The “Private Idea” of Parental Rights

The Left has always held a dim view of parental rights, seeing them as an obstacle to centralized planning. But usually the Left’s spokesmen are a little more circumspect in their pronouncements than MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, who blurted out in a promotional ad for the channel that “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents” and see them as “our children.”

Harris-Perry’s paean to collectivism makes explicit the principle that is implicit in many of the policies of the Left—from its resistance to home schooling to its propagandistic sex education in public schools to its opposition to parental consent or even parental notification for abortion. All of those policies are based on the state-as-parent model that she articulated.

Harris-Perry’s remark also explains the blizzard of proposals one hears these days from groups given Orwellian names like the “Children’s Defense Fund.” In the name of “our children”—as if they belong first to the state and then only provisionally to parents—these groups are always clamoring for public school teachers to get their hands on children at younger and younger ages and for more of the day and year: they want them “before-school,” “after-school,” and “year-round.”

In a culture that prized parental rights, most of these proposals would go nowhere. But now, after years of familial erosion and accelerating collectivism, they crowd our politics. Pro-abortion pols who care about children the least talk about them the most, framing their big-government schemes as boons “for the children.”

Of course, judicial activists have long fostered the state-as-parent model. In a 2005 ruling that would have met with Harris-Perry’s approval, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decreed that the right of parents to control their children’s education “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door,” and that public school teachers have a right to give students “whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise.”

The case, Fields v. Palmdale School District, was brought by parents who had been left in the dark about an outrageous sex survey public schools had given their children. Invoking the Latin phrase Parens patriae (the country as parent), the court refused the parents any relief, ruling that “parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed.”

Like religion, parents often stand as an impediment to the fulfillment of the Left’s conception of the common good. The Left fears that a Brave New World of superior STD treatments, over-the-counter abortifacients, and free contraceptives is simply unachievable if they let pesky parents meddle in the lives of their children. This is why they want to get away from a “private idea” of parental rights and let the “collective” play parent.

One irony in this warped thinking is that the Left often insists that children are the property of parents, provided that the parents are choosing to kill them or devise their lives in an In vitro fertilization lab. In those cases, the Left permits parents to treat children as disposable appendages of their bodies. Take God out of the picture and such extremes become possible. Either parents exploit children or the state does.

But if children come from God, neither parents nor social engineers can presumptuously call them “our children,” to be violated and propagandized by their masters in any way the prevailing mores permit. Without a government’s recognition of God and the natural moral law, children’s rights quickly disappear. In secularized Mexico under Plutarco Calles, teachers could say, “We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth.”

It was no accident that parents were nowhere to be found in Obama’s notorious “The Life of Julia” campaign ad last year. In this ad about “how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime,” the state gets its hands on Julia as a tot, enrolling her in a pre-K “Head Start” program. The state then shepherds her through public schools (which Melissa Harris-Perry, by the way, says are underfunded due to our “private idea” of parental rights), gives her a loan to go to college, covers her birth control through Obamacare, helps subsidize her child care (when she “decides to have a child”), and guarantees her “equal” pay until she receives Medicare and Social Security.

The ad presented what Obama considers a glorious vision of a state-bankrolled partnership between family-less individuals and central planners. Hillary Clinton, who as a lawyer once favored the right of children to sue their parents, tried to soften this vision years earlier by using the phrase “It takes a village.”

Harris-Perry is now staking out the same position, but in more blunt language: children “belong” to the state. As the Left grows more cocky and triumphant, it apparently feels less of a need to rely upon euphemism and misdirection. Responding nonchalantly to conservative backlash, Harris-Perry simply called her comment “uncontroversial.” The scary thing is that she might be right. The culture is hurtling towards a day in which the most basic precepts of the natural moral law are purely “private” notions.

George Neumayr


George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator, and a weekly columnist for Crisis Magazine. He is also co-author (with Phyllis Schlafly) of No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom.

  • Objectivetruth

    If you could tell Melissa I agree with her and based on her logic that her very own children then don’t belong to her. Because her kids are now then “our children”, they belong to me too. Tell her I’ll be by early tomorrow morning to pick them to take them to Mass. We’ll then do two hours of Gospell study, followed in the afternoon by a couple hours of study on the Catechism. We’ll move in to the Theology of the Body and end the day with the rosary. I’ll have “our” kids back home by 5:00.

    Always follow the money. The MSNBC talk show hosts make millions of dollars a year espousing speech that appeals to a liberal audience creating enough of a viewership to get corporate money for commercials. They found a market niche that brings in cash for MSNBC justifying their seven figure income. As they slam “the rich” with their blather they live in million dollar homes and would never consider sending their Own kids to public school. Hypocrisy thy name is MSNBC.

    • Thank you for this article, love the comment Objectivetruth.

    • respectlife

      Objectivetruth, AMEN to that! After all thats only fair and could be called social justice..

    • cminca

      And yet you’d never consider your first paragraph “indoctrination”. And you don’t consider it “indoctrination” when millions of catholic children are submitted to the same force-feeding of medieval voodoo for hours every Sunday.

      Oh–BTW–how did you feel about “no child left behind”? Was that “Orwellian” or was it OK because it was from a republican?

      The woman is making the point that the prologue of the US Constitution makes. That “WE THE PEOPLE” have responsibilities to all the goals of this country and all its citizens.
      You’re just screaming like a scalded cat because a progressive said it.
      Nothing like a little catholic double standard…..

      • Objectivetruth

        Doesn’t look like you read the article, cminca.

        • cminca

          INo–it looks like the author didn’t listen to what MH-P actually said and went into an unfounded diatribe about “the state” as some sort of malignant enemy.

          Here statement was that “we” need to take responsibility as “we the people”.
          It is the same right wing BS about “terrorist fist bumps” and “bowing down to foreign leaders”.

      • Most of us wouldn’t consider Augustine, Aquinas, Boethius, GK Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, CS Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Dante, and countless others to be “medieval voodoo.” We think they’re pretty darn rational, especially when you compare them with Melissa Harris-Perry and the other talking heads of our day. And it doesn’t matter if they are on the left or right of the political spectrum.

        • Objectivetruth

          Cminca is an atheist, don’t even try to argue. She hates the Catholic Church but it appears spends most of her waking hours on Catholic websites.

          • That’s pretty obvious but thank you for informing us. So much time is often wasted on trying to reason with people who have a hatred for the Church and whose minds are closed.

          • cminca

            You’re as wrong on my spirituality as you are on my sex.
            I don’t hate the catholic church. I love the catholic church. I hate the bigotry, the interference with matters of state, the hypocrisy, the criminality of hiding pedophiles, the double standards, and the holier-than-thou attitude of people who “claim” to follow Christ.
            You see–I love the sinner, I hate the sins.
            Sound familiar?

            • Objectivetruth

              Really? You attack the Church’s doctrines on transubstantiation, virgin birth, the ressurection, papal infallibility, etc. and you say you love the Catholic Church? You’ve posted on other Crisis articles that “you want nothing to do with the Catholic Church?” this is your love for the Catholic Church?

              Whatever. My bad for making the mistake of responding to you. You’re just here to ignorantly attack the Church. Keep trolling.

              • cminca

                Calling transubstantiation, virgin birth, the ressurection, papal infallibility, etc. irrational and then claiming I love the cc is no different than calling gays fundamentally “disordered” and then claiming you love them.

                As for my point of my remark about loving the sinner and hating the sin–that was to prove the hypocrisy of the catholics parroting that statement.
                Obviously I the point successfully.

                • Ford Oxaal

                  My extra chromosome grandchild is not normal, and I love him. So what are you really saying?

                • A M

                  There is a difference between lying and telling the truth.

                  A person may be a mass murderer, but a Catholic is bound by charity to desire that murderer repent of his sins and save his soul, not to want him to burn in hell. To love someone is to wish them what is really and truly good for them.

                  Sodomy is a sin. Yet the Catholics may not wish the sodomites to burn in hell. They must, because God desires their salvation, love the man, though not the sin. You call this lying, because you do not believe anyone can condemn the ACTIONS of a person, without condemning or hating the person. You believe they certainly cannot HATE those actions, without hating the person. This is a simple misconception.

                  Not too long ago in real, human history, a 12 year old Catholic virgin was attacked by a teenaged boy in her poor home, while her family and his (living in the same building) were out working. The boy came in with a sharp object (I believe it was an ice pick), and demanded the girl to do something with him that no Catholic virgin should. She replied, “No! No! It’s a sin!” She fought, and the boy stabbed her umpteen times in the abdomen (and chest?). As she lay dying, this 12 year old, who had been willing to give her life rather than her virginity, was asked by her priest, “do you forgive him?” Her answer was a heartfelt affirmative, and (if I recall correctly) she said that she wanted him to be with her in paradise.

