Meeting this Saturday

St Joseph's Freedom Group a Small Group od St Longinus Recovery Resources will be meeting at St Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church.

LURED.DECEIVED.VIOLATED.

On the Cigar: A Theological Reflection

by John Goerke

My mother, so it seems, has no one to blame but herself for planting the seeds that have grown into my love for cigars. My youth was not spent in their presence, not did she ever speak to me of their virtues. But she did, on more than one occasion, present to my eyes the monster that is the steam locomotive. Such things are passing away now, and I doubt whether anyone who finds this little essay will know what I am speaking of. But the image of greased steel and smoldering coal is as fresh to my eyes as the digits on my hand. The steam locomotive rolls into view with thunderous authority. The sheer size of them is enough to make the casual observer shudder. Behind the size is a power. Though the wheels turn slowly as the train passes the station, they are not straining. Rather the locomotive is the image par excellence of reserved strength. With every press of the pistons, more power is held than is handed away.

Such self-control is the sure mark of a person, or in this case a monster, absolutely certain of his own authority. You can earn the fear of a man by running towards him with the reckless abandon of the maniac, but you can more certainly earn his respect by approaching slowly. Hail moves with haste, icebergs move with hesitation but only the latter can sink ships. This imaginative feast found in the sight of a passing locomotive was the midwife for my love of the cigar. For this vision of dignity and strength was never present without a cylinder standing perpendicular to the rest of the body: a cylinder from which poured smoke.

Whether or not others share a similar genesis narrative for their own love of the cigar is not my concern here. Chesterton loved the cigar and wrote a whole essay in defense of it. Churchill’s mouth and hands were most frequently occupied with two tasks: the handling of the English language and the handling of the Cuban cigar (though one may add a third occupation in the handling of Scottish spirits). Even John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a man who was at once sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong – was wise enough to appreciate the cigar. That such great men have busied themselves with this rolled wonder can be no accident and it is worth reflecting, if only for a moment, on why this is the case.

A wise professor I recently spoke with seemed to think it is a matter of the cigar’s effects. Tobacco smoke has a way of sharpening the mind, imbibing it with an almost supernatural energy. He used this phenomenon to explain the cigar’s favor among intellectuals and literary types. Reading and smoking do have a natural complementarity. One may burn through a book and exhale smoke “thoughtfully.” But I don’t think this is the whole story. The same sharpening effect can be had with the cigarette – an item whose users seem to be offering a perpetual apology for it. Saying: “I really mean to quit,” seems to be a requisite part of the whole ritual for those few who still light up in public. But the cigar does not suffer from such insipid enthusiasts. The cigarette, which is loved more and more simply for its ability to energize the smoker, can be replaced by the grotesque invention of the electronic cigarette and it ought to give the casual observer pause that while e-cigarettes have soured in popularity, the electronic cigar remains an obscure item, unknown to all but a very unhappy few.

As is my habit, I see this as a spiritual difference. The cigar has far more existential depth than the pale chalk-like sticks currently being institutionally taxed and socially ostracized within an inch of their lives. Contra Freud, a cigar is never just a cigar. This is apparent from the first moments of their existence. In a little shop in Lower Manhattan, I watched with wonder over the shoulders of two men as they turned a pile of cured tobacco leaves into the subjects of this essay. Most conspicuous was their care. Leaves were broken, laid out, pressed like clay, broken again, laid out again and rolled like a fine bread dough. The cylindrical shaft was then wrapped as snugly as a baby in a dark moist wrapper, which became almost like skin for how tightly it bound to the inner tobacco. This wrapper was hand cut and applied with the most delicate movements of the fingers.

It was this finishing touch that called to mind the Christian doctrine of divine creation. For each cigar, like each of us, was “wonderfully made.” The maker formed each with his own hand. When finished, though similar to each other in many respects, each cigar is absolutely unique and we who smoke them can say the same of ourselves. We are similar, a fact which grounds all philosophy, science, art and literature, but all unique in our abilities, interests and situations. Like cigars we may be slimmer or wider, darker or lighter, longer or shorter, but this variety gives flavor to both the world of men and the world of the humidor.

