote Christianity, perhaps even joining churches, in an attempt to fortify it so that it may defeat wokeism—is gaining traction. Evan Riggs wrote in the European Conservative: “This is a call for sheer pragmatism… Of the two inescapable religious choices before us, Christianity is undoubtedly the better option.” My friend Peter Boghossian echoed a similar sentiment, tweeting, “Better to believe that a man walked on water than all men can give birth.”

I have been pleased with what I have seen from Boghossian and Lindsay lately on this front, two writers I have critiqued on their work on atheism before. However, a word of caution to the atheist movement. You might just wind up seeing that there is a lot more reason and truth to Christianity than you thought. Be prepared. The king will not be used. Christianity is not a means to an end. We go with Christianity not because it produces the best end result, which it does, but because it is true.

Maybe you should consider that question as well.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

By Nick Peters and published on July 4, 2023 in Deeper Waters Apologetics and can be found here.

4th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Bars Suit by Catholic School Teacher Fired Over Same-Sex Marriage Plans

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, (4th Cir., May 8, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Catholic high school teacher’s suit alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII should be dismissed. The court’s majority held that the ministerial exception doctrine defeated the suit by the teacher of English and drama who was not invited back to teach after he announced plans to marry his same-sex partner. The majority, finding that the teacher should be classified as a “minister” for purposes of the ministerial exception, said in part:

[F]aith infused CCHS’s classes – and not only the expressly religious ones.  Even as a teacher of English and drama, Billard’s duties included conforming his instruction to Christian thought and providing a classroom environment consistent with Catholicism.  Billard may have been teaching Romeo and Juliet, but he was doing so after consultation with religious teachers to ensure that he was teaching through a faith-based lens….  The record makes clear that CCHS considered it “vital” to its religious mission that its teachers bring a Catholic perspective to bear on Shakespeare as well as on the Bible.   

Moreover, we note that Billard did – on rare occasions – fill in for teachers of religion classes…. CCHS’s apparent expectation that Billard be ready to instruct in religion as needed is another “relevant circumstance” indicating the importance of Billard’s role to the school’s religious mission.   

Our court has recognized before that seemingly secular tasks like the teaching of English and drama may be so imbued with religious significance that they implicate the ministerial exception.

The majority rejected the school’s argument for broadening statutory defenses to the Title VII claim.

Judge King filed an opinion concurring in the result but differing as to rationale. He said in part:

… I would neither reach nor resolve the First Amendment ministerial exception issue on which the majority relies.  I would decide this appeal solely on Title VII statutory grounds, that is, § 702 of Title VII…. [M]y good friends of the panel majority have unnecessarily resolved the appeal on the First Amendment constitutional issue.  In so ruling, they have strayed from settled principles of the constitutional avoidance doctrine and our Court’s precedent.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Joe Arcieri Songs: NOVA

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “NOVA” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

The Remaking of America

We are in the midst of one of the most radical revolutions in American history. It is as far-reaching and dangerous as the turbulent years of the 1850s and 1860s or the 1930s. Every aspect of American life and culture is under assault, including the very processes by which we govern ourselves, and the manner in which we live.

The Revolution began under the Obama administration that sought to divide Americans into oppressed and oppressors, and then substitute race for class victimization. It was empowered by the bicoastal wealth accrued from globalization, and honed during the COVID lockdown, quarantine-fed economic downturn, and the George Floyd riots and their aftermath. The Revolution was boosted by fanatic opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump. And the result is an America that is unrecognizable from what it was a mere decade ago.

Here are 10 upheavals that the Left has successfully wrought.

Free expression. In large swatches of American society—particularly the corporation, the media, the government, the public schools, and the university—it is suddenly dangerous to speak freely. At a DEI workshop, politely object that “whiteness” does not account for all the challenges of “marginalized peoples,” and you will become either ostracized, reprimanded, or perhaps fired.

Suggest to a class that man-made climate change and the state remedies for it, are still under debate—and your career and livelihood are endangered. In 2020, state that Covid lockdowns would do more eventual damage than the virus—and your career was through. Express doubt that there are more than two biological sexes, and if an athlete or high school principal you will be shunned or rendered professionally inert.

The government, in league with social media, censors the news. “Liberal” universities often first require McCarthy-era type “diversity” statements for one to be hired. Commissars review syllabi to spot incorrect or improper speech or insufficient DEI zeal.