                  This 12-year-old virgin who died for her Catholic purity, is known to us as St. Maria Goretti. Her would-be rapist, later repented of his crimes, and even the girl’s mother forgave him. This is the difference between a real, genuine charity and love for souls, regardless of their crimes, though not loving the crimes… and the lie that you told. For the Catholic, the love must be as real as their faith, not just words, though their hatred of the sin that could cost their neighbor’s soul can never be great enough, for the love of the souls it threatens to kill.

                  Your lie, and your misconceptions, could never compare to that real love. It is the love of the Catholic martyrs, forgiving, and even praying for those who in history tortured them to death.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    …..and another beautiful part of the Maria Goretti story is at her canonization Mass, the man that had murdered Maria had been freed from prison and sat next to the saint’s mother throughout the Mass.

                • Steve

                  There is no contradiction with loving homosexuals and stating that same sex attraction is disordered. That is the way it is. We are all disordered, that doesn’t make us unlovalbe.

                  Cminca, your thinking is terribly disordered. Luckily, you are not hampered down by logic and ethics, or it would be impossible for you to use words here as you do.

                  you said “Obviously I the point successfully” Yes I think obviously, yes cminca, that says it all about your mindset. you da point! successfully, I concur.

                  • cminca

                    Ooooh I missed a word and you pointed it out!
                    Wow–I guess you’re ready for the Algonquin Round Table .
                    (Look it up).

            • A M

              You’ve just told a whopping lie “straight-faced”, and then proceeded to say you hate hypocrisy. You are what you hate. Liberalism is nothing if not the greatest circus of galling hypocrisy on earth.

              For instance, the insistence that pedophilia is wrong, when liberals who deny any absolute morality, will say in the same breath that there being no sin, all things should be permitted. Which is it? They have a problem with pedophiles in churches, but not in public schools (teachers are victimizing children left and right. Where’s the public outrage about that?). To say nothing of the porn they teach children in schools. If anyone else showed children such things, they’d be arrested. They decry perversion in a cassock, but they don’t mind it terribly when it’s homosexual boyscout leaders abusing the little boys. Then we “have to understand.” They have a problem with guns, but not abortions. They have a problem with religious persons speaking their beliefs, which they treat as “censorship”… only to go on to say that the religious people should not be able to speak of religion in any public place that isn’t their church. Their singular battle cry is “freedom”, but they consistently do their all to bar religious or republican persons from academic positions, or if they grudgingly give them the job, they will certainly never permit, for instance, that they should mention evolution is not a proven fact, and that it has more holes than swiss cheese. But that censorship and oppression is fine with liberals, because it’s THEIR oppression. They cry that homosexuals should have the freedom to flaunt what they are and what they do, anywhere, and never have to hide it… but they throw children out of the classroom for daring to defend the name of Christ. They claim to be for democracy… so long as it’s any democracy that has no place for the beliefs of religious or republicans.

              You could really go on for as many points as there are beliefs in the “liberal creed”. All of it brazen hypocrisy. Talk of freedom that ends with a hatchet, the moment it comes to religious freedom or republican freedom. Talk of human dignity and respect for the individual, that ends at the airport scanner. Talk of democracy and everyone having their voice, that ends at the ballot box, with precincts reporting 100% for their guy… a lie even communist countries with brazenly fake elections never would dare allege. Talk of gun control that ends with their own bodyguards, and environmentalism and humanitarianism that ends at the driveway of their multi-million dollar mansions.

              Now if you had actually read all of that, your face would probably be so red, the other readers could see it’s glow on their screens. Of course you won’t read it. The liberal way, because liberalism cannot stand on reality, is to simply call names, and then run away.

              • Objectivetruth

                A study was done that between 1990 and 1999 9.7% of al public school children were sexually assaulted by a teacher or school administrator .

                • Alecto

                  Frightening! One more reason my raison d’etre is the total destruction of public schools and the monstrous unions that perpetuate this evil.

                  Give me vouchers or give me death!

              • cminca

                I’m not going anywhere.
                I did read it. Of course, it made no sense because you seem oblivious to grammar, sentence structure, or framing an argument. But let me try and answer a few points.
                Yes–there is abuse in schools. But schools aren’t claiming to be God’s representatives on earth at the same time as they 1.) deny it; 2.) move the felon so they aren’t prosecuted; and 3.) never warn the felon’s new prey that the priest has a little problem with jumping kids.
                Frankly, the cc should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.
                “They have a problem with guns but not abortions.” I don’t know anyone who LIKES abortions. I do have a problem with the government being between a woman and her doctor over a medical procedure involving a fetus that is not viable outside the womb. I also have a problem with the same people who are against abortion being against comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. Look at the Netherlands–less abortion, less teenage pregnancy, all thanks to education. Because the anti abortion/anti sex ed/anti access people aren’t really interested in the babies. They want to dictate and control behavior. Behavior that is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
                I’m not even going to bother with the rest of it. It is the same unfounded ranting of anti-gay, anti-liberal road apples I’ve heard from the right since the Reagan administration.

                • A M

                  “Yes–there is abuse in schools. But schools aren’t claiming to be God’s
                  representatives on earth at the same time as they 1.) deny it; 2.) move
                  the felon so they aren’t prosecuted; and 3.) never warn the felon’s new
                  prey that the priest has a little problem with jumping kids.”

                  No, they have the nerve to claim there is no God because they wouldn’t like there to be, and then when some teacher victimizes a child, if they just move them to a new school because of the teacher’s union covering their behind, that is somehow different?

                  More importantly though, what Catholic, here or anywhere, has ever said once, on the topic of pedophiles, “good for them! I don’t think they should be punished at all!” If the answer is zero, there really isn’t an argument then, is there? You agree it’s wrong. We agree it’s wrong. Amazingly, we do agree on something.

                  But it is pretty shocking that so long as liberals are free to take other people’s money and kill unborn children with it, they’re happy. Oh, and, I dare you to go to a pro-life rally outside of some abortion clinic, and say again that the folks with the signs really don’t care that in that hospital, tiny human beings are being torn limb from limb. They just want to “control people”.

                  I’d say anyone who has a problem with the Catholic “agenda” (see the Ten Commandments for details) has serious problems with criminal urges, to begin with, and probably needs to get some self control.

                  Of course, I don’t suppose you have a problem if a liberal state does the controlling, do you? So, if Christians tell you, you really shouldn’t murder unborn babies, that’s evil control, but if the state tries to dictate to you, by law, things about nearly every matter of your whole life, with gross injustice, from what you pump into your child’s blood at their mandate, to what they put in your drinking water, to what is put into their brains, to when and where and how you can practice your religion, to what you can say on TV, or in the classroom, etc… that’s just fine?

                  I suggest you count sometime just how many things the liberals want to, and do already control. (Hint: usually they want it to be everything. As in, the whole globe. See the EU for details, where you have documents that don’t mention the word vote or voting once, and which discuss granting the EU power superior to the state, etc..) Accusing the Church of trying to control people looks pretty bad when the liberals are making laws about the sizes of soft drinks, and the calorie counts of children, and teaching law enforcement and military persons that republicans and Christians are terrorists just like the 9/11 folks. I have news for you. There’s plenty of control going on, but it isn’t us! That’s why over in Europe, some poor guy got busted by the liberal police for “having the horses in his trailer pointing the wrong way.” I WISH I were joking, but I’m not. True story.

                  This is what I meant by nearly every point of liberal belief, being gross hypocrisy. In this case, “Control is evil. Unless we’re the ones doing it.”

                  The only thing the Catholic Church wants is for man to control himself. That is because without internal discipline, the only way to build anything remotely like a working society, will be a police state, which is to say, external discipline. Society is, last time I checked, a good thing. The Church is all for it, but again… that requires people knowing what is right and what is wrong. If you call it control or brainwashing for someone to tell you those things, then why don’t you call it the same thing when every teacher you’ve ever had stood up in front of your classroom in school, and spouted liberalism, darwinism, materialism and faith bashing? They were just magically correct because you heard that first? Or you heard more of them speak? Or could it be that since there is an objective reality, there is an objective right and wrong, which therefore people can know, and therefore people can teach? Couldn’t be, right? That would be against the liberal agenda.

                  I know one thing for certain. We know where baby humans come from, and the doctors, who have to reassemble the dismembered bodies to make sure all the hands, toes, etc. that they chopped off are all present, are murdering humans. And until this age of supremely delusional liberalism, no society on earth has been so delusional, so wicked… oh wait… the Nazi’s DID say the Jews, etc., were not human. That was their excuse for murder, too. So I guess someone HAS thought of it before you.

                • But school employees have been transferred out just like the priests. And we have spend billions on sex ed and easy access to birth control already. Why hasn’t it worked here?

              • Here, here!

            • cestusdei

              No, you hate us. Please be honest about that. Read your own posts. The hate comes through clearly. You would have no problem seizing Catholic children and re-educating them your way.

          • Ford Oxaal

            But true atheists are among my favorite people to converse with. It’s the lukewarm that are boring.

