Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Sign the Petition Against "Gender-Neutral" Bathrooms at Catholic Universities

Please defend moral values -- today -- by urging 9 Catholic universities to reverse their terrible decision to include "gender-neutral" restrooms on campus.
God created male and female (Gen 1:27).
It's 100% biblical, scientific and true. To affirm otherwise is a slap in the face of God.
However, according to the twisted homosexual revolution, gender-neutral bathrooms need to be installed everywhere now -- even on Catholic campuses and schools.
You see, the homosexual revolution falsely claims:
Lie #1: That male and female is a fluid "construct."
Lie #2: That there are dozens of "new" genders.
Lie #3: That a boy can pretend to be a girl and access the ladies room.
That's why I'm asking you to oppose this agenda today. Because if more good Americans don't stand up for God's truth, this "transgender" madness will continue.
But what really bothers me most is how this ungodly agenda is allowed to creep into Catholic education with such brazenness.
What about the spiritual welfare of Catholic students?
Who will defend and protect the flock from the wolves?
When Catholic colleges fall for "transgender" bathrooms, young Catholics students will no longer be able to find an authentic Catholic environment that respects human nature as God made it.
And the lie that human nature is no longer based on biology will gain ground and the homosexual revolution will only be emboldened to move forward like a moral meat grinder, clamoring for more and more sinful and crazy demands.
In fact, 9 Catholic universities -- mostly Jesuit -- already have "gender-neutral" restrooms or are currently in the process of installing them.
That's why I'm inviting you to:
Let's stop this immoral agenda. With prayer. And peaceful action.
And please know that Catholic students across the country are grateful to you for fighting the good fight.

Monday, February 1, 2016

“They” is Destroying the English Language

Written by John Horvat

Entering the new year, something tragic happened in the world of grammar and language usage. Over 200 linguists of the American Dialect Society met in Washington, D.C. to choose their “Word of the Year.” They overwhelmingly chose the singular use of the pronoun “they.”

Singular they, as it is called, is not some common usage found in sectors of the American public that has gained a significant following and found its way into the English language. Such is the normal way new word usage gains acceptance. There is certainly nothing wrong with this natural and organic manner of growth.

What happened here, however, was something different. This new usage is politically-correct jargon that is being forced on the public. Singular they now refers to those sexually-confused individuals who do not wish to be called he or she. It has been determined that “they” can now refer to a “known person as a non-binary identifier.” Predictably newspapers like The Washington Post have already included this usage in their style books. In so doing, they (plural) have declared grammatical war upon the language.

It is war, but a dirty war. One cannot help but be struck by the utter mediocrity and cowardice of the august assembly of linguistic warriors. Had these linguists had a bit of courage they might have adopted any of the numerous “gender-neutral” ridiculous-sounding pronouns such as “jee,” “ney” and “thon” that have already been created by activists to promote their cause. They (plural) could even have gone farther by making up their own new pronouns and challenging the world to use a novel new creation to accommodate the sexually unsure.

Instead these jargonists prefer to take a perfectly good pronoun and strip it down to singularity. In so doing, they have mutilated, emasculated, and disfigured this faithful pronoun and emptied it of meaning. These pedantic paladins of political correctness hide behind the excuse that “they” already has some singular common usages as when used with words like “everyone.” This can be seen in a sentence: “Everyone likes their dogs.” However, this is purely a smokescreen in this dirty war to hide an agenda that uses languages as one of its most effective weapons.

This development is truly tragic because such artificial impositions go against the very purpose of language. Language should give clarity to thought. Its beauty consists in its ability to define concisely and clearly. The richness of vocabulary comes from how well words express nuance and subtlety.

But singular they? All is muddled and confused. If you have one they and add another they do they become two theys or are theys simply they? No one really knows, nor do the linguists really care. They (plural) want to make a political statement and force upon the users the task of determining the context of the usage. It assumes the public is savvy to the esoteric world of politically-correct jargon.