The Left now seeks to modify the First Amendment, and its empowerment of “hate speech,” defined as most anything impeding the progressive project. The state and the universities properly issue word lists of approved vocabularies.

The old ACLU or Sen. Church Committee would now probably be deemed rightwing. The methodologies of Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover are the preferred models, once they were rebooted to the right cause.

The Weaponization of Justice. Administrations and their efforts to stock the justice department with supporters come and go. But in the last decade the Left has viewed the Department of Justice as a political extension of the party—whose unchecked power must properly be directed to hurt enemies and help friends. No wonder Eric Holder described himself as Obama’s “wingman” and became the first Attorney General to be held in contempt for ignoring a congressional subpoena.

Never in U.S. history have the Department of Justice and sympathetic state and local prosecutors indicted a leading opposition candidate and likely nominee of one of the two major parties, and at the beginning of a presidential campaign. Donald Trump is currently charged with nearly 100 felonies by at least two prosecutors. He likely eventually will be hit with more than- 500 indictments, from four prosecutors, every one of the latter with a long record of either leftwing associations or Democratic service.

The mass murderer Charles Manson faced less legal exposure. No one believes Trump would have been indicted on such counts—most of them involving allegations from years past—were he not running for President.

One count that Donald Trump is not charged with is bribery, or taking money while in office, a crime cited as impeachable in the Constitution and germane to the accusations that Joe Biden and his family raked in millions from foreign governments due to the improper use of his prior Vice Presidency. For what reason did Joe Biden lie that he never discussed his son’s business? Why did Hunter complain to his daughter that Joe demanded half of his own grifting income? Why would a Vice President serially call disreputable American grifters and foreign corrupt oligarchs? Can Joe’s lifestyle ever be reconciled with his reported income?

Given such asymmetry in the application of the laws, conservative or even apolitical Americans are apprehensive that any political prominence will draw the attention of government in effort to either indict or bankrupt them with legal expenses.

The last four FBI Directors have either admitted they lied under oath, or preposterously under oath claimed ignorance or amnesia about events directly under their control. Or they simply stonewalled subpoenas and testimonies about alleged FBI crimes. 

The former CIA Director admitted to lying twice under oath. The FBI hired social media corporations to suppress election-cycle news deemed unhelpful to the Left. The agency, along with Democratic operatives, helped hatch the election-cycle conspiracy of the 2015-2016 Russian-Collusion hoax, and the 2020 Russian disinformation laptop hoax. The FBI played a central role in many of the 2024 indictments. In other words, the FBI along with the DOJ, has sought to warp three presidential elections in a row.

On the prompt of a Joe Biden campaign official (and now Secretary of State) and a former interim CIA director, 50 former intelligence officials lied to the electorate that an authentic but incriminating Biden computer was a likely Russian plant—a fact known to be lie but not disclosed as such by the FBI.

The Attack on the Supreme Court. Once the Court achieved a more or less predictable conservative majority, the Left sought to diminish it in a variety of ways. It has called for packing the Court with leftist jurists to create a new 15-justice bench. Leftist law professors in the Ivy League, in neo-Confederate nullification and insurrectionary style, call for the nation to ignore Court rulings on abortion and affirmative action.

The Senate minority leader led a throng to the doors of the court, threatening justices by name: “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Protestors now mob the homes of individual justices hoping to intimidate them and alter their upcoming opinions—confident that the Department of Justice will exempt them from any legal consequences of such felonious behavior.

The media routinely accuses conservative justices of improper or illegal behavior, without worry about the emptiness of the charges. A traditionalist justice now accepts that a controversial ruling can result in media charges that he is corrupt, in shrieking protestors mobbing his home, in a mob assembling at the doors of the Court, in disruptions during Court hearings, in politicians issuing threats to his person, in congressional calls to alter the century-and-a-half make-up of the Court, and in Ivy League law professors urging the country to ignore majority decisions.

In sum, a conservative jurist must be careful where and when he goes out in public.