          • A M

            The devil is singularly obsessed with attacking the Holy Trinity. The same is true of those who hate God. If they really believed what they said they did, they wouldn’t give God, or Catholic websites another thought, any more than I would go around to sites dedicated to Zeus, or to their proverbial flying spaghetti monster, and waste time attacking the beliefs of those there, or them personally.

            Fact of the matter is, things that really aren’t real, we have no trouble at all simply ignoring. Most of us don’t loose any sleep over the easter bunny, or leprechauns, after all. But atheists, too, are impressed forever with the divine signature of their Maker, and are unable to ever be entirely indifferent about Him. Which is why they hate Him, or at least dislike Him, and why so many seethe with anger and spend much of their lives railing against Him. They cannot ignore Him, because their conscience squirms at the very thought of Him. Otherwise they would have no more reaction to Him than they do the spaghetti monster (which is 0 reaction), and would spend no more time giving Him another thought.

            And if they’re worried about Catholics being “dangerous elements of society,” perhaps they should refer to the numbers of people killed by atheists and non-Catholics. For instance, the millions butchered in the womb by them, the handicapped persons they advocate to kill, the homeless they prevent from building shelter (so the widdle homewess peoples won’t hurt demselves) to save themselves from freezing to death (which they then do), and … oh… let’s not forget the unpleasant incidents in countries like Germany, China, Russia, and so on, where people have been massacred by the millions, not by pious Catholics, but by angry, delusional, atheist liberals. (And no use saying Hitler was a Catholic. He may have been baptized, but it was certainly not Catholicism that he was believing, practicing or living when he did what he did. It was the epitome of liberalism, unleashed and being straightforwardly executed in real life.) And I know when the nuns were the main presence in hospitals, you didn’t have money grubbing mercenaries shoving paperwork in your face while you bleed, because they’ve just GOT to know you can pay for it. And I think we all know what the Nazi doctors (pure liberals) used to do.

            A little scientific research will show you who you really need to be afraid of, and it sure as heck isn’t the Catholics who believe in virtue, justice, morality, life, freedom (in the true sense of the word), and so on. But that would require looking at the evidence rather than spouting hatred for something you can never run away from (and certainly won’t ever escape in eternity). As a rule, atheists cannot do this, because the proof makes them look not only idiotic and irrational, but downright evil as well (when they come to see where liberal atheism actually HAS led in history, in practice).

            But then, this is the truth bleeding through all of their efforts to deny it. Of course they must make a certain effort to convince themselves, or to protect their conscience from the truth.

            • cminca

              Take your meds.

              • A M

                And there we have it. The classic atheistic liberal retreat. “You’re STUPID.” (Or other meaningless words to that effect.)

                • cminca

                  Tell me how you deduce from a three word sentence that I’m a liberal or an atheist?

                  And I’m not going anywhere.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    On the atheism, you told me you were an atheist in a posting on another Crisis Magazine story.

                  • A M

                    A liberal is one who holds liberal beliefs. You do. But this is one argument I will refuse to have: a personal one. Atheist, liberal or anything else, labels are just that. What matters is the content of those labels. The ideas that I have seen destroy too many lives, in my own short life.

        • cminca

          And some of us would consider transubstantiation, indulgences, virgin birth and resurrection to be pretty darn irrational.

          And some of us would consider “papal infallibility” pretty darn irrational, especially when you consider that it seems to switch on and off like a light switch. (Tell me–does the pope wear something special or sit in a special chair when he’s “ex cathedra”?)

          And do you really want to start on the “rationality” of entrusting a child to a priest?

          • Objectivetruth

            You find the things you mentioned irrational cminca because you have no understanding of them because you’ve never bothered to study the theology behind these doctrines. We’ve discussed this before. You hate the Church but you have no desire to learn anything about the Church.

          • Two of my great uncles were priests (one of them died about 5 years ago), and they never mistreated me, my siblings, or any of their parishioners’ children. And about the whole Resurrection deal, click here: Also, in the entire history of the Church, the pope has only spoken ex-cathedra twice. Seriously, do you have to rely so much on stereotypes of us to make arguments against our teachings? If that is what it comes down to, your arguments probably don’t hold any water.

            • cminca

              And three of my friends are tattoo’d leather daddies who would scare the hell out of you. And they are the kindest, gentlest, and most loving people on the face of the earth.

              And according to you they are going to hell. Gee–maybe people should stop making sweeping judgements like comparing gay marriage to the “machinations of the Father of Lies”. (That one was from the newest pope.)

              The pope had only spoken “ex-cathedra” twice because the term wasn’t defined until 1870. If you are suggesting that the concept of the infallibility of the pope doesn’t go further back in church history you are being purposefully inaccurate. And some of those “infallible” popes had some less-than-pure histories–esp. during the renaissance.

              You want to address indulgences, transubstantiation, virgin birth? (And quoting a catholic on resurrection is like quoting GWB on the “proof” of WMD. Sorry–the source is unquestionably bias.)

              • Ford Oxaal

                Wait a minute. You would not entrust a child to a gay priest, but a gay couple is fine? Just trying to understand your position here.

                • cminca

                  There is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality pinhead.

                  • Ford Oxaal


                  • cestusdei

                    Not really. It is a continuum.

                  • Wow, my comment on Natl “catholic” Reporter got deleted because I used the word arrogant, but pinhead is just fine.

                    Of course there’s a difference between the 2 disorders. But the fact that the majority of the victims were post-pubescent males proves that homosexual priests were the main abusers. Straight men do not go for 15 year old boys. Period.

              • You honestly think I would condemn 3 guys to Hell just because they wear leather and have tattoos? Holy cow batman, if was drinking something right now, I’d probably spit it out or shoot it out of my nose from laughing so hard.

                About the Resurrection article, try refuting the arguments in it one at a time, instead of questioning the author’s credentials (who by the way, is a pagan turned-Catholic convert because he was convinced of the truth of Catholic doctrine). It takes a lot more faith to call the Apostles idiot savant fishermen while simultaneously believing they were capable of pulling off the greatest literary, religious, and historical hoax known to mankind.

                Third of all, the less than Christian conduct of some clergy doesn’t make the Deposit of Faith any less true. It only means that some people haven’t according to those truths as faithfully as they should have. Here’s some more about papal authority:

                Virgin birth and transubstantiation: God creates miracles all the time. Sometimes it’s more blatantly obvious (like the Virgin Birth and transubstantiation) and sometimes it’s not. Consider all the tiny delicate processes that it takes for a leaf to change colors in the fall, or for the human body to work. Aren’t those things amazing, if you really stop to think about it? Just because some things are more commonplace than others, it doesn’t make them any less awe-inspiring.

                • cminca

                  So you must be a “cafeteria catholic”? Because I can assure you that the three gentlemen I speak of are sexually active and therefore your church teaches that they are going to hell.
                  I didn’t read the article. A newly converted or original catholic makes no difference to me. Deluded is deluded. As Twain put it “Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.”
                  The Apostles didn’t pull off the “hoax”. The Roman Empire did that. (You know, the pagan republic and empire that lasted 900 years until it adopted Christianity as its official religion–and fell within 100 years.) Without the size and reach of the Roman empire Christianity would have remained a minor sect.
                  The literary and religious hoax comes from the men who edited the bible. The all too human, scheming, political, avaricious MEN. Not gods. MEN. Who were certainly successful at separating the “faithful” from their money for quite some time.
                  And I can be inspired by plenty of things without attributing them to the supernatural.

                  • So read the article about the resurrection and come back to me. I want you to refute each and every one of the arguments the author lays out. Come back to me when you’ve done that.

                  • Ford Oxaal

                    Have you ever read Twain’s book on St. Joan of Arc?

                  • A M

                    If I were a bad person, I’d congratulate you. The liberals have had far more success in separating the masses from their wealth, by force of law, in the last hundred years, than the Church has had by imploring their charity, in the same time. The Church, at least, left the poor man his own hovel, free of rent. The liberal state cannot say the same for itself. Not content to separate everyone from their just wages, excepting themselves, the liberal politicians are now moving on to see what else they can take away by the same force. Having already begun taking away the chastity of children and disabled persons, and WWII veterans at the airport, one just wonders what they may take away next.

                    Oh, and before you say it, Catholics love their countries. They just love them to be good. No one who really loves his country can ever like to see it go wrong. It’s only the selfish, wicked, self-serving man (or the incredibly ignorant) who can cheer on it’s destruction with glee.

                    • cminca

                      A couple of thoughts–
                      Take a look at the Vatican and tell me all about the poverty of the church…
                      Then take a look at the girth of Dolan and tell me about the poverty of the church.
                      “Taken away the chastity of children”…..YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

                    • Giving away condoms and abortafacients to middle schoolers? Yeah, I’d say that it’s going there and that it’s factual to go there…

                    • cestusdei

                      So do I get to decide that you live better then you should and take away your house? Rich liberals are always opposed to wealth…other then their own.

                    • A M

                      Take a look at every communist country, at what the pure liberals have taken away, and then tell me if YOU want to go there.