We also, especially those of us who write essays of this sort, have another aspect mirrored in the cigar. Because we are fallen creatures, we will produce far more smoke than heat in this life. Most of our words and most of our actions will have the same fate as a silver curl of smoke. Seeming at first to be dense, solid and substantial; they will dissipate and eventually be lost to the wind. Perhaps they will, in the manner of smoke, bring some momentary happiness to those around us but they may just as easily be a cause of discomfort or even pain. Saying the wrong words to the wrong people is eerily similar to smoking in the wrong company. I ought not tell the clerk in this smoke shop, “I love you.” But I also ought not smoke a stogie in the presence of the woman mentioned at the start.

What is more, we like cigars must eventually turn back to ash. The Christian habit of annually applying ashes to the forehead does much to clear up the thinking that goes on in those particular heads. We may each burn for a little longer or a little shorter, but we will each of use, eventually, burn out. Often, like our cigars, this will happen before our full load of tobacco has been burned, before our full potential has been given away. The best cigars, like the best people, are burned right down to the very last and we call these people saints, for they gave all they could and all they had been given.

But this last thought leads to the most glorious difference between ourselves and our cigars. According to the pagans of yesterday and the pagans of today, our story ends where our cigar’s story ends: in the communal ashtray call the cemetery. We burn for a while and then extinguish forever after. Yet, the pagans were as wrong yesterday as they are today, for we have a certainty that this is not the end. Our maker does not form our core and wrap us in skin to have us simply expire. We are called back from our ashes and our bones are gonna rise again. This means that there will be no cigars in heaven. But this ought not darken the heart. Each extinguished cigar is a reminder that our own fate is not so bleak. We have a chance never given to these pillars of rolled tobacco. We can know and love Him who made us. I submit to you, that the cigar can be an aid to this end. I believe my reflections above sketch how this may be achieved. Let me then conclude with the words written on a placard currently mounted on the wall above my head. We are each of us made and lit and burning. What comes after will not be of this passing nature. But while we are in the world, I submit to you: “It is better to smoke here, than in the hereafter.”

John Goerke is a writer pursuing a Master of Arts in Catholic Studies, and he is a frequent contributor at the Institute on Religion and Democracy. He resides in St. Paul, MN. 

 

http://www.catholicgentleman.net/2014/04/on-the-cigar-a-theological-reflection/

I am a Christian

I am a Christian, now 44, married with three children and I still deal with the effects of pornography

