Great show. I noticed Tim listed three freedoms: 1) Freedom to do what is good. 2) Freedom from the evil (diabolic) 3) Freedom to do all action that doesn't infringe on other citizens' rights. (1) was endorsed by all, (3) was rejected by all but neither Dom nor Jake touched (2). Personally I think it speaks to the subjects at the heart of Tradition such as that presented in Mirari Vos. You would think the implementation would require constrictions on movement, settling or at least public conduct and remove violators from the region at least in aggregious cases. I think it's intriguing how it mimics the many descriptions of heaven in the new testament as a gated community or a walled keep / walled city where the reign of Christ is and a wild outer darkness surrounding.
Great show! I wanted to comment on the 1st amendment. It was meant to regulate political speech in particular. It also applied only to the general government and was not to apply to the states. States could regulate speech in their own territory. The constitution was not meant to be incorporated into the states
For a discussion on Liberty in the American tradition see David Hacken Fischer’s Albion Seed. There were different views of freedom in rhetoric colonies depending on who settled ie. The puritans in New England vs the Cavaliers in Virginia
To the point about the military, the projection of American military power via bases around the world is an essential aspect of our nation's existence. The problem with any sort of defensive only military is that it ignores the realpolitik of other advanced nations who are adversarial or outright hostile to the US. Using the principle of subsidiarity, we would still arrive at the military we have today, with National Guards run by each State for domestic purposes controlled by their respective governors, that could be activated for national threats. If you actually want peace at home, you need to ensure you can respond swiftly and effectively to foreign threats around the globe (deterrence). This includes threats to our economy. If we can not ensure a steady inexpensive supply of essential goods (everything from crude oil to the most advanced microchips), then it doesn't matter how secure the homeland is. The nation could be brought to its knees without firing a single round.
Dom knows more theology than I do. So, I respect him for that, but I hope he'll explain what makes him agree with Dignitatis Humanae. As a traditionalist Catholic, I believe religion should be public. But should a Catholic society let say non-Catholics practice their religions when their rituals might scandalize Catholics or make them doubt Catholiic doctrine?
This is a REALLY good question! I honestly don’t think I can answer here in the comment section. I just want to affirm your statement that “Religion should be public.” All I can do here is recommend three books (even if you don’t read them it’s good to be aware of them): (1) “Before Church and State” by Andrew Willard Jones, (2) “The Myth of Religious Violence” by William Cavanaugh, and most importantly (3) “The Politics of the Real: The Church between Liberalism and Integralism” by David Schindler. God bless!
They're right. I'm a native-born patriotic American and an anti-liberal monarchist. Since I reject liberalism in each sense of that word, I've become a North American High Tory. I also ignore Independence Day, July 4, because the American Revolutionary War was unjust. For me, "American conservatism" is a paradox because American conservatives are Lockean classical liberalsm.
Agreed on all points, except I celebrate the 4th because Patriotism is a virtue. The Declaration is a mixed bag, but even Loyalists or neutral parties can celebrate the day with fellow Americans as a Patriotic Thanksgiving for our States. -TSF
RE: the local common good Real charity is the prerogative of the individual Catholic and of the Catholic Church! Incentivise the return of the religious orders to run their traditional works of mercy with NO government partnership or money.
The anti-establishment clause of the first amendment is not practical atheism. It was a reaction to Anglican establishment in England, Lutheranism in Germany and Catholicism.
It was an alternative to confessional states to solve the problem of religious conflict in a nation that was already settled by a multiplicity of religious sects. Basically, the solution is panprotestantism: toleration of the tolerant. Notice Catholicism doesn't fit in that because we actually have an absolute truth claim that would call for the end of protestant faiths via conversion. This intolerance was unacceptable to the founding fathers by and large. The hope was if we found our society on commerce and mutual cooperation/competition, then we will be incentivized to put aside our differences and live in peace. This creates an incentive to not have strongly held religious beliefs that might cause friction between groups of citizens. Jefferson hoped that everyone would eventually be deistic, culturally Christian if you will, believing in God, but only in a loosely moral, therapeutic sense. And today, that's exactly what we have. Regardless of what religion you confess, chances are that you believe in a deistic moral therapeutic God. Such a God doesn't have anything controversial to say, can't have a relationship with you, is no longer acting in this world, but makes you feel good and tells you how to be a generally "good person". Eventually, people see that such a God is of no real use, probably fictional, and can be easily replaced with secular ethics and psychology. So, in the end, it does promote a sort of agnosticism and/or atheism over time.
Great homily by Msgr. Morris yesterday but the continual crying, talking, yelling etc of all the little folks gave me a headache by the middle of Mass. Yes, families are great to see at Mass but have some respect for those there to worship.
I think this is a troll because no self-respecting Catholic could hold this opinion. It is an anti-life position. People like this contribute to the antinatalist culture of death. In one breath they ask why are there no young people and families, and then in the next they complain that all these children are too loud and disruptive. They are so selfabsorbed so as to think that mass is just for them, their personal spiritual entertainment, that no baby has the right to interrupt. Well newsflash, babies and toddlers, those with special needs, etc. do have a right to be at mass and make some noise. If only you could hear the angels adoring Christ as he yells in anguish on the cross, you'd probably tell them to shut up too lest you get a "headache".
![[BLACKSWAN] ‘Roll Up’ Official Music Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulvCwyKrwqw/mqdefault.jpg)
God Bless the United States of America!
Great show. I noticed Tim listed three freedoms:
1) Freedom to do what is good.
2) Freedom from the evil (diabolic)
3) Freedom to do all action that doesn't infringe on other citizens' rights.