                      Yes, the pedophiles in the church are isolated incidents. How simple minded would you have to be, to hear that there are incidents in a group, and automatically assume every person in that group is a criminal?

                      But I’m betting that you don’t know WHY there were pedophiles in the ranks of the churchmen, do you? Here’s what your cafeteria Catholics can’t tell you.

                      It was because liberal homosexuals went into the seminaries in droves at one point, until certain seminaries were literally famous for it (they called them “lavender houses”), because, hey… according to liberalism, we can’t DISCRIMINATE. Never mind that those who have studied statistics regarding criminals can tell you factually that the predominant number of pedophiles are homosexuals. Guess what happened? When the people making the decisions decided to act like liberals, and open their arms wide to those homosexuals, those homosexuals went on to molest … wait for it!… more boys than girls! Wow! How about that?

                      So if there are pedophiles in the clergy, it is the fault of liberalism in the human element of the Church, not the fault of Catholicism in it. In Catholicism, at least, those are mortal sins. In liberalism, they’re celebrated “liberties.”

                      While there will always have been those few (as in ANY group of human beings) who engaged in criminal activities in any age, the boom of it in our time is directly linked to the thorough liberalization (read as “opening your doors to everyone indiscriminately and pretending there’s no such thing as temptation”) of the human element of the Church. Before the men making the decisions about who got to be priests, let go of all of their hard-core discernment and standards, and >gasp< discrimination… this wasn't an issue.

                      You may not know this, but before the 60's your average confessional was something like a pair of closets situated in the back of your church, in plain sight, where the priest went in one door, the penitent in the other, and there was a wall with a screen between you that was attached to the floor, walls and ceiling of the same. It would've been awfully hard to touch anyone through a solid wall. In traditional Catholic churches, this is sometimes still the case, and the most so-called "radical" traditionalist priests have been warned by their superiors never to see anyone alone in private, but only either in the confessional (again, with a screen between you) or in view of someone else. Because they do believe in things like temptation.

                    • cminca

                      Ah–so now the fact that there are pedophiles and that the church hierarchy hid them is because of gays and liberals.
                      (Sure you don’t want to throw Hitler, Stalin, Freud, and Mao in the mix?)

                    • A M

                      Sure. Even the popes hundreds of years ago knew there were “bad guys” seeking intentionally to destroy the Church from within. (See papal encyclicals and letters for details, particularly mentions of “enemies within.”) What was it one of the recent ones said? “The smoke of satan has entered the Church.” If you want to put a name on that smoke, it is the enduring liberal revolution against all moral or religious restraint.

                      But there was a time when, with good Catholic sense, the popes condemned those enemies. As long as they and everyone else did, the Church did all right. But the idea that there is no real evil in the world, least of all in man, and that therefore we must open our arms wide to every idea and every perversion, and every evil, because nothing is really a big deal… is pretty much the liberal creed. But remember, it is the liberal creed, not the Catholic.
                      Condemning the Church or the Faith as such, for what has happened, would be like condemning the law for those who break it, or all government for those who abuse it. The law is against the criminal’s actions. The Faith is against what has happened, so condemning it is equally ridiculous.

                      Of course, we Catholics aren’t worried. We know that all of the internal problems are going to get sorted out, eventually, because it is God’s Church, not man’s. Our Lord was once mocked and scourged and spit upon, and covered with filth… crucified, died and was buried. It comes as no shock to the devout Catholic if His Church should take after Him, suffering as He suffered, for the sins of men. As Our Lord rose again in glory, so too shall His church.

                    • fredx2

                      For a world wide organization, the church does it on a pretty small budget. For example, the operating budget of the Vatican is about $300 million.By contrast the operating budge of Harvard is $3.7 billion. And Harvard is not a worldwide organization.

                      The opulence of the Vatican was constructed and financed 500 years ago. It is a national treasure and it is basically museum The Vatican makes most of its money on the museum. So no one in the churches has to pay anything to the Vatican.

                      The Vatican apartments the Pope lived in are actually very plain. Nothing fancy at all. The Pope has four rooms, a bedroom, bathroom, a dining room, and a study, The rest of the rooms are conference rooms, a chapel (where he says mass for normal people each day)

                      When John Paul II died, they had to renovate the Papal apartments because rain was dripping in and they were collecting it in buckets. JP II refused to let them fix it while he was alive. The place is old, more than a hundred years.

                      And that budge includes operating 20% of all the hospitals in Africa.

                  • Bono95

                    If Christianity is really what caused the Roman Empire to fall, wouldn’t Christianity have fallen and disappeared too?

                    • cminca

                      Actually, I never said that Christianity caused the Roman Empire to fall. I often, however, use that to counter the “gays are destroying society no successful society ever recognized gay rights” argument.

                    • Bono95

                      OK, but I still do not see how or why the Roman Empire could or would have pulled off a Christian religious hoax. True, the Roman Empire existed before Christianity, but after Christianity was established, the Roman Empire persecuted it left and right until Constantine. If the Roman Empire knew that Christianity was a hoax, why did it adopt it? Or why did it fabricate such a hoax if that hoax is what ultimately destroyed it, and why did that hoax far outlive it’s originators?

                  • fredx2

                    1. One of the things atheists tend to do is throw out quotes from great men – that they did not say. I have searched Wikiquotes for the Mark Twain quote, and it is not there. So, if you have a source for it, please let us know. Otherwise we can probably assume Mark Twain never said that.

                    2. Of course the Roman empire fell within a hundred years of adopting Christianity. The Empire was held together by force – Romans went in and conquered subject peoples. Once they became Christians,that sort of thing was not allowed. They could no longer run around Crucifying everyone that got out of line.

                    3. The church expanded well outside of the Roman Empire. By your thinking, it should have stalled once outside of it. However, It flourished, everywhere it went.

                    4. The men who spread Christianity quite often got killed for it. So I guesss their big plan to be avaricious did not work out.

                • Ford Oxaal

                  They are amazing! And beautiful. Thank you God, for creating us in your image with free will, and the ability to be friends with other creatures, and for keeping us in existence. And also for making us rational, so that even now we can understand some of your truth, and wonder at your majesty. Have mercy on us, and on the whole world. Amen. BTW, new advent is a fantastic resource — I see you are into it. Here is the world’s coolest page on the Mass and relation to the Old Testament traditions if you haven’t seen it:

              • Do you actually still think that infallibility applies to the Pope 24/7? They are NOT infallible, but their teaching on faith and morals is. That’s it.

          • Ford Oxaal

            Why are any of those things more miraculous than DNA transcription? You want to see God? Look up at the night sky which goes on for infinity. Look into the atom which goes the other way for infinity. And look at the infinities themselves. Space — infinite, yet impossible to conceive without length, width, and height. A trinity. Time — infinite, yet impossible to conceive without past, present, and future. Another trinity. White Light — composed of cyan, magenta, and green. Yet another trinity. Is the trinity irrational?

            • cminca

              5 fingers, 5 toes, 5 senses, 5 tastes–does this mean that there are 5 gods?
              Two nostrils, two ears, two eyes, two testicles, two arms, two legs, two breasts–does this mean there are 2 gods?
              An infinite number of gods? No gods? Father sky and mother earth? The world riding on the back of a turtle?
              What makes your creation myth any better or worse than anyone elses?

              • Ford Oxaal

                Fingers, toes, etc. are not infinite. Space is infinite and necessarily a trinity. I can see you are not interested. Sometimes a conversation leads to something new and interesting, sometimes not.

              • cestusdei

                The point is that you don’t get to decide for someone elses child on what God they believe in, if any. The State doesn’t have that right either.

              • A M

                The fact that natural selection can only pick and choose and eliminate what already exists, when the introduction of entirely new “data” would be required to create a drastically new organism. Mutations, often credited with this miracle are a random process, being undirected, cannot choose (choosing being the property of intelligence) anything. In other words, if the evolution myth were true, we would have ended up in a world full of absolute chaos (the process being truly unguided), and tons of living organisms (and tons of fossils) which showed the chaotic attempts at evolution’s forward progression… such as horses with extra feet sticking out of their sides, or animals with multiple heads (hey, if there’s no intelligence to reject it, it would’ve happened on chance!), or animals that had no head at all.

                People who argue about evolution often fail to realize that they tout the theory as “undirected, unguided, natural selection” but then proceed to go on and argue on grounds of nature making rational rejections of scenarios that this unguided process could never have, in fact, rejected, being unguided. They say it’s unguided, but somehow magically guided itself away from nearly all (allowing for mutation) ridiculous blunders that only intelligence could choose to reject or deny. The very name “unguided” means that whether it was profitable or not, at some point, it would have randomly been tried by this process of pure chance, no matter how ridiculous it was. And there would be fossils of these monstrosities of chance and mutations. In fact, there would have (statistically) been far more such blunders in our fossil record than successes, because numerically, the attempts of chance to create one successful organism would have heavily outweighed the successes, again, if the process were not guided by any intelligence that COULD reject the absurd or obvious failures.