August 21, 2012     

I am a Christian since the age of 6, baptized at 14, now 44, married with three
children and I still deal with the effects of pornography. I hope my experience
helps shed light on what may drive or lead boys/men back to pornography, and
how we might review how we admonish young people about the opposite sex. I
grew up in a strict Christian family with older brothers and an older sister, and
mostly Christian friends. Although us boys were always in underwear around the
house, I don’t remember ever having seen my sister in any less clothing than
shorts, not even a bathing suit as she was told to wear shorts over them. I
remember when my friends said girls have the cooties as they said the same
about us, but perhaps because my sister was so loving towards me, I never felt
that way and I always saw girls as God had made them extra special as He
made us special. I recall several occasions when our curiosities about the
opposite sex surfaced, such as pool parties or sleepovers, when an apparel
failure or keyhole peeks and giggles by the opposite group taking a collective
bath would expose any one or more of us. In several instances, I remember girls
asking to see that which they were curious about and I would concede, and
sometimes make a reciprocal request. My perception that this exchange of
curiosity was as common and natural as I had experience was ruptured when an
adult woman — who witnessed 3 girls of my age (6) opening my bathing suit and
touching me — scolded me (not them) and told their parents, who told my parents
that I was a dirty boy. I remember vividly that sequence of events and the open
humiliation in front of the girls’ families. I was told at that age, in different ways,
that this was dirty. Soon after I accepted Jesus as my savior. Unfortunately soon
after I was also shown a porn magazine by an older boy, then another, then by a
neighbor friend and so on. The first image is as vivid as if I had seen it today.
No one told me, not even my parents — until I was a teenager — that sex was
special. Over the following years I had contact with pornography at a friend’s
house and found refuge in it because I didn’t want to run the risk of having too
much contact with girls. Although I noticed girls’ curiosity and interest in me, I
shied away from it out of fear of them turning around and accusing me of their
curiorisity. I didn’t date until I was 19 and only a couple of times throughout
college, without any intimacy. A church leader in our church would often speak to
the youth and she would constantly refer to her experience of marriage and
divorce and the sexual abuse that sadly occurred. Her main point was “men are
the natural aggressors, and sex is their weapon.” By then I figured men were
damned and all girls need to be protected from us and remain single. Finally,
the girl I thought I was going to marry wanted to become intimate with me. We
didn’t go all the way, but apparently enough to satisfy her curiosity. When I
asked to marry her, she ended our relationship, claiming that she was on a
higher spiritual ground than me. So at age 26 I married my fiance of less than a
year, afraid that she’d change her mind, too as we had experienced some
intimacy, too. Soon after we married, she avoided intimacy and asked that only
she take the initiative, since she didn’t feel the same interest in sex as when we
were dating. So this only occured on the eve of her period, that is if it didn’t
surprise her. We’re still married 18 years later, many of which were with little or
no sex and the attempts at discussion, treatment were recused. That’s how
pornography became a refuge, lest I become perceived as an aggressor,
because somehow the perception that the only women who like sex are the ones
in the pictures (and the ones gossiped about) is what stuck in my mind. The
perception that girls only endure sex was perpetuated even in my marriage. I
refuse to believe that God designed men or women faulty. Somehow I missed
out on the blessing that sex is intended to be, so please tell this generation of
boys and girls, as I do my children that sex is something very special that God
created in each of us, for us to enjoy with our spouses. We need to find a way to
convey to young girls that they are special as they are and that they don’t need
to look like any model to be loved by boys, nor are boys or girls dirty for being
curious and interested in each other. And as the Bible verse says to not through
pearls to pigs, we are to save this special present for our future spouse. I
sometimes feel hypocritical since this has not happened in my life, but I still
believe it is God’s plan that sex is a treasure for a couple and that pornography
is a destructive distraction from God’s Plan for a full life. Since we don’t see
explicitly pornographic advertisements on TV or Home & Garden (thankfully), we
need to realize that the non-pornographic media is actually who promotes
pornography as they tread the fine line of insinuation and sexual simulations.
Pornography doesn’t begin with XXX, not even with one X; it ends up there.
Pornography begins with prime time ads for beauty products, TV series, whether
soap operas, comedies or dramas. Not to mention Sports Illustrated. I apologize
for using this upcoming word, but boys don’t begin to masturbate viewing
pornographic magazines, but as my friends and I did, it was with Sears Roebuck
Catalogs Intimate Apparel Section because demonstrating curiosity with girls
and vice versa is reprimanded and treated as dirty. I am not in favor of promoting
open curiosity, but when it is perceived, it should be treated as natural and
positive and the boy or girl should be surrounded with loving support and
education and instruction about their curiosity to shape their perception of the
opposite sex in the light of God’s divine purpose. The absence of light (a
positive message about sex) in the media leaves a void that is filled by darkness.
I work in Marketing and Communications and I am very strict with the creative
teams to shun any remote sign of appeal to sexual instincts. I am often
countered, but if I refuse to contribute to the propagation of the image that girls
should aspire to look like supermodels.

http://pornharms.com/personal/2012/08/21/i-am-a-christian-now-44-married-with-three-children-and-i-still-deal-with-the-effects-of-pornography/

Meeting this Saturday.

St Joseph's Freedom Group a Small Group od St Longinus Recovery Resources will be meeting at St Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church.

LURED.DECEIVED.VIOLATED.

For World Vision, Is Sexuality More Important Than Theology?