The Media-Democratic Fusion. If one were to listen during the last few years to NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, or read the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, or the Los Angeles Times, then one would have believed the following:

A) Donald Trump worked with the Russians to throw and win the 2016 election. As part of that skullduggery, frolicking amid prostitutes he urinated on a Moscow hotel bed to spite Barack Obama. B) He was mentally incapacitated as president and should have been removed under the 25th Amendment. C) In 2020, his campaign once more worked with the Russians to create an exact replica of Hunter Biden’s laptop, replete with dozens of lurid fake photos and hundreds of cleverly doctored emails to smear the Biden family and aid his own reelection effort. D) Trump as chief conspirator preplanned a violent and armed insurrection that sought to storm and permanently occupy the government, violently hijacking the balloting and seizing the presidency—resulting in the murder of a Capitol police officer and the subsequent deaths of other traumatized officers.

E) For the last eight years, none of Trump’s political opponents have ever destroyed subpoenaed evidence, conspired to hire foreign nationals to compile false and lurid files on him to subvert his political campaigns, or used their political offices to help solicit foreign money for family lobbyists. F) Trump is the first major candidate and politician who allegedly overvalued his real assets to obtain a loan that he repaid; the first to have concluded non-disclosure agreements with potential embarrassing liaisons; the first ex-president to remove sensitive files to his personal residence; and the first to phone a state official to whine about the integrity of the vote count. G) He is the first losing presidential candidate or major politician to question an election result or to seek redress through government agencies to rectify the purported corruption of the balloting.

In sum, for the first time in American history, nearly all the major communication and journalistic networks have been fused with a political party. They believe the new role of the media is to advance a shared progressive cause, oppose and even defame common opponents, and feed their audiences things that are not, and cannot possibly be, true.

The Destruction of Common Law. By defunding the police in major cities, and by showering leftwing district attorney candidates with millions of dollars in campaign funding, the Left systematically eroded the law as we know it in our major cities.

As a result, downtowns are after-dark, no-go zones, as once great metropolises resemble veritable combat theaters. Cities are becoming depopulated as consumers and businesses no longer find it safe to conduct commerce. Criminals and homeless now routinely break the law with impunity. Public violence, defecation, urination, fornication, and injection do not even rate as misdemeanors.

The Left has redefined violent crime to such an extent that shoplifting is no longer actionable. Flash mobs that take over streets and swarm to loot stores are rarely if ever arrested. Security officers who apprehend thieves or intervene to stop violence are more likely to be prosecuted than criminals themselves. There is no longer any immigration law; it has been utterly destroyed by Joe Biden. Seven-million illegal entrants flood into the U.S. and, along with the Mexican government, make demands on their hosts to accommodate their illegality.

In sum, in blue states and at the federal level, leftwing prosecutors and justices decide to enforce or ignore statutes, pile up or reduce indictments, increase or decrease punishments not on what the law entails, or evidence directs, but on the race, class, or ideology of the perpetrator, usually in connection with the particular status of his victims. If asymmetry in race, class, or ideology is suggested, then the law must modulate in redistributive fashion to contextualize the crime and criminal as a victim rather than a victimizer. The result is the veritable destruction of law and order as we once knew it.

The Erosion of the Military. Rarely has the American people polled so little confidence in the U.S. military. It perceives the Pentagon mission largely one to greenlight social change through the rapidity of the chain of command, not necessarily to maintain deterrence, much less to win all its wars. 

The Left has ensured that our armed forces are underfunded, short on munitions and weapons, and military officers are used to promote progressive social agendas. Officers expect to be promoted or stalled on the basis of their views on race and gender.

Those who traditionally died at twice their numbers in the general population in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are ostracized and in near record numbers leaving, while their friends and relatives are no longer enlisting in the military.

Former Pentagon four-star officers violated the Code of Uniform Military Justice in attacking a sitting president with the harshest invective, invoking comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini, again predictably from a leftwing point of view.

The public expects the Joint Chiefs to be both appointed on ideological considerations, and from time to time even to free-lance to contact enemy counterparts should they feel a conservative president is dangerous to world peace.

There is no longer any social stigma or legal jeopardy for retired officers in working as defense contractor lobbyists or board members, after revolving from or soon back to the Pentagon.

Sexes. The heterosexual male and female, marriage, and the nuclear family are all to be suspect. There are three sexes or perhaps still more. English language pronouns are inadequate to reflect sexual diversity.

So adherence to such ossified languages is career endangering. An epidemic of childlessness, singlehood, and collapsing fertility rates are either of no national importance or illustrate the preferred non-nuclear family model. Powerful hormonal drug regimens and permanent radical sex-change surgery should be the choices of minors alone who know best when they choose to transition to another sex. Graphic sex manuals and drag queen shows with simulated sex acts can perhaps acculturate preteens to the dangers of growing up in an oppressive “normative” binary society.