                In other words, they will never admit that if their process were purely material, the fossil record would be full of billions of failed, not just transitional organisms (like fish with two tails and no head, or a head with no body, or animals with teeth growing out of everywhere), which is what you’d expect of a process with no intelligence behind it to object to absurdity or a 100% chance of failure. However, we see no such nonsense on anything like the scale the odds of creating one functional organism would require of a purely unguided, random process. Randomness will try ANYTHING. Only intelligence can “select”. Even with survival of the fittest, the random processes supposedly at work would still have made the most absurd attempts, having no embarrassment about it, as the process supposedly has no guidance. In other words, while only successful creatures would survive, the world, and fossil record, would still be full of the failures. And the failures in a constantly ongoing, totally random, unguided process, would have likely outweighed the successes, at least at one time, if not in every age (if you think evolution is still going on, then random process would be even today creating far more mutant failures than successes, and would be an ongoing, observable process. Not just a few mutants here and there.)

                That’s to begin with. Of course real scientists are hard at work out there, documenting all of the countless, scientifically proven or revealed holes in evolution, which you will never hear of or likely read, because you are so afraid to find out that you might be mistaken, you will simply take the easy way out by simply refusing, on the grounds that as these people might be secretly religious, they must be lying, regardless of what scientific research they have done to prove what they say. Otherwise, you would have already read the work of, say, Stephen C Meyers, and his observations that the only known source in the natural world for the kind of digital code to be found in DNA, that we know of, is intelligent causation, not random process. That in fact, we know that even with the existence of chance in the world in which we live, what we see in the natural world is that wherever we see things like code or complex machinery, we can be sure the wind didn’t just blow it there. And we are seeing more and more functional code (see the latest research proving junk DNA actually wasn’t), and more and more biological nanomachinery that is nothing like what we have seen outside of the cellular world. To the extent that we wouldn’t understand it, without understanding machines. Which the wind or chance definitely do not create on accident.

                Which is a scientific reality, regardless of one’s political or religious leanings.

                • cminca

                  Evolution isn’t a myth, or a theory. Evolution is a fact. Organisms mutate over time.

                  “Natural Selection” is our best theory of the cause of evolution. Which is why we don’t have two headed fish or 5 legged horses. Because the mutation happened slowly based on success.

                  You can scream until you’re blue in the face. You can pontificate until you’ve written pages of meaningless drivel, but you can’t change the FACT.

                  • A M

                    No, you were taught by your liberal teachers all your life that evolution was a fact. It is a theory. It’s fundamental mechanisms as defined by evolutionary scientists cannot cause what they claim they can cause, least of all in so limited an amount of time as even evolutionary scientists have given them. They preach the big bang but ignore every shred of scientific evidence in the cosmos against the big bang. They preach random mutation, but not only does the word “random” render that explanation impossible in terms of time, even to form a single functional protein (your chance of hitting the jackpot, have been scientifically calculated at 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion … I think we’re up to ten trillions or something like that, according to updated calculations) but scientific research has shown the nature of mutation itself cannot explain the presence of entirely new data appearing, or entirely new “body blueprints”.

                    Mutations often involve a loss to the organism, and many that add, add something that will get the organism killed. Like that fly you were taught about with four wings, that they neglected to mention COULDN’T FLY. In other words, mutations produce many interesting failures. Even the favorite defense, the drug resistant bacteria, if introduced into a population of healthy (non drug resistant bacteria) will die out. In other words, they were no longer the fittest, therefore they did not survive. But they can’t tell you that in the textbooks, because that would be against the atheistic party line.

                    Natural selection, fast or slow, cannot account for the absence of such monsters of nature as I mentioned before, because whether they are weeded out by natural selection, they would have still been there to be weeded out. In other words, you missed the point. Natural selection is the mechanism by which organisms that cannot survive, do not survive. Natural selection cannot explain how random mutation (evolution’s driving force) “conveniently” failed to produce billions of idiotic impossibilities in nature, as it fumbled it’s way VIA natural selection, to the working organisms only. Natural selection and random mutation are two different things. Evolution teaches that random mutation accounts for the variation of forms and the new forms. Natural selection concerns only which live or die. The fatal flaw here, is that if the mutation had ever happened, and it had been random, we would not only see examples of such freaks of nature quite commonly around us (as nature would still be randomly mutating things all over the place), but we would also have the billions of fossils of it’s monstrous failures (those two headed fish, etc.) to prove it. We have, after all, delicate sponge embryos in rock. There is no reason why we should not have the billions of random absurdities a purely random process would have generated. Again, random mutation has no embarrassment. No ability or need to hold back from making utterly absurd deformations. The mechanism as defined by darwinists, simply mutates at random. We have no scientific evidence for any such mutation throughout history.

                    Evolutionists point only to this or that fully formed and fully functional animal, and claim ancestry. They never seem to get around to the question of what happened to the absurd failures of chance. After all, if I take all of the words in a play and toss them up at random, I am bound to get far more absurd failures than successes in pouring out a bag of tiles and getting the whole play in order. That is the problem with literally unguided randomness.

                    I suggest you stop believing everything those scientists tell you. There is little time left for that absurd theory. Or as one scientist put it, scientists in public will tow the party line, but “one on one, in a scientific meeting, after that third or fourth beer, a lot of them are willing to admit that the theory has a lot of holes in it.” Some have actually been forced by their scientific studies to give up darwinism, when they didn’t want to. It was just too obvious that under the microscope, they were looking at phenomenon that simply could not be accounted for by mechanisms like random mutation or natural selection.

                    Those are scientific facts. But the lie has been repeated often enough, and by enough people with important sounding initials after their names, that the public, who believes most of what they see on television, has unfortunately believed it.

                    If my replies were drivel, you wouldn’t have top-dog scientists on the evolutionary side resorting to personal potshots in order to avoid discussing the scientific, factual findings of those who don’t agree with them. When the question is, for instance, the issue of irreducible complexity, and the professional evolutionary scientist’s only answer is “microwaved creationism!” … I would hardly call that the sort of scientific retort of someone whose facts are so certain they should win if only they stated them plainly instead of calling names. If the facts were on their side, they wouldn’t need to be condescending. They could just answer the scientific objections with scientific facts, instead of political or anti-religious hot air.

                    Of course, in the media, everyone SAYS it’s all factual and true, and make all kinds of ludicrous assumptions in print which they take for granted no one will notice, so long as they keep repeating the popular lie, and ignoring the mounting objections to it.

                    When the other side prefers to believe in imaginary universes and aliens, and things piggybacking on the backs of crystals… my scientific sense becomes rather skeptical.

                  • fredx2

                    And in point of fact, the Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution at all. John Paul II announced as much in 1996

              • fredx2

                Well, there are a couple of interesting things about the Christian version.

                1. It teaches that there was a specific beginning to the universe. “In the beginning,God created heaven and earth” – When I was growing up, all the scientists assured us that the universe was a steady state universe – it had always been there, and it always would. Then, a priest proposed the Big Bang theory. Suddenly, science was saying that the universe had a point where it “magically” (to use your phrase) sprung into existence. And it turns out he was right.

                2. “The earth was void and without form” – we now know that the solar system, in the beginning,was just one big cloud of dust that gradually, over millions of years, collected and formed the earth. and other planets. So that phrase seems to have told us what really happened.

                3. “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We now suspect that life on earth may have originated at deep ocean vents at the place where tectonic plates join. In a place where the waters are 600 degrees hot, life is teeming.
                So, none of this is decisive. The Bible was not meant to be a science text. However, these things are intriguing.

            • Bono95

              Look at ANYTHING in creation and find God. For example, if I carefully consider my favorite kitty, how the heck can I believe her retractable claws, sharp sense of smell, excellent night vision, sensitive whiskers, impressive flexibility, mysterious purring mechanism, jewel-like green eyes, soft luxurious fur, long floppy tail, colorful markings, sweet meow and chirp, etc. are individually or collectively irrational and random?

              • Ford Oxaal

                Check out the real-time video sequence of DNA transcription etc. if you haven’t seen this already:


              • cminca

                “…retractable claws, sharp sense of smell, excellent night vision, sensitive whiskers, impressive flexibility.” Each and every one of them developed through natural selection to better live in its environment and hunt its prey.
                “jewel-like green eyes, soft luxurious fur, long floppy tail, colorful markings” depending on the breed, it could be the random result of hereditary or the purposeful cross breeding by humans.
                purring–we don’t know why cats purr. sweet meow and chirp–most animals have some method of communicating. My cat (ocicat) cries like a baby due to her Siamese ancestors.

                • Bono95

                  What’s your kitty’s name?

          • Steve

            I would trust my children with any priest I know, but I would not trust a homosexual priest. I actually would not leave my children with any homosexual for the same reason I would not leave my kids with a drug addict or a heterosexual sex addict, all three are similarly disordered.