By Brian Lee

Originally published: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/04/for-world-vision-is-sexuality-more-important-than-theology/

The World Vision debacle is a perfect illustration of the deep confusion at very heart of the evangelical parachurch — a confusion between the universal good of humanitarian aid and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry.

Isn’t it remarkable how our disposable culture has earth-shattering debates of deep moral consequence, blood pressures rise, Facebook acquaintances insult one another, and then we move on? World Vision and Noah in the same week? What’s a Christian to do? In the meantime, countless real human lives are impacted — collateral damage — the news cycle turns and we move on.

 

And so it is I find myself a week later still thinking about the World Vision “doctrinal debacle,” as Mollie Hemingway labeled it last week. As she pointed out, one of the lessons learned was that “parachurch organizations are destined for trouble.”

I couldn’t agree more. I belong to a near-extinct breed of churchmen who have a certain disdain for parachurch organizations, based upon deeply held convictions about the Gospel, and the church. We live in a religious landscape increasingly dominated by the parachurch — where the church indeed is increasingly modeled on the parachurch — so this is one of those lessons worth considering further. We need to understand why parachurch organizations are destined for trouble, and the World Vision case is a perfect illustration.

First, let me stipulate that I am delighted that organizations like World Vision exist, and I don’t think the work they do is in any way illegitimate. I’m no expert, but nothing I know leads me to oppose them or discourage support of their work.

I do, however, believe that World Vision and the vast majority of Christians have a deeply confused understanding of that work and their status as a “Christian” organization. Here’s the problem: they wrongly confuse their work with Gospel ministry, and present it as somehow distinctively Christian. Why should humanitarian aid be an exclusivist enterprise?

Let me be clear. The Gospel is good news for dying sinners, and depends upon faith and a certain theological precision for its lifesaving force. “Gospel Ministry,” from the perspective of classic Protestantism, is the sole domain of the church, what our confessions call “the Keys of the Kingdom.” This includes the Preaching of the Word, the Administration of the Sacraments, and the pastoral discipline of the church. These keys are also called “means of grace,” and are uniquely the possession of the Church, by Christ’s command and authority. This Gospel ministry, properly understood, isn’t a fruit of faith, it is a gracious God-given gift that creates and sustains faith.

With this understanding, the church is a Christian organization — THE Christian organization — in the sense that it makes Christians, or more precisely authenticates and constitutes those Spirit-born Christians by baptizing and communing them, and sustains them in their Christian faith. Sometimes the church even unmakes a Christian via excommunication. For those of us that believe, this is serious, life and death stuff.
World Vision, in contrast, is a “Christian” organization in a different, and lesser sense, in the sense that it is made up of those who already are “Christians,” who are “motivated by their faith in Christ.”

In deference to Hemingway’s third lesson, I’m not being uncharitable with that second set of scare quotes around “Christians.” I’m not in the business of questioning the authenticity of anyone’s faith, for God alone judges the heart. But churches are in this business. Every church has some criteria for who can be baptized, or become a member, whether broad, or narrow. Many of them disagree.

But World Vision accepts every church’s coin, thereby devaluing it, and mints anyone “a Christian” on their own terms, via checking a box affirming a statement of faith as well as the Apostles’ Creed, and a “conduct policy” shaped by Christian mores. Acting outside any particular church structure, it dismisses the judgments of all churches about their most essential function, the making and unmaking of Christians. It doesn’t even clearly require that one be a member of a church, though via a creed it affirms belief in “the holy catholic [in the sense of “universal”] church.”

Are You Saved By What You Do?

To its credit, World Vision understands that the nature of the church / parachurch relationship was at the center of their recent decision. It was seeking to “leave theology to others” and “honor the church as a whole… acknowledg[ing] the proper relationship between the church and parachurch,” according to board member Soong-Chan Rah.

Most evangelicals were perfectly happy with this relationship, so long as it just involved theology, and not behavior. Indeed, one justification for the original decision was that World Vision already had employees from over 50 different Christian denominations, denominations with real doctrinal differences. These include the nature of God, of sin and salvation, faith, the significance of the sacraments, and the future of the world.