There is another reason why this usage of singular they is wrong. The principal purpose of language is to express the truth. Words are essential vehicles for uniting ideas to things -- a simple definition of truth. A man, for example, has an idea of what a cat is. When he sees the cat, he exclaims: Cat! The word communicates a truth to all those around him. It instantly unites the idea and the thing.

In this case of singular they, however, the word refers to a non-existent reality. It involves denying the truth of the natural sex of a man or woman who is confused about his or her identity. The same man who saw the cat, could also see a sexually confused individual and exclaim: They! He proclaims no truth but merely participates in the person’s confusion and enters into complicity with it. He further assigns a plural label to a singular fantasy.

When language no longer expresses truth, it loses its beauty and poetry. Above all, imposed language destroys that organic connection with the people who by their contact with reality are the natural wordsmiths of any language. As Catholic thinker Plinio CorrĂȘa de Oliveira once said, language is like the stained glass window of a people. It is that unique prism through which a people comes to know and express the truth. When modern ideologues destroy meaning and clarity in language, they (plural) obscure the light and a great darkness descends upon the land.

Someone might object that singular “they” is only a word and hardly a great tragedy. But every word that is destroyed in this manner impoverishes, not enriches, language. Something precious has been taken from the people. That is why it is important to fight back and refuse to use the singular they in this context. They (singular) is destroying the English language. The wrong usage of they should apply, as it always has, not to the sexually confused but to the grammatically challenged.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Manners -- A Rich Heritage Which the Poorest May Give Their Children

Manners cost nothing. Every parent—though the veriest pauper—can give them to every child. You may not be able to send your boy to Harvard nor your girl to dancing school. They will never upbraid you for that. But bring them through childhood surrounded by and solely taught coarse, common, slovenly ways of speech and behavior, and no matter how devoted and unselfish you have otherwise tried to be, as surely as they live will they see the day when your memory is stung by the bitterest reproaches. 

Start them in the world with faultless manners, and though they have no other inheritance they are immeasurably far from poor in the world’s most cherished coin. Money does not rule everywhere. Does some busy, tired mother or careworn father cry out, “How shall I study all the intricacies of etiquette to teach them again!” I reply: There are a dozen broad rules that are sufficient to pass muster. The rest are very good to know, and not absolutely necessary. 

I set down some of them here, with this excuse, that I see them constantly violated by bright, gentle little people who would be glad to "act pretty," if, poor, small souls they had the faintest stimulus of example or even precept to guide them. Teach a boy never to wear his hat in the  house, nor while standing before a woman; to allow a woman always to precede him, even (as latest advices say) in ascending stairs; to be quick to open doors for her, to carry her parcels, to wait upon her and never to sit while she is standing. 

Teach both boys and girls good table manners. Make them wait by their chairs till their elders are seated; eat noiselessly; not fidget nor talk with full mouths, nor upon unappetizing subjects; not leave knife and fork trailing off the plate, but always laid side by side, never crossed upon it, every second that they are not in use; not to soak and sop their food; not to bite off bits from a slice: to half fold the napkin when it is not to be used again; not to reach: to be courteous in thanks and requests; to push the chair against the table after the meal. 

Teach them always to knock at a closed door: not to call from one room to another; not to slouch in their seats, nor, if in a rocking chair, to rock. With speech there are more than a dozen ‘don'ts.’ They certainly are vulgar who use "havin’’ and "doin,” and “run” for "ran” and "come” for "came;” who are not early taught to abstain from subjects and words—all proper enough in their place—that are not agreeable to the most sensitive ear.