            Do you know the percentage of pedophile priest? Of course you don’t or you couldn’t continue to make such absurd statements. Did you know that 88% of preist scandal cases are homosexual?

            • cminca

              Steve–congrats. You’re a bigot.

              You are condemning an entire class of people not by what they’ve said or done but according to an inherent trait no more intrinsically dangerous than left handedness.

              • Bono95

                There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is an inherited trait. Come to think of it, one of the best arguments for that point is the fact that same-sex couples cannot reproduce and therefore cannot pass on any “gay genes”.

                And Steve is not condemning the condition of homosexuality, because the condition itself is not a sin so long as it is not voluntary. Homosexual acts are very sinful and disordered and that’s what he is condemning, and he is right to be concerned about keeping his children at a safe distance from people with SSA. It is true that not all such people will hurt or molest children, but better safe than sorry. He’s not a bigot for that, and he makes that 100% clear by pointing out he wouldn’t trust his children with heterosexual perverts or other potentially dangerous people.

                Call Steve or anyone here who defends the sanctity of marriage as God intended it a bigot again, and it will be very difficult for me to restrain myself from showing you just how dangerous left-handers can be. I believe I mentioned to you elsewhere that I am a south paw, but I neglected to warn you about my hot Irish blood.

        • Bono95

          Speaking of voodoo and stuff, do you find yourself almost unconsciously thinking/saying Melissa Harry-Potter instead of Melissa Harris-Perry? Because I sure am, and rest assured I am no Potter fan. 😀

          • No sir.

            • Bono95

              Just wondering. My mind just weirdly free-associates things like that. 😀

      • Dear Cminca,
        As a teacher and a Catholic the” No left Child Behind” was/ is a debacle that was co-authored by Bush and (Dem)Ted Kennedy. The former was foolish , the latter an apostate. And yes, I’m screaming like a scalded cat… because souls are at stake and the loss of one sends Christ into agony.

      • RoJo

        No one in their right mind would suggest that our government is represented by WE THE PEOPLE. The idea behind ‘It takes a village to raise a child’ is not applicable to society sizes well beyond that of a village (if you’re gonna have a say in how I raise my child, you need to personally know her intimately). Let’s stop believing the rhetoric nonsense that the whole of United States is a village. Let alone, the whole wide world….

      • tedseeber

        Better than the empty atheist indoctrination of Dawkins and Ayn Rand spoonfed in most public schools.

      • MarLee

        Personally, I think that there are double standards all over the place today, when ‘right’ is whatever you need it to be at the moment. There are a couple of videos here that are notable. If the link does not work, it is found at saynsumthin dot wordpress dot com on April 8, 2013.

        Seems like convenience when she speaks out of one side of her mouth for ‘born’ kids, and the other side for ‘pre-born’ kids. Of course, the logic of that type of rhetoric eludes me and always has. If what she says is true about kids belonging to all of us, then even those that are pre-born (which she calls a ‘thing’) belong to all of us.

        If that is true, then there are MANY who desire to assist in raising those babies via adoption, who are not as blessed as I was before children became ‘things’. I thank God all the time for my ‘gifts’, and for their birth-mothers that chose LIFE.

        • Bono95

          Amen, Sister!

    • Great essay and great reply OT. Some pundits have said that the gun control debate, the same sex marriage push, and now the collectivization of state children, are a ruse to distract people from the dire straights the economy is in. They are wrong. The above “social issues” are the main frontal assault, a bold float, that is preparing the sheeple for the total control of their lives that will occur when the dollar collapses and the shelves are empty– the old pincer military move There is an evil genius in it all: Buzzer sounds. Thanks for playing Satan. Christ wins.

    • Bono95

      So we’ll fight fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone, or, maybe that’d be better stated fight fire and brimstone with water and chrism or bread and wine? Awesome strategy.

  • Reets46

    From the book The Complete Thinker The Marvelous Mind of GK Chesterton…
    We have reached the point where, as Chesterton points out, “Men do not differ so much about what things they will call evil; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”

    Evil has worn us down. “It is possible to do wrong, not through a sudden impatience, but through a dreadful patience—an awful patience with evil.”

    We all think…”It can’t happen here.”…but it is happening here and the speed at which things are deteriorating into a tyrannical state is vastly increased by social media and “state run” television.

    As a repentant hippie I have watched this progression move more and more swiftly in the past few years. I remember thinking (back in 1965) that birth control would only be used by married folks or at least adults…who would have thought that it would be passed out to 11 year olds in NYC public schools without parental consent? I’ve always been actively opposed to abortion, even before my adult conversion and return to the church, but the past several years I’ve been very active in educating those who will listen about the dangers of BC for women, especially young women. How many years did I show “an awful patience with evil.” in regard to BC??

    I thought we could protect our children, but I fear for my grandchildren. They are being homeschooled, but for how long?

    • lifeknight

      If only there were more repentant hippies! I, too remember thinking that birth control was a way to sidestep abortion. On the contrary, as Fr. Paul Marx of HLI (RIP) used to say, “Abortion is simply a symptom of a contraceptive mentality.” How true. Thinking that having children burdens us (and likewise society) is the slippery slope into the abortion mill. As is true with all mortal sin, the mind must give assent. Forming the minds of children is precisely the agenda.
      Another great article by Dr.? Neumayr.

      • Reets46

        Hahaha… Things would be different if we had more repentant hippies for sure. The unrepentant hippies are legion and are now ensconced in academia and politics. Sigh… But those very foolish young folks (myself included) who said “You can’t trust anyone over 30.” are now in their mid-sixties. They chose not to have many if any children and they will pass from this earth. The truth will triumph, but we may have some serious suffering to experience in the meantime.

      • musiccacre

        Many years ago, in the early 80’s I think Dr. Donald DeMarco (retired Catholic Canadian philosophy teacher) published a pamphlet called the Contraception Mentality. It was one of the first handy but thorough discussions I had seen up to that point, and made a great impression on me, even though I had already been brought up that way and understood the reasons. We tried to promote it as best we could. We realized by 1990 the schools had a mandate for something other than true education, so we home-schooled all of our children (almost finished now,) and trusted in God for the lost income.

  • Caroline

    As a society, we should help out children that are not our own. If a child is being abused by her parents, of course society (in the form of “the State”) should intervene. Children have rights. Where the article is illogical is in that it tries to unite the idea of providing good, constructive, positive things for children (health care, education, help with college) with the straw man of “the Left” and “the State” trying to take complete control of one’s children. One would have to be an antisocial curmudgeon to oppose the former and a paranoiac to believe the latter.

    • Oh really? Are your kids in public school? I used to think this kind of thing was crazy talk until our public school days. They aren’t the schools we went to!!!

      • Caroline

        Gail, yes, I’ve had children in public school. Like many parents, we’ve done a mix of public, private, and home schooling. I found the public schools superior academically to the parochial school we tried, mostly because the public schools were larger so they had more resources. Home schooling worked OK, but our kids are social and athletic. They wanted to be in band, sports, debate team, etc., so they went to school. We’ve always been very involved with their schools, friends, and activities, so it’s worked out very well.

    • cminca

      Caroline–obviously we’re on a site catering to the latter

      • czar

        Wow, cminca, do you realize that you’ve been commenting on this story for at least four hours (probably off an on)? I don’t think there is anything I hate enough to waste 4 hours of time on it. I guess I’m just busy actually LIVING the Christian life to spend much time HATING others. Now, having spent 4 minutes scrolling through your comments and others, I’m going to go take care of MY children. I hope you feel better soon.

        • cminca

          Slow work day.

      • Paul

        All these comments back and forth are absurd. Some of your arguments, cminca, are well-developed. Even as a Christian and Catholic who sees homosexuality as a sin, I would not compare homosexual parents to a pedophile. And although most Catholic priests are truly good, honest people, the few who have committed terrible acts deserve the condemnation they are getting. The Catholic Church should have responded with more alacrity and honesty.

        And as for your comments about these people and those people being condemned to hell by the CC, it’s important to acknowledge that under Christian orthodoxy, all people are damned. The simple act of lying, something as inescapable as a lustful thought, a pang of jealousy, all these separate a human from God, from Love, from the Logos. That separation is the Hell from which Christ saves the Christian. I stand just as condemned for the lust I feel regularly as the man or woman does who acts upon his or her homosexual desire. Both of us will need redemption. Both

        Of course, I doubt you believe in what I have just said, and that’s okay. I respect that. I will pray for your happiness, and for a greater understanding between the secular and religious poles. But, some of the Christians on here need rebuke for some of their comments. A Christian must always keep Love in his or her heart, love for those who agree with us, but, even more importantly, for those who are disagree with us.

        Christians do not, sadly, always excel at that.


        • cminca


          Can I just tell you that yours is the ONLY response I’ve read that even comes remotely close to what would be considered “Christian”.

          I don’t believe in what you’ve said but I will respect the beliefs behind the statements and thank you for your prayers. I will accept them in the spirit in which they were intended.