The vast majority of lay Christians today may pooh-pooh doctrine as irrelevant, but these churches on the whole don’t. They are the original Christian organizations, and despite the ecumenical spirit of the age, they continue to give voice to their distinctive witness. Indeed, many of these churches also differ on the moral question of same sex unions. Surely, World Vision reasoned, it could maintain its “Christian identity” and its distinctive “faith component” while letting the church be the church?

But what exactly is our Christian identity divorced in this way from the particulars of the church?

The great revelation here is that evangelical supporters of World Vision showed themselves to believe that sexuality is ultimately more important to Christian identity than theology; behavior more important than doctrine; and church membership, least important of all. Depart from Scripture on your teaching about original sin? No biggie. Affirm that same sex unions may be chaste? You’re denying the inspiration of Scripture.

This episode tells us more about the state of contemporary evangelicalism than about World Vision. In its pursuit of unity and pan-Christian cooperation, American revivalism and evangelicalism have always been willing to be doctrinal minimalists, while elevating particular moral scruples — even unbiblical ones such as the prohibition of alcohol — as arbiters of orthodoxy. The World Vision debacle is ultimately the evangelical debacle.

For a movement that takes its name from the Gospel itself, the “evangel,” this is a sad fall. To an outsider, it would appear they believe you are saved not by what you believe, but by what you do.

An Instrument of Holiness

This all should matter to us, because if we are Christians, the church matters. Jesus loves the church, and gave his life for her.

Christians confess the church under the heading of the Holy Spirit because the church is the instrument the Spirit uses to make us holy. There can be no distinction between theology and ethics, behavior and faith. Christian morality or holiness is not secondary to theology or doctrine in this enterprise. It is the ultimate goal and purpose of theology and doctrine. This is essential, not ancillary, to the Gospel. God’s free gospel and holy law go together.

But when you divorce Christian conduct codes from the church, you are left with rules, and no hope. Law, with no gospel. And the law doesn’t make us holy, the gospel does. The church is a hospital for sinners, and the gospel is the medicine. Reducing Christianity to rules suggests you must obey before you can enter, or that if you don’t you’ll be shown the door.

The crucial question isn’t what comprises your code of Christian conduct. It is how your respond when you break it. And if we get the conduct code right — the perfect Law of God — we will break it. Every. Day.

I belong to a church that — along with the vast majority of Christians — believes the Scriptures teach unambiguously that the only chaste expression of human sexuality is in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman. [Yes, snarky commenter, our Bible is full of polygamous sinners. That’s why they needed Jesus.] That is clearly and affirmatively taught in God’s Law.

But what makes us a church, and not just a bunch of Christians, is how God’s Gospel is applied when that Law is broken.

What can, I wonder, World Vision do when an employee falls into sin? When their marriage struggles, and falls apart due to same sex attraction? When they pursue a new union with their same sex partner? Terminate for cause? Fire someone because the organization’s “Christian identity” has been violated by sin?

What can the church do? Forget what she has done, for we all know that the church too has sinned gravely in this matter. But what can she do, what should she do?

First, the church expresses the love of Christ for sinners, and pardon for those who repent. Christian identity in the church is determined by the law and gospel. It is predicated not on our avoidance of sin, but on the fact that we are sinners, saved by grace.

This pardon is not free, but requires acknowledgement of the holiness of God’s law, and the sinfulness of our sin. It requires sorrow for sin, and repentance.

Yes, there is a code of Christian conduct — God’s Law — but it is lived out in the community of the church, of forgiven sinners. The sinner of the church is not alone, but is embraced by Gospel promises, the assurance of pardon in the sacrament, and a loving body of Christ that desires to support one another as they grow in holiness. And only in extremis, when these simple terms of divine forgiveness are absolutely rejected, does it sorrowfully acknowledge that the Christian identity is no more.

This is the essence of Christianity, and it is precisely what the parachurch lacks. Which is why World Vision is a perfectly fine relief organization, but has nothing essentially to do with the Gospel.