Sex, but not race, is constructed, and thus a matter not of biology but of individual choice.

Race, Not Class. Racial inequality and lack of parity are due to “whiteness.” Racial quotas, segregated dorms, graduations, workshops, and safe spaces are exempt from civil rights statutes given they are necessary to achieve equity. Integration and assimilation are the opiates of the masses. Apartheid and segregation are misunderstood modalities, and thus, if enlightened, sometimes necessary corrective measures.

Reparations are to supersede ineffective affirmative action. Wokeness liberates us to see how race explains everything in America, past and present. At universities and in popular culture “proportional representation” of various ethnicities and races is no longer sufficient remedy.

Instead reparatory hiring and admissions are required to atone for prior generations of discrimination. It is taboo to suggest that cultural conditions not just race accounts for inequality. Everything from meritocracy to promptness to physical fitness is racist in nature, requiring DEI experts to expose and inform about the systemic nature of American racism.

Debt is a Construct. Modern monetary theory proved that annual deficits and national debt are just a state accounting challenge. So printing more money is an act that properly diminishes the value of existing capital improperly horded by parasitic profiteers. Spreading the ensuing cash wealth to the more deserving and victimized is long overdue social justice.

At any time, the national “debt” can be deconstructed by renouncing usurious bond obligations, appropriating private retirement accounts, or further inflating the currency—if governments are committed enough to social justice.

Universities. It is now heresy that universities should be places of disinterested inquiry and inductive investigation. They can properly instead become a valuable tool in ridding society of racist and sexist forces, platitudes about free speech and equality under the law, and the tyranny of private property, capitalist profiteering, and white, male heterosexual Christian oppression.

So the role of a university is to create a brief safe space in which graduates can leave with proper training about the terrible history of the United States and the ways in which it must be dismantled and then be rebuilt by the properly trained experts from the ground up. Counterrevolutionaries or deluded liberals and their quaint adherence to a racist and archaic Bill of Rights have no place on these islands of progressive resistance.

None of the above was true at the millennium; all are now—with more still to come.

By Victor Davis Hanson and published in American Greatness on August 7, 2023 and can be found here.

Court Dismisses Suit Over Disclosure of Clergy-Penitent Conversation

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Stephens v. Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Dutchess Cty. NY Sup. Ct., April 29, 2024), a New York state trial court dismissed a suit for breach of fiduciary duty, infliction of emotional distress, hostile work environment and defamation brought by an Episcopal clergyman, who was also on the Roster of Ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Plaintiff had sought out pastor Christopher Mietlowski for a confidential confessional conversation about an extramarital affair. Despite the assurance of confidentiality, Mietlowski disclosed the information to the bishop of the New York Synod of the ELCA who in turn disclosed the information to plaintiff’s wife who was also a pastor. The bishop also disclosed the information to the Episcopal Church which suspended plaintiff’s license to officiate. Subsequently, ELCA removed plaintiff from its roster of clergy.

The court held that even though New York has codified the clergy-penitent privilege, that provision does not give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when a conversation between a congregant and a member of the clergy is disclosed. The court also rejected plaintiff’s claims growing out of his removal from the roster of ministers of the ELCA saying that this was an ecclesiastical decision about a minister’s qualifications to serve which is beyond the power of civil courts to review.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Templeton Project: The Beatitudes–Part II

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “The Beatitudes–Part II.”

See also:

_____________________________

We have come to the second part of an extended series on discipleship and the teachings of Jesus in Matthew.  These teachings are found in five blocks of material that are found at various places in the Gospel.  We continue our examination of The Sermon on the Mount where we find at the beginning what are known as the beatitudes.

Those who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those persecuted for righteousness’ sake are blessed.  Unsaid, though clear, is the fact that God is the One who blesses such people and rewards them with a place in the kingdom of heaven.  Every disciple is characterized by the qualities mentioned.