          All good thoughts in your directions too.

          • fredx2

            With all due respect, the fact that you have not gotten a lot of loving, caring responses is because you came on the site and started to ridicule the beliefs of people who are on this site. That is your prerogative. However, it would be unusual for you to expect others to gush over you in return. You knew people would be provoked by your over the top comments, and I suspect you wanted them to be provoked.

            That being said, you are right – Pauls comment is the most Christian you have received. Good for him. It takes a long time to write such responses. however.

    • Scott Waddell

      Like I said elsewhere, no one is arguing for absolute parental rights that shields abusers. But note that we have public figures on record as saying teaching your children to believe in God is abuse (and recently Catholicism labelled an extremist group). It’s not often we get to hear progressives use their Darth Vader voice, but if you probe a little, it’s always interesting what shakes loose. I remember one being asked if he would obey a law requiring parents to give up children to to childless couples or even homosexual couples in the name of “family equality and diversity”. After lots of hemming, hawing, dodging the question, he finally admitted he would obey. Funny thing is, on the way to getting him to admit it, he also admitted he would have returned a slave to his master under the Fugitive Slave Act, saying he would accept the lesser injustice of returning him to avoid the greater injustice of breaking the law. How returning the slave was the lesser injustice isn’t clear, but the legalism to the point of insanity and this “I have no morals but what Caesar tells me” approach is.

      • Caroline

        “But note that we have public figures on record as saying teaching your children to believe in God is abuse (and recently Catholicism labelled an extremist group). “Scott, of course there are people who believe that, but to suggest that this is the universal view of “the Left” or that all “liberals” hold this view is obviously an absurd straw man. To suggest that any leftist-ish viewpoint is in the same ballpark is a logical fallacy. We see the article above conflate very extreme views with very reasonable ones. I see so many people misled by arguments of this kind, and this kind of wild-eyed, speculative “journalism” is rather common on this particular site.

        • Scott Waddell

          So, will you affirm that you would disobey a law taking children away from parents and giving them to homosexual couples? Would you have disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and refused to return a slave to his master?

        • Reets46

          It doesn’t have to be the universal view of the ENTIRE Left. It only has to be the universal view of the present administration and justice department. That same justice department is considering deporting a German homeschooling family that sought asylum here in the US back to Germany where it is illegal to homeschool. If parents can’t teach their children basic ancient tenants of their faith without the federal and state government threatening to take their kids away, we are truly in big trouble my friend. Imagine if the tables were reversed and imagine if the state condemned your belief that there is no God as hate speech and told you to stop teaching your atheistic world view or they might take your kids away. You would be justified in feeling a bit paranoid. But it’s difficult for folks on the Left to understand this as the culture is dominated, especially in our schools and universities, with YOUR world view.

  • Check out GLSEN, paragraph 2 of their mission statement — available on their national website — that says “heterosexism” is bad for kids. This is a supposedly anti-bullying group for gay, lesbian and straight people, and it is very active in schools all around the country. Because, hey, who wants anyone to be bullied? Right? But the way they “fight bullying” is by getting schools to teach that there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity. They have lesson plans, posters, materials of all sorts, activities (the famous “day of silence” is one; “prom for all” is a new program), etc. They teach that anyone — parent, family, church, political party — who says that there is anything wrong with homosexual activity is a bigot, and the idea is to have this taught in schools to counteract home, church, and any other lessons learned outside of school. This is not a conspiracy theory; look it up.

  • Pingback: The “Private Idea” of Parental Rights | Jonah in the Heart of Nineveh()

  • Think the state is a good mommy? Then why are then still orphanages in existence? Shouldn’t the state have clasped these unfortunates to its bosom and nurtured them? If the state is a good mommy why is abortion still legal? Shouldn’t the state welcome all new life into the glorious future it holds for us?

    The fact is that the only time the state holds parents responsible for children is when they do something wrong. Let your kid get caught shoplifting or vandalizing something and watch how fast the state slaps the parents with the responsibility. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child because it doesn’t take a village to have a child. It take a man and a woman (preferably married to each other) who are committed to raising that child with some values and a moral compass. The state blames religion on holding back progress, but when religion was a bigger part of daily life than the state, there weren’t the problems that are running rampant today. There were no mass school shootings, no workplace shootings, no theater shootings, etc. People has more respect for life and tolerance for others. Today, if you don’t like someone, just blow them away. The state will take care of the shooter but tends to forget the victims and their families, except as a method of propaganda.

  • Jeff

    Setting the tinfoil hat, anti-government paranoia aside, we have to protect children, just as we have to protect adult citizens. I’ve been following the Hakken case (two toddlers kidnapped by their parents after the parents lost custody). The Hakken parents appear to be mentally ill, and the two boys were thought to be in danger. It makes all the sense in the world that “the State” should intervene to protect them.

    • Ford Oxaal

      What’s your point? What does an isolated case have to do with a blanket statement attacking the essence of parenthood?

      • Scott Waddell

        Exactly. No one is saying that parental rights are absolute, but there is undeniably a philosophy exhibited here by Harris-Perry that Man exists for the State rather than the State existing for Man.

  • cminca

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
    Education promotes “the general Welfare”. That is what she was talking about.
    You wonder why people make fun of you? This type of right wing paranoia.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Education? You are joking, right? Education = Daycare in this country — all the way through high school. Dumb down land. Free soda. Zoo. Prison.

      • cminca

        Your posts prove my point.

        • Ford Oxaal

          But you didn’t make much of a point. The discussion is about whether the state has an absolute right over children, and whether parents need to “let go” of their precious ones to the collective. I see little five-year-olds trotted off to all day ‘kindergarten’ which these days is nothing more than coloring, watching TV, and learning what a condom is. It is tragic. Large numbers of young children can’t carry on a conversation, can’t pronounce their r’s and s’s, drink out of sippy cups, are overweight, spend 80 hours a week in front of a screen, and can’t tell you who George Washington is. This is all because of the state engineered breakdown of the family.

          • cminca

            No–the MLP statement was about “we the people” taking responsibility for our children.
            The same way some faith traditions, as part of a child’s baptism, ask the congregation to take responsibility for the child.
            The author, and the right wing, have turned it into some malignant state controlled plot to steal your child. It is absurd. But you all lap it up like cats lick cream.

            • Ford Oxaal

              Cats and cream 🙂 And that is very naughty — sorry! We rarely tune in media, but the quotes I have seen are scary when combined with the leftist tendency to solve problems with legislation. We homeschool our children up to a point (then off to classical school), and are horrified at the prospect of the state educating our children — not necessarily because the teachers are bad per se (though many are leeches on the cushy system), but the combination of no mothers, no fathers, broken homes, and classroom education turns into a giant discipline problem — the schools behave like nazis, and the corporate/state decidedly atheist/irrational/utilitarian textbook worldview is all that comes through. Garbage!!!

              • Caroline

                Ford Oxaal, yes, there are some terrible teachers, educational administrators, and public school students out there. There are also situations that can be wonderful. Public school is in part what one makes of it. Parents can roll up their sleeves and get involved in the classrooms. Parents need to be very vigilant about the type of teachers and administrators working with their children. We need to escalate our concerns and even sue school districts to prevent abuses. In doing so, parents weed out the bad apples and make public school better for all children. We have made public school work very well for our family and for other children in our community. We’ve spoken out at board meetings, been present in their classrooms, volunteered on field trips, advocated for acceleration and grade skips, and even organized a new AP class. For many children, public school is an escape route and a staircase, and we (all of us individually and as a society in the form of the dreaded “State”) can contribute in some way to helping children develop.

                • msmischief

                  “Parents need to be very vigilant about the type of teachers and administrators working with their children.”

                  Or, in plain English, teachers are not professionals. They need constant supervision in their jobs.

                  If that floats your boat, go ahead. Demanding that other parents act as unpaid school inspectors is another kettle of fish.

                • Ford Oxaal

                  Here is where “choice” would be a powerful weapon against decay. Some level of competition is healthy. Too much competition destroys the poetry of learning. But nothing is worse than being trapped in a dead end school with no way out — this is the specter raised by the article, and this is what we already have in many instances — watching your kids progress from angels to devils in a few short years.

            • Hmmmm, my parish baptizes a lot of infants at our masses and the priest has never said that the child was the responsibility of the congregation. Only that it is the parents and godparents responsibility to bring the child up in the faith. But it goes without saying that we are a ‘family’ and we should be good role models and willing to help when needed or asked.

              • cminca

                Did I say “all or did I say “some”.?
                Reading for comprehension. Try it sometime.

                • Objectivetruth

                  where you baptized, cminca? If you were I hope and pray that you live your baptismal promise to “reject Satan and all his lies.” with all your sarcasm and attacking remarks there seems to be a lot of pain. Find Christ in the Catholic Church, cminca. I promise you, you will find peace and Christ will help you carry any painful crosses you have.

                • Oooh, I missed this one. Is that all you can do is be rude? My point still stands.