Why should feeding the poor be an exclusive endeavor, undertaken only by those who share a common faith? True, the founders of World Vision may not have cared for the poor as they do if they weren’t Christians, yet this faith is not integral to their work, nor does not make it a “Christian Ministry.”

Pornography is more mind altering

Pornography is more mind altering then any drug I have ever abused

August 20, 2012    

Pornography is more mind altering then any drug I have ever abused. It warps
ones perspective on what is right and healthy in a relationship, and the images
never leave one’s mind. I have changed my life for the better and really tried to
clean up my act, and go far out of my way to avoid any aspect of pornography.
Unfortunately, the images that I used to look at are still stuck in my head and
they still have a lingering influence on my thoughts. I wish that I had some sort of
mind bleach so that I could purge that filth out of my mind. I wish I had
understood at a younger age how harmful this filth is. Pornography has had such
a powerful impact on my life. I try to warn others as to how mind altering and
damaging porn really is, but no one wants to listen. We treat sex like a sport.

The New York Times’ 3 Worst Corrections On Christian Holidays*

*Technically, one of these might not be real.

March 17, 2014 By Mollie Hemingway

 

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven.
—The New York Times, April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article misquoted a comment from Malachy McCourt on St. Patrick. Mr. McCourt said, “My attitude is, St. Patrick banished the snakes from Ireland and they all came here and they became conservatives.” He did not say St. Patrick banished the slaves from Ireland.
—The New York Times, March 17, 2014

An earlier version of this review misspelled the title of the book. It’s “The English Standard Version Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha” not the “The English Standard Version Bible: Containing the Apocryphal Old and New Testaments.” Christians, in fact, strongly dispute that anything contained in the Bible itself is “apocryphal.” We apologize for the confusion.
Further, many biblical scholars take issue with the review’s characterization of Good Friday as “the Christian holiday in which it is believed that Jesus, a revered prophet, gave his life to save a penitent thief.” Other details about the holiday were also inaccurate. The article originally reported that “[Good Friday] nevertheless resonates in popular culture today in the commonplace invocation of the phrase, ‘Thank God It’s Friday,’ supposedly uttered by Jesus when he was arrested in the Garden of Eden by the Roman Emperor Pontius Pilate. The saying, abbreviated as ‘TGIF,’ was scrawled upon a placard placed above the crucified holy man.” That entire paragraph has been struck and the legal department wants to issue a sincere apology if the Times inadvertently violated the trademarks of a popular chain restaurant.

It has also come to our attention that Feast of the Transfiguration is not about “Moses and the Buddha meeting the wandering rabbi on a mountaintop while traveling to a wedding in the region of Cana, more famous for an Israeli massacre of innocent civilians in the 2006 Lebanon War.” So far as we know, these historical figures were not contemporaries, and a Google search reveals that the only written reference to them being together is contained in The Worst of Truly Tasteless Jokes. And while the events of the Bible do take place in Israeli-occupied Palestine, the territory is still better known for events that occurred there millenia ago, even before Yassir Arafat was awarded a Nobel Peace Price.

Though there is scholarly dispute over the details (according to renowned scriptural authorities like Karen Armstrong, there are at least twenty-three accounts of Jesus’s life, or “gospels”) there is no evidence the so-called “Good Samaritan” was a member of a caste that was almost entirely HIV-positive and therefore shunned by the Pharisees and Christians of the era. Despite complaints from many readers and Biblical scholars, the Times is standing by the assertion that the parable of the Good Samaritan is “mostly unknown in the modern literate world though cultural echoes of this event may still be found in the work of Macklemore.”

Additionally, there is some evidence that Ash Wednesday and other events on the liturgical calendar have roots in the medieval era, but historians define the medieval period more narrowly than “lasting from the Empire of Charlemagne to Roe v. Wade in which the Catholic Church waged unceasing war against all knowledge, inquiry, and intellect.” The source of modern Ash Wednesday ashes remain a source of some controversy and is the topic of law-enforcement investigation in several jurisdictions, as Scientists willing to defend the truth of global warming continue to disappear. As a result, we could find no climatologists willing to support the contention put forth in the article that the carbon footprint of Christians burning ashes for a pointless symbolic purpose is responsible for Micronesia being completely underwater by 2025.

Finally, Orthodox believers do not believe that Santa Claus announced the Christ Child to the shepherds, or that elves were sent by Herod to kill Joseph in Egypt. It is also not customary for Christians to yell “Who DAT!” throughout worship services on All Saints Day. It turns out that the 12 days of Christmas have no relationship to a lobbying campaign by the American Manufacturers Association and the American Retail Association. And Easter is not “a celebration of the miraculous return of Cadbury eggs.”

The New York Times regrets the errors.

Originally published: http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/17/the-new-york-times-3-worst-corrections-on-christian-holidays/

In her words.

Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy

Originally published http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/

By Stella Morabito

The goal isn't equality - it's abolishing an institution.

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.

Consider also the breakneck speed at which the push for same sex marriage has been happening recently. The agenda’s advocates have been very methodical in their organization, disciplined in their timing, flush with money, in control of all information outlets, including media, Hollywood, and academia. And perhaps most telling is the smearing of any dissenter in the public square, a stigma made de rigueur by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his animus-soaked opinion that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare.

Activist judges have taken their cues from Attorney General Eric Holder who used the DOMA repeal to proclaim open season on any state that recognizes marriage as an organic (i.e., heterosexual) union of one man and one woman. In their crosshairs are state constitutions, businesses, students, communities, churches, and all of those bogus “conscience clauses” that were written into same sex marriage legislation in order to sway wavering state legislators to vote “aye.”

The tipping point came soon after certain big name conservatives and pundits swallowed the bait on same sex marriage. Folks like Michael Barone, John Bolton, George Will, S. E. Cupp, and David Blankenhorn have played a huge role in building momentum for this movement, which, as we will see, is blazing a trail to the abolition of state recognized marriage. And whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society.  So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of  Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

1) The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships

Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry declaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]

There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)

Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.

So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better?  Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

2) Friends in High Places promote Fineman’s Model of State-Regulated Contracts

Cass Sunstein, who served as President Obama’s regulatory czar from 2009 to 2012, has advocated strongly for the abolition of civil marriage and its replacement with contracts that would negotiate the terms of personal relationships.

In 2008 Sunstein published an article in the Cardozo Law Review arguing that there is no constitutional right to marry and suggesting that “states may abolish marriage without offending the Constitution.” And an entire chapter of a popular book Sunstein co-authored with Richard Thaler in 2008 is devoted to arguing for the abolition of civil marriage. This is from Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government.  . . . Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.*(*Footnote:  We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people.)”

Sunstein and Thaler dub their approach “libertarian paternalism,” an odd jargon which seems contrived to win over readers by evoking a strange juxtaposition of moderation and a heavy touch of the archaic.

Clearly, Sunstein has been laying the groundwork for the abolition of civil marriage. He purports that this would get the government out of a “licensing scheme,” but his specious phrasing is a fig leaf covering up the predictable effects of his approach: greater government regulation of personal relationships. His popular writing on the subject comes in the guise of “privatization” of relationships – even as gender theorists like Fineman argue against America’s “obsession” with privacy and individualism. But this is not a difficult circle to square. Thaler and Sunstein argue, pretty much in line with Fineman, that people ought to make use of contracts to define the terms of their relationships. And contracts invite – indeed, for Fineman, they demand – that the government function as an intimate partner in this legal ménage a trois.

3) LGBT Activists Say So Themselves: The Goal is to Abolish Marriage

“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.

“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Ethics and Public Policy Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz wrote extensively about this document in two National Review articles, entitled The Confession and The Confession II. Kurtz noted that the intent of the sponsors of the manifesto – which as of 2006 had hundreds of prominent signatories, including Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martha Fineman, and Gloria Steinem – was “to dissolve marriage by extending the definition to every conceivable family type.”

Sunstein needn’t have “ducked the issue” of more than two parties in a domestic contract because legalizing polygamy is central to the manifesto. And there can be no doubt that the legalization of polygamy would result in the abolition of all state-recognized marriage. Polygamy — repackaged in the now trendy term “polyamory” – comes with an array of configurations too dizzying and with too many moving parts to be sustained as state-recognized marriage.

Despite the existence of the manifesto, the official line of the LGBT community still seems to be that gay marriage is only about equal rights for couples who love one another. Their spokespersons have been disciplined – with a friendly media running cover for them – in maintaining the official line so as not to provoke a debate about the real agenda to abolish marriage.

Supposedly conservative gay activists like Jonathan Rauch have also run cover and protected the timing of the agenda by claiming that the manifesto was merely a “fringe” of the LGBT movement. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rauch really believes his own propaganda that gay marriage will somehow strengthen a marriage culture by bringing loving gay couples into it. The main effect of the Rauch meme is to accelerate the abolition of civil marriage by hastening a legal framework for genderless marriage that will pave the way for total abolition of  civil marriage, and with it private family life.

It’s clear the gloves are coming off and timing has entered a new phase. The push for polyamory has gone mainstream, right on schedule. Supportive puff pieces on it are popping up in places like Atlantic Monthly and the erstwhile women’s magazine Redbook. In the end, polyamory serves only as a transitory way station between the legalization of same sex marriage and the abolition of civil marriage.

4) Growing Dominance of Singles

Recent decades have seen a sharp upsurge of unmarried households. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 103 million unmarried people 18 and older. That’s 44 percent of all US residents over 18. And 62 percent of those 103 million had never been married. Unmarried individuals represented 56 million households in 2012. The rise in singles has had an undeniably huge impact on the electorate. In the 2012 election 39 percent of the voters were unmarried, compared to 24 percent of the voters in the 1972 election.

The “Communication League for Unmarried Equality,” is a coalition of singles’ rights organizations which argues that government benefits for marriage – including tax breaks and survivor benefits in social security — amount to marital status discrimination. Its advocates argue that civil marriage unjustly awards financial, social, and cultural benefits to married individuals at the expense of unmarried individuals who end up subsidizing marriage and children, without compensation.  In addition, proponents of “unmarried equality” insist that the existence of these privileges serve to perpetuate prejudices and stereotypes about singles that inflict harm on them. (Sounds like a Supreme Court case brewing.)

Bella DePaulo spearheaded the movement as a blogger and author of Singled Out and Singlism:  What it is, Why it Matters and How to Stop It.” According to DePaulo, the discrimination she calls “singlism” may seem more subtle than racism or sexism, but is just as damaging. She has tip-toed to the edge of advocating for the abolition of marriage, with a professor of feminist philosophy Elizabeth Blake, by saying that marriage should be “minimized” (for now) so that singles have the same benefits as married individuals. Which, naturally, means abolishing marriage.

“Singlism” itself is not yet considered a form of illegal discrimination. But DePaulo believes it should be:

“Because singlism is built right into American laws, it is not possible to be single and not be a target of discrimination. If you have followed the marriage equality debate, then you probably know that there are more than 1,000 federal laws that benefit or protect only those people who are legally married. Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land, all those people who are single — whether gay or straight or any other status — will still remain second class citizens.”

5) Morphing of the Memes – from Marriage Equality to Marriage Ambivalence to Marriage Hostility

“Why would anyone get married?” That’s a quote from Nancy Pelosi in a Valentine’s Day interview last month, downplaying the importance of marriage. While some might say she’s simply courting the singles demographic, she’s mostly reinforcing and echoing a narrative that marriage is irrelevant or perhaps even harmful. She is contributing to the drumbeat to abolish civil marriage.

Let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves as a Stepford wife to the State.

Major cultural forces – the media, academia, and Hollywood – have already adopted an increasingly hostile view of marriage. We can see it in the use of the term “greedy marrieds” from a recent New York Times feature “The Changing American Family