In other passages in Matthew, the poor are those who lack money and possessions; but, in the beatitudes ‘poor in spirit’ doesn’t quite mean the same.  We may have a clue to its significance later in the Gospel.  In Matthew 11: 5 John the Baptist’s disciples on behalf of  John ask Jesus if He is the One who is to come.  Jesus answers that the blind see; the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed; the deaf hear; the dead are raised; and the poor have the Gospel preached to them (Matthew 11: 4.5 ESV).  The poor are receptive to the message.   In Isaiah 57:15 we read: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite heart and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” (ESV)  The spirit of the lowly is comparable to the poor in spirit. They are the ones who are receptive to the Gospel message and will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Those who mourn wait with expectation and fervent hope for the turning of the ages that will bring in the fullness of the kingdom.  Their hearts yearn for what has not been fulfilled.  In Isaiah the One upon whom the spirit rests is anointed, among other things, to comfort those who mourn in ashes.  With rich imagery the prophet declares that their predicament will change from mourning to gladness.  Those who mourn will receive a beautiful headdress, the oil of gladness, and the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit.  They await the eschatological act of God that will change their condition from mourning to gladness.

In Psalm 37 we find a reference to the meek.  “In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there. But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace.”  (Psalm 37: 10-11 ESV)  The Psalmist contrasts the meek with the wicked.

There are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.  In Matthew righteousness is, first of all, a characteristic of God.  Jesus says to John the Baptist, when the prophet resists baptizing Him, “Let it be so for now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3: 15 ESV)  Jesus is set on His mission to bring salvation.  He is the One the Father declares from heaven to be the beloved Son.  The angel tells Joseph to call the baby to be born, Jesus, which means “. . . he will save his people from their sins.”  (Matthew 1: 21 ESV)  Jesus perfectly fulfills the Father’s will, God’s righteousness.  He is faithful to His mission that culminates in the sending of the disciples into the world with the saving message of the kingdom of heaven, made possible by His sacrificial death and victorious resurrection.

God is merciful.  When people in desperate need come near to Jesus, they cry, “Lord, have mercy.”  Jesus heals them.  Christ who is merciful expects His disciples to be merciful.  He bids us, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’   For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”  (Matthew 9: 13 ESV)  The context for this saying is a house, perhaps Matthew’s, where Jesus was at table.  Matthew was a tax collector.  The Pharisees wondered why Jesus was eating among such notorious and persistent sinners as Matthew.  Jesus points out that the healthy don’t need a physicians, but the sick do.  He is the physician who can make us well.  Jesus’ going to the sinners is an act of God’s mercy.  We disciples are to proclaim the mercy of God in Christ.

In Matthew 18 Jesus tells a parable of a servant whose master forgives him his debt; but, he would not forgive the debt of one who owed him money.  The master says to the unforgiving servant, “I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.  And should you not have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” (Matthew 18: 32-33 ESV)  This parable reminds one of the petition in the Lord’s Prayer where we pray, “. . . and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors..”  (Matthew 6: 12 ESV)

The pure in heart are clean within, not like the scribes and the Pharisees.  In Matthew 23 Jesus criticizes the Jewish leaders for being clean on the outside but unclean on the inside.  Disciples are clean inside out.  They serve justice and mercy and faithfulness, the weightier matters of the Law.

Disciples are also peacemakers. Matthew 10, where Jesus sends out the apostles (the Twelve) to evangelize, may give some insight into what this means in the Gospel.  Jesus sends out the disciples to go to the “lost sheep of Israel.”  The Gentile mission will come after Jesus’ resurrection.  The Twelve are to proclaim,  “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” the same message that both John the Baptist and Jesus proclaim.  They are also to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons, that is, to do what Jesus was doing.

Jesus tells the disciples while on this mission to stay with those who are worthy–a word used often in chapter ten and twice elsewhere. In chapter 22 in the parable of the wedding feast, those invited who refuse to come are not worthy. Upon a worthy house the apostles are to pronounce peace.  This tangible peace can be withdrawn from the house that is not worthy.  This peace but specifically is the peace which is God’s salvation.  Peacemakers are those that both receive and bring salvation.  They are receptive to the message of the Gospel.

Finally, the blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake.  The righteous follow Jesus and produce fruit in what they do.  They represent the good tree that bears good fruit.  A disciple’s  righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5: 20) who “. . . preach but do not practice. . . ” (Matthew 23: 3 ESV) God’s will and persecute the truly righteous. God is righteous, and we are called to conform to His righteousness.