          • Caroline

            Oh come one, Ford Oxaal. Where do you see five-year-olds watching TV at school? Most schools have campaigns encouraging children to reduce the time they spend watching TV. One of mine attended all day kindergarten at public school. “All day” meant about 5 1/2 hours. It was supposed to be play-based and unstructured. Much of it was art, music, and creative and outdoor play, but they also learned to read, write, and do a little math. At least, those who were ready had the opportunity to work on the 3 R’s. A few kids were already reading well when they started, and they had the opportunity to use the school library and had a “reading nook” with pillows and blankets where they could curl up and read. The children did some academic projects from a playful perspective like plays with historical themes and science-related art projects. Their teacher used to put tubs of flour, cornflour, and shaving foam outside for them to play with. Any parent who wanted to get involved and work on a science project or read a story to a small group was welcome. The kids came home dirty and happy. My daughter had a lot of fun, made a lot of friends, and learned a surprising amount.

            • Ford Oxaal

              Sounds like a good place with families that are interested. With a voucher, maybe I could send my kids there. 🙂

    • RoJo

      The purpose of public education here and elsewhere has always been to promote unity. Welfare sounds better though, like something we could get everyone to agree on and say ‘yes, we can!’, while jumping up and down in glee. It doesn’t stop at Unity of course, you need to ask what purpose unity serves. Without political agendas, people of different faiths and minds are not ‘naturally’ hostile towards one another. We don’t need unity to ‘insure domestic Tranquility’. But the establishment needs popular unity to further their own cause, which isn’t necessarily in the best interest of the common man, and often in direct opposition to it.
      Paranoia? You need to honestly study your ‘opposition’ before you are qualified to make the claim. Whatever evidence you’re using above is too weak.

      • cminca

        No, the purpose of public education is to promote knowledge and the ability to think. I don’t know what the purpose of a catholic education is, but I’m guessing “unity” (or indoctrination) would be close to the mark.

        • Agree with you on the purpose of public education. It’s the same with Catholic education, especially considering that it was Catholics who started the university system. Today, Universities are more interested in indoctrination than education and thinking.

        • fredx2

          I went to Catholic school until 8th grade. I then entered public school.I immediately became a straight A student. Why? Because the public schools demanded so little of me, it was easy to achieve. I did my homework, other kids did not.

          Catholic schools are generally considered to be more rigorous, with more demanded from their students.

          Jesuits, for a long time, were considered one of the most intellecutally rigouros people around. However, liberals took over in the last 20 years,and they fell apart.

          The Catholic church started all the universities during the Scholastic period.

    • Alecto

      That is an enabling clause, and does not in and of itself provide authority to do anything. All the authority possessed by the federal government is expressed in what follows, Articles I-VII. That’s it.

      Providing for education, funding it or determining what makes for a sufficient education is absolutely not part of the federal constitution, because all of it was intended to be handled by states. When has that mattered to people like you? Fine distinctions or limits on power are anathema, because the ends always justify the means, don’t they?

  • Ford Oxaal

    As a country we have killed over 50 million children. Now the payment is coming due in the form of the Harris hyphen Perrys of the world.

    The “Life of Julia” ad left one thing out — when her life as a slut/serf is no longer economically viable to the ruling class, euthanasia will be provided by government for free — and until it is legalized in the U.S., the government will provide a one way ticket to the ‘Netherlands’. “You will be received by a priestly looking, genderless figure in a black Nehru jacket who will work
    the intravenous and administer the final half-smile as you do your part to support the collective, and get your filthy, carbon producing carcass out of here.” Ahh, the wonders of national socialism.

  • brigin

    Since MSNBC/GE gets $5 billion a year from the Government I’ve always considered them the voice of Government.

  • thebigdog

    – Endless Arrogant and condescending lectures: check

    – Baby killing: check

    – Drug abusing: check

    – Promoting sodomy: check

    – Indoctrinating and corrupting children: check

    – Promiscuity and spreading diseases: check

    and now…

    – Blatant Marxist advertisements: check

    “collective” brainwashing attempt is complete — and ironically, the
    left has fired its last bullet while failing to repeal the second

  • Pingback: What Difference Does Heaven Make - Big Pulpit()

  • Objectivetruth

    Let’s get back to the real story of TV “talking heads” such as Melissa and it’s all about getting eyeballs to watch her so advertisers can pony up millions of $$$ and MSNBC executives and hosts can go laughing at all of us all the way to the bank.

    Have you ever watched Ms. Harris Perry’s show? I have. Her topics have no linear thought or logic. Her show is mostly buzz words, cliches and expressions that get the target audience and market ( in this case those with “liberal” leanings) all fired up and only reinforce their own beliefs. Honestly…..she seems real nice but she doesn’t come across very sharp as a Candy Crowley or Kristen Powers from the Daily Beast. But the Nielson’s must be good enough to keep the advertisers happy and justify her salary. Trying to be as “objective” as possible……her show’s not very good! Maybe she made that promo spot to gin up controversy to possibly save the show and her job, who knows. When their big paycheck is on the line, I think some of these opinion show hosts would wear a bunny outfit on the show if it would keep their big buck paycheck coming in. It’s always about the money……

  • james

    Where does this clown get her ideology from? This sounds more like the Union of soviet socialist republics of America rather than the good old USA that most of us (excluding MHP and her cohorts) know and love! She and Obama et al. have clearly not learnt the lessons of history ie. that sovietism has proved never to work and has collapsed round the world ,a move greatly contributed to by President Reagan and Pope JP II with some help from Mr Gorbachev. Our children are ours by gift of god to be reared, loved and cared for and will never be the property of the state! iI hope and pray that the USA will stick to and defend the Constitution drawn up by its forefathers who clearly foresaw the dangers of low life idealogues such as MHP and their rantings. AMDG

  • fredx2

    My favorite anecdote about communal care of children comes from “Heaven on Earth” a history of socialism.
    In Israel, strong socialists formed Kibbutzim and they all farmed the land together. Everything was shared by the community. They gave their children over to the community. The kids lived, ate and slept in a separate barracks. Certain dedicated people, who were rotated, took care of the kids for the most part.

    When these kids grew up, and it was time for them to hand over their kids to the community to be cared for, they refused. They said, in effect, “No way are you getting my children. Are you nuts?.”

  • chrisinva

    She is only repeating what John Swett, Calfornia Director of Education, said in 1867 (not a misprint): The children belong to the state, he said, but parents can have them until they are 18.

  • mikehorn

    This is not socialism in the Stalinist sense – your hyperbole is misplaced. The historical truth is that any society, from tribe to nation to empire, has a vested interest in how kids are raised. Any nation needs healthy children as a potential fighting force, so that the obesity problem today is of concern to the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs. Businesses need educated self-starters, so a combination of good schools and appropriately confident children need to grow up in our society, which is one reason why the Creationist types doing home-schooling are of concern. Every single one of us needs to be concerned how our neighbors and the people living in other States raise their kids, because someday those kids will be our soldiers, our doctors, our business people, our teachers, and we need to ensure that other people are doing a good enough job with their kids that we will have enough of these essential professions next year, 10 years from now, 50 years from now. This is not Stalinism, this is common sense and forethought and preparing for the future, all things we need to teach our kids, as well.

    Complaining about it definitely teaches the wrong thing to our kids. This attitude concerns me.

  • Alecto

    When I read about the Melissa Harris-Perrys of the world, I ponder Matthew 18:6 “…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

  • Pingback: Rights()

  • Me

    There’s a terrific rebuttal to this article and a defense of Harris-Perry here:

  • Proteios

    If the political right continues to be glorified corporate lobbyists and whores for rich people, we can expect the left to have a field day with issues that no sane person would ever support. EVER! Look at some of the nonsense and self contradictory values the left puts forth. It ranges between diabolical genius and mindless simpleton. The problem is that with the crafty advocacy of our useless media, they strum us like garage sale guitars. Wre clueless. Leaderless. And so desperate that allow a sudden the republicans…who now are showing their true colors..yellow..seem like a ‘good’ idea.

  • Sacra-Pizza-Man

    Amsoc primethink.
    Orthodox American Socialist thought is mandatory.

    Amsoc doubleplusgood.
    American Socialism is the extreme best.

    Amsoc everwise exist.
    American Socialism is the ultimate truth.

    Amsoc primesource minis.
    The foundation of American Socialist order is its powerful, authoritarian government agencies.

    Miniluv crimethinkstopper.
    The Ministry of Internal Security ruthlessly eradicates criminally incorrect thought.

    Keeps Amsocsource goodthink.
    It keeps the purity of thought at the fountainhead of American Socialism.

    Minipax oversea Amsoc plus.
    The Ministry of Perpetual War keeps American Socialism supremely strong throughout the world.

    Amsoc sourcethink plus rations, wares.
    Orthodox American Socialist thought keeps citizens well fed and provisioned.

    Amsoc doubleplusgoodthink!
    Orthodox American Socialist thought is the best.