Free Republic

How was James Fields railroaded? I thought it was solidly established that he rammed his car into the crowd, inspired by neo-Nazi hatred. Is there something I am not aware of?

This double-standard and the taboo about discussing it creates resentments that drive people into the arms of white nationalists and other serious racists. It is a threat to racial tolerance and integration. I highly recommend Carol Swain’s book “The New White Nationalism” for a detailed discussion of this. It covers this very issue.

If whites start seeing themselves as an identity group, I don’t know how we’ll back off that from that level of racial tension. I don’t want to live in an America where a white nationalist and a woke black person scream at each other on CNN every night.

While the racism of black people may not be as bad practically speaking, morally, it is the same, and deserves to be condemned whether it is against Jews or whites in general.

To add to the Scripture quotation, which is true and applies here, the man may find the woman attractive. That is out of his control, and not inherently sinful. However, to ask oneself a question like that is an act of the will - it is a choice, and in that, he has sinned gravely in his heart. It is about what we do with those feelings that is sinful - in thought, word, or deed.

Likewise, fleeting thoughts of this nature can come involuntarily - that is not a sin. At best, it is a temptation. It is a sin when one decides to hold on to, or to stoke such thoughts. Then, one is choosing to entertain adultery (or another sin) in the heart.

So, yes, you are right that our sexuality is good and from God. That means that our feelings are good in themselves. However, we are also subject to the effects of original sin. Therefore, our sexuality can be twisted and turn sinful. So, we have to direct and guide it with our reason (aided by God’s necessary grace) to what is good.

It’s not pushing at all! These are good questions, and I enjoy answering them.

Well, I’m no theologian, but I believe the answer is yes. It would be valid, but not licit. It would be, in my estimation, a grave sin - not only because it violates Church protocol, but for the other reasons we’ve mentioned, and others that I haven’t mentioned.

I’ve been thinking of others, such as the highly individualistic symbolism in consecrating with each person having an individual Host in front of them. A personal relationship with Christ is paramount, of course, but it is not the whole. Catholics also believe that we are the mystical body of Christ. Participating in Mass is a communal act. So is receiving Holy Communion. Receiving Communion, along with the effect of receiving Christ Himself, is a sign of unity in faith, and unity in the Church. One of the effects of receiving Holy Communion in a state of grace and properly disposed is not only a union with Christ, but also a union with others through Communion because of that union with Christ. St. Paul talks about Holy Communion, including this effect of it, in 1 Corinthians, 10-11, if I’m remembering correctly.

Back to your question, I once had a priest tell me that by his ordination, what is consecrated on the altar is what he intends to consecrate. He said that this extends even to individual Hosts. He said that if he were a vindicative person, he could even withhold consecration from a Host. That would be horrible, of course. But yes, intent does affect what is consecrated.

There’s also a doctrinal issue. Catholic teaching is that the Eucharist is not only Communion, but also sacrifice. The main part of Mass is the one Sacrifice of Christ made present on the altar in an unbloody manner and re-presented to the Father as a perfect act of worship. That’s why the priest consecrates on an altar. The laity are only required to receive Communion once a year during the Easter season, but are required to attend Mass - to be present for the Sacrifice of the altar, every Sunday and Holy Day.

In addition, I know that Catholics are not permitted to self-communicate, which is what the idea sounds like. I don’t know how to explain why this, I only know that it is so.

I’m not a priest, but I don’t think that is possible. It would also be highly inadvisable. Too much risk for sacrilige, among other problems.

Judging by the second photo you posted, I’d say that face looks a little like Ted Cruz at that angle.

I for one do not wish Janet Reno to go to Hell. Christ told us that we should not wish Hell even on our worst enemy, and when he says it, I believe it. In fact, I hope she’s in Heaven.

That said, Waco was a travesty anyway you slice it. I think what bothers me about the reporting on her death is that it will be very one-sided regarding Waco and won’t mention some of the strong evidence shown in the “Rules of Engagement” documentary.

Btw, Eric Holder was *not* assistant AG at the time of Waco. Holder did not enter that position until 1997, several years after Waco. He did have a hand in the Danforth report, however.

I thought Trump sounded quite gracious. No gloating or anything. I think it will be interesting to hear the tone he’ll take in the general election

Why is the federal government determining what sort of taxes local (keyword: local) school districts can levy? If they can control the sorts of taxes a district can use, can they also make them levy a tax or remove a tax?

Local school districts should be truly local and independent, not mere administrative zones for the federal government. Federalism and division of powers is very important.

I already checked ebay. There was one copy, and I already purchased it. There doesn’t seem to be anything else.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Btw, as of June of this year, Chilton Williamson is the senior editor for Chronicles.

I’m looking to buy issues. I prefer reading print because I absorb it better, and because I can feel my brain frying when I read a screen. I also like being able to go back and read an article or issue for nostalgia’s sake, or to look up arguments or anecdotes to use. I tend to keep magazines for years.

I’m willing to pay the cost of shipping.

Would InterLibrary loan go between library systems? My regional libraries don’t carry Chronicles.

Any and all, really. But in particular, the May 1990 issue seems interesting, as does the March 2013 one more recently. But who am I kidding? They all do. Is there a reason you quit subscribing? I heard that they had a huge drop in subscription numbers from 20,000 to around 5,000 in the 90s. On the internet I read someone from a think-tank who said he used to read it until it became “too weird”, whatever that means.

To reed13k, I assure you I have no nefarious plans. However, I’m fairly intellectual, quite conservative, and have become enthused by this magazine and seek to gobble up as many issues as I can get my hands on. As a relatively cash-strapped college student (history major), I can’t afford to purchase a ton of back issues at $7 or whatever the newsstand price is.

Thanks. I know about the ability to order back issues, and will probably do that. However, I’m looking for as many as possible, and it will almost certainly cost quite a bit of money. I’m also not sure how far back it’s possible to order issues. I thought, “Well, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

I figured it was worth a shot.

The heart of the matter is that the cultural-left worldview posits that humans are a blank-slate and that all differences are merely socially constructed. Gender, they say, is socially constructed, a figment of our minds. This is nonsense, as the case of David Reimer shows, but they believe it.

Further, they believe that since reality is subjective, and socially constructed, the human will should reign supreme, being unfettered by religious conviction, cultural tradition, or even nature itself. It matters little that men have xy chromosomes and women xx, or that only biological women can give birth or menstruate - reality is socially constructed, and those things believe they have the right to decide things, so why pay them heed?

Thus, we have this social nihilism, in which our subjective mind is said to create reality.

Since the human will can not be rightfully opposed - even when defying nature, says the cultural left, government must secure whatever anyone dares to desire or want.

What’s left in this tradition-less, secular, blank-slate world is a “will to power” in which each side struggles for the machinery of the state to impose their will upon the other and secure their desires.

Thus, we get the Justice Department forcing local schools who refuse to recognize males who think they are females or vice-versa as anything other than who they actually are - to recognize that subjective perception and call it reality. We also get this pathetic call for surrender.

I’m reminded of an exchange between Castro, and that secular prophet of despair (and commie) Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre asked Castro what the meaning of his revolution was.

“That a man should have whatever he wants,” Castro says.

“But what if he wants the moon?”

Castro pondered this, and responded, “Then he should have it.”

Today we ask, “What if a man wants to be a woman?”