And yet, Jesus has not come to call the righteous, but sinners.  In Matthew’s house, where He is reclining at table, Jesus is criticized for eating with sinners.  Jesus had come among the sick as a physician.  We have known His mercy; thus, we too are to be merciful.  Our calling is to be among the sinners so that we may bring them to Christ, the Merciful One.  We cry, “Lord, have mercy,” and Christ shows us mercy.

In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminds us of our identity, ” You are the light of the world . . . ” (Matthew 5: 14 ESV)  “. . . let your light shine before others, so that they may see you good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5: 16b ESV)  These words remind us of I Peter where we are urged to do the good and suffer only for righteousness’ sake so that we will be blessed–words reminiscent of The Sermon on the Mount (I Peter 3: 13ff)  Our witness and defense are greatly undercut by any misconduct.  “. . . it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” (I Peter 3: 17b ESV)  It is in this section of I Peter that our verses for this blog about giving a good defense with gentleness and respect are cited.

Michael G. Tavella

Saint Hilary of Poitiers

January 13, 2024

Joe Arcieri Songs: Deep Space

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “Deep Space” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

Plastic Recycling Doesn’t Work and Will Never Work

If the plastics industry is following the tobacco industry’s playbook, it may never admit to the failure of plastics recycling.

Americans support recycling. We do too. But although some materials can be effectively recycled and safely made from recycled content, plastics cannot. Plastic recycling does not work and will never work. The United States in 2021 had a dismal recycling rate of about 5 percent for post-consumer plastic waste, down from a high of 9.5 percent in 2014, when the U.S. exported millions of tons of plastic waste to China and counted it as recycled—even though much of it wasn’t.

Recycling in general can be an effective way to reclaim natural material resources. The U.S.’s high recycling rate of paper, 68 percent, proves this point. The problem with recycling plastic lies not with the concept or process but with the material itself.

The first problem is that there are thousands of different plastics, each with its own composition and characteristics. They all include different chemical additives and colorants that cannot be recycled together, making it impossible to sort the trillions of pieces of plastics into separate types for processing. For example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET#1) bottles cannot be recycled with PET#1 clamshells, which are a different PET#1 material, and green PET#1 bottles cannot be recycled with clear PET#1 bottles (which is why South Korea has outlawed colored PET#1 bottles.) High-density polyethylene (HDPE#2), polyvinyl chloride (PVC#3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE#4), polypropylene (PP#5), and polystyrene (PS#6) all must be separated for recycling.

Just one fast-food meal can involve many different types of single-use plastic, including PET#1, HDPE#2, LDPE#4, PP#5, and PS#6 cups, lids, clamshells, trays, bags, and cutlery, which cannot be recycled together. This is one of several reasons why plastic fast-food service items cannot be legitimately claimed as recyclable in the U.S.

Another problem is that the reprocessing of plastic waste—when possible at all—is wasteful. Plastic is flammable, and the risk of fires at plastic-recycling facilities affects neighboring communities—many of which are located in low-income communities or communities of color.

Unlike metal and glass, plastics are not inert. Plastic products can include toxic additives and absorb chemicals, and are generally collected in curbside bins filled with possibly dangerous materials such as plastic pesticide containers. According to a report published by the Canadian government, toxicity risks in recycled plastic prohibit “the vast majority of plastic products and packaging produced” from being recycled into food-grade packaging.

Yet another problem is that plastic recycling is simply not economical. Recycled plastic costs more than new plastic because collecting, sorting, transporting, and reprocessing plastic waste is exorbitantly expensive. The petrochemical industry is rapidly expanding, which will further lower the cost of new plastic.

Despite this stark failure, the plastics industry has waged a decades-long campaign to perpetuate the myth that the material is recyclable. This campaign is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s efforts to convince smokers that filtered cigarettes are healthier than unfiltered cigarettes.

Conventional mechanical recycling, in which plastic waste is ground up and melted, has been around for many decades. Now the plastics industry is touting the benefits of so-called chemical recycling— in which plastic waste is broken down using high heat or more chemicals and turned into a low-quality fossil fuel.

In 2018, Dow Chemical claimed that the Renewlogy chemical-recycling plant in Salt Lake City was able to reprocess mixed plastic waste from Boise, Idaho, households through the “Hefty EnergyBag” program and turn it into diesel fuel. As Reuters exposed in a 2021 investigation, however, all the different types of plastic waste contaminated the pyrolysis process. Today, Boise burns its mixed plastic waste in cement kilns, resulting in climate-warming carbon emissions. This well-documented Renewlogy failure has not stopped the plastics industry from continuing to claim that chemical recycling works for “mixed plastics.”