A child almost surely learns from the beginning to wash his hands often; not to take bones in his fingers nor to drink from his saucer; to take off his hat when be meets a lady (but it should include even little girls) and to use “done” and "seen” in in their proper places. I wish some elders were not content with this very slim outfit of polite baggage when as much more would be as easily taught. "Some day the child will wish so, too." says the writer in Good Housekeeping, from whom we quote.—Red Bluff Daily News, 1892

Monday, January 18, 2016

Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science -

Written by John Horvat
In classrooms across the country, high school students are taught the scientific method. It consists of constructing a doubtful hypothesis and designing a series of experiments to test the hypothesis with the observable facts. After a number of tests prove positive. The student can then take the facts and reach a conclusion. When a conclusion is constantly verified, it is enshrined in what might be called “established” science.
There is a second kind of science that uses methods very different from those of “established” science. In fact, this science, if indeed it might be called such, uses the exact opposite method. It consists of constructing a conclusion and then testing that conclusion with a hypothesis that is repeated over and over again using doubtful data to back it up.

The “logic” of this particular scientific method is that the truth of the conclusion is determined by the number of times the hypothesis is affirmed. With enough repetition, even the data starts to take on the appearance of the truth. The secret is to get as many people and media as possible to parrot the great discovery. At a certain point, the conclusion can be enshrined in a special pantheon that might be called “settled” science, and woe betide any “denier” who dare question it.
Like its cousin “settled” law, “settled” science can be useful even outside its field. It can be employed to silence opposition, impose laws and promote political agendas. It respects no rank or positions. August researchers and famous professors can be toppled from their positions if they express the slightest doubts about a “settled” position. Even the strongest evidence is ignored with disdain and disbelief. Meanwhile the hypothesis mantra is just repeated over and over again.
“Settled” science cases abound in today’s politically-correct times. The most obvious one is the dogma of “global warming.” Many old-school scientists have suffered persecution for calling into question the faulty computer models and fudged data associated with this doctrine. They have even shown that the globe is not warming. Flexible “settled” scientists immediately tweaked the hypothesis to speak of “climate change,” and thus cover both sides.
But facts have never been an obstacle to “settled science” promoters who simply dismiss facts and those who bring them up. Climate Statistics Prof. Caleb Rossiter, for example, found his fellowship ‘terminated’ after his Wall Street Journal op-ed declaring “the left wants to stop industrialization — even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” In another case, a well-loved and respected doctor who specializes in studies about sexual-risk behaviors has just been expelled from an important medical center in Massachusetts after he raised legitimate evidence-based concerns over the center’s decision to endorse the homosexual lifestyle.

A highly qualified scientist in California found scientific evidence that questioned a dogma of evolutionary thought and was fired after publishing his finding in a peer-reviewed journal. These and so many other cases fill the news and intimidate those who seek the truth.
However, there are those rare times when “settled” science runs into trouble and it becomes too obvious that the conclusions are wrong and indefensible. That is the beauty of “settled” science; it can be easily reversed by merely ceasing to repeat the hypothesis. The loud choruses that yesterday blasted forth the “settled” message, today become eerily silent. It is as if the embarrassing conclusion never existed.
An example of this is the “settled” science of peak oil. For decades, “settled” scientists have repeated the hypothesis that oil production will soon reach its peak and humanity will sink into the darkness of an age without fossil fuels.
The only problem is no one told the oil industry. Over the last decade, oil producers haveRTO-Audiobook-AD-medium-res found so much oil that most people agree there are supplies for decades and decades. The evidence can be seen at every gas pump: there is too much oil around, not too little. And so not much is heard from the peak oilers these days. But that is another beauty of “settled” science; the mantra chanters of one conclusion can easily transition to another mantra without any loss of reputation.
The phenomenon of “settled” science is a sad reflection of the frenetic intemperance of these times. The desire to be free from any moral restraint has reached such a point that even the most exacting and absolute sciences must be sacrificed to the tyranny of human passions. Even reality itself must be altered to conform to the agendas of the liberal establishment. Indeed, “settled” science is not science at all but propaganda that is highly unsettling.
As seen on americanthinker.com

Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science -: Save Us from the Tyranny of 'Settled' Science