(1) was endorsed by all, (3) was rejected by all but neither Dom nor Jake touched (2). Personally I think it speaks to the subjects at the heart of Tradition such as that presented in Mirari Vos. You would think the implementation would require constrictions on movement, settling or at least public conduct and remove violators from the region at least in aggregious cases. I think it's intriguing how it mimics the many descriptions of heaven in the new testament as a gated community or a walled keep / walled city where the reign of Christ is and a wild outer darkness surrounding.
got baited by the thumbnail into clicking because i thought nick was on here 😢
Hello Anon. Nick got sick at the last minute. I didn't change the thumbnail. -Flanders
Great show! I wanted to comment on the 1st amendment. It was meant to regulate political speech in particular. It also applied only to the general government and was not to apply to the states. States could regulate speech in their own territory. The constitution was not meant to be incorporated into the states
For a discussion on Liberty in the American tradition see David Hacken Fischer’s Albion Seed. There were different views of freedom in rhetoric colonies depending on who settled ie. The puritans in New England vs the Cavaliers in Virginia
To the point about the military, the projection of American military power via bases around the world is an essential aspect of our nation's existence. The problem with any sort of defensive only military is that it ignores the realpolitik of other advanced nations who are adversarial or outright hostile to the US. Using the principle of subsidiarity, we would still arrive at the military we have today, with National Guards run by each State for domestic purposes controlled by their respective governors, that could be activated for national threats. If you actually want peace at home, you need to ensure you can respond swiftly and effectively to foreign threats around the globe (deterrence). This includes threats to our economy. If we can not ensure a steady inexpensive supply of essential goods (everything from crude oil to the most advanced microchips), then it doesn't matter how secure the homeland is. The nation could be brought to its knees without firing a single round.
Winning
Dom knows more theology than I do. So, I respect him for that, but I hope he'll explain what makes him agree with Dignitatis Humanae. As a traditionalist Catholic, I believe religion should be public. But should a Catholic society let say non-Catholics practice their religions when their rituals might scandalize Catholics or make them doubt Catholiic doctrine?
This is a REALLY good question! I honestly don’t think I can answer here in the comment section. I just want to affirm your statement that “Religion should be public.” All I can do here is recommend three books (even if you don’t read them it’s good to be aware of them): (1) “Before Church and State” by Andrew Willard Jones, (2) “The Myth of Religious Violence” by William Cavanaugh, and most importantly (3) “The Politics of the Real: The Church between Liberalism and Integralism” by David Schindler.
God bless!
They're right. I'm a native-born patriotic American and an anti-liberal monarchist. Since I reject liberalism in each sense of that word, I've become a North American High Tory. I also ignore Independence Day, July 4, because the American Revolutionary War was unjust.
For me, "American conservatism" is a paradox because American conservatives are Lockean classical liberalsm.
Agreed on all points, except I celebrate the 4th because Patriotism is a virtue. The Declaration is a mixed bag, but even Loyalists or neutral parties can celebrate the day with fellow Americans as a Patriotic Thanksgiving for our States. -TSF
Funny - today Maryland is very similar to a communist state 🫤
RE: the local common good
Real charity is the prerogative of the individual Catholic and of the Catholic Church!
Incentivise the return of the religious orders to run their traditional works of mercy with NO government partnership or money.
Yes. TSF
The anti-establishment clause of the first amendment is not practical atheism. It was a reaction to Anglican establishment in England, Lutheranism in Germany and Catholicism.
Those are some historical contexts, yes. But what I said is also true. -Flanders
It was an alternative to confessional states to solve the problem of religious conflict in a nation that was already settled by a multiplicity of religious sects. Basically, the solution is panprotestantism: toleration of the tolerant. Notice Catholicism doesn't fit in that because we actually have an absolute truth claim that would call for the end of protestant faiths via conversion. This intolerance was unacceptable to the founding fathers by and large. The hope was if we found our society on commerce and mutual cooperation/competition, then we will be incentivized to put aside our differences and live in peace. This creates an incentive to not have strongly held religious beliefs that might cause friction between groups of citizens. Jefferson hoped that everyone would eventually be deistic, culturally Christian if you will, believing in God, but only in a loosely moral, therapeutic sense. And today, that's exactly what we have. Regardless of what religion you confess, chances are that you believe in a deistic moral therapeutic God. Such a God doesn't have anything controversial to say, can't have a relationship with you, is no longer acting in this world, but makes you feel good and tells you how to be a generally "good person". Eventually, people see that such a God is of no real use, probably fictional, and can be easily replaced with secular ethics and psychology. So, in the end, it does promote a sort of agnosticism and/or atheism over time.
Great homily by Msgr. Morris yesterday but the continual crying, talking, yelling etc of all the little folks gave me a headache by the middle of Mass. Yes, families are great to see at Mass but have some respect for those there to worship.
Jesus never complained. And he ministered to thousands 😮
If the Church isn’t crying, it’s dying. That said, if your children are noisy you should step out obviously.
I think this is a troll because no self-respecting Catholic could hold this opinion. It is an anti-life position. People like this contribute to the antinatalist culture of death. In one breath they ask why are there no young people and families, and then in the next they complain that all these children are too loud and disruptive. They are so selfabsorbed so as to think that mass is just for them, their personal spiritual entertainment, that no baby has the right to interrupt. Well newsflash, babies and toddlers, those with special needs, etc. do have a right to be at mass and make some noise. If only you could hear the angels adoring Christ as he yells in anguish on the cross, you'd probably tell them to shut up too lest you get a "headache".