Chemical recycling is not viable. It has failed and will continue to fail for the same down-to-earth, real-world reasons that the conventional mechanical recycling of plastics has consistently failed. Worse yet, its toxic emissions could cause new harm to our environment, climate, and health.

We’re not making a case for despair. Just the opposite. We need the facts so that individuals and policy makers can take concrete action. Proven solutions to the U.S.’s plastic-waste and pollution problems exist and can be quickly replicated across the country. These solutions include enacting bans on single-use plastic bags and unrecyclable single-use plastic food-service products, ensuring widespread access to water-refilling stations, installing dishwashing equipment in schools to allow students to eat food on real dishes rather than single-use plastics, and switching Meals on Wheels and other meal-delivery programs from disposables to reusable dishware.

If the plastics industry is following the tobacco industry’s playbook, it may never admit to the failure of plastics recycling. Although we may not be able to stop them from trying to fool us, we can pass effective laws to make real progress. Single-use-plastic bans reduce waste, save taxpayer money spent on disposal and cleanup, and reduce plastic pollution in the environment.

Consumers can put pressure on companies to stop filling store shelves with single-use plastics by not buying them and instead choosing reusables and products in better packaging. And we should all keep recycling our paper, boxes, cans, and glass, because that actually works.

Judith Enck is a former EPA regional administrator, the president of Beyond Plastics, and a visiting professor at Bennington College.

Jan Dell is a chemical engineer and the founder of the Last Beach Cleanup

By Judith Enck and Jan Dell and published in The Atlantic on May 30, 2022 and can be found here.

New HIPPA Rules Protect Against Disclosure to Law Enforcement of Out-of-State Abortions

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

On April 22, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules under HIPPA to protect the privacy of reproductive health care.  The rules were adopted in a 291-page Release (full text) (press release). The rules are designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. A Fact Sheet issued by the Department of Health and Human Services summarizes the new rules, saying in part:

The Final Rule strengthens privacy protections by prohibiting the use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) by a covered health care provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse—or their business associate—for either of the following activities:

To conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation into or impose criminal, civil, or administrative liability on any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive health care, where such health care is lawful under the circumstances in which it is provided.

The identification of any person for the purpose of conducting such investigation or imposing such liability.

… [T]he prohibition applies where…:

The reproductive health care is lawful under the law of the state in which such health care is provided under the circumstances in which it is provided….

The reproductive health care is protected, required, or authorized by Federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the state in which such health care is provided….

19th News reports on the new rules. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

You can learn more about this issue here.

Templeton Project: The Will of the Father–Part I

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “The Will of the Father–Part I.”

See also:

_____________________________

We begin here with a series on discipleship and witness.

The Will of the Father

At the end of Matthew 12, we are told that Jesus’ mother and brothers wish to speak with Him.  He responds in a striking, unsettling way. “‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward the disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’” (Matthew 12: 48b-50 ESV)  Those then who follow Christ are His true family.  Though we may recoil at Jesus’ response to His mother and brothers, we must realize that the eschatological family of Christ is to have a high priority in our lives, even greater than our blood families. The family of Christ, the Church, stands just below Christ Himself as the highest priority in the Christian life.  Christ’s disciples are those who do the will of His Father in heaven, reflected in His teachings.

What does Jesus mean when He speaks of the will of the Father?  In The Sermon on the Mount where Jesus teaches the Lord’s Prayer, He prays to the Father ‘thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  In Jesus’ teachings found in this context (Matthew 5-7), we are given a clear idea of what it means to do His will. Some examples are:

  1.   Do not be angry with a brother or sister (Brother and sister refer to Christians in this context).
  2.   Don’t be lustful in your heart toward any woman.
  3.   Do not retaliate against another.
  4.   Love your enemies
  5.   Pray, fast, give to the needy in secret without public display.
  6.   Don’t lay up treasures on earth, but in heaven.
  7.   Don’t be anxious and put the kingdom of heaven first.
  8.   “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” (Matthew 12: 12 ESV)

Next time we will discuss what a disciple is like according to the Beatitudes in The Sermon on the Mount.

Michael G. Tavella

Baptism of Our Lord

January 7, 2024

Post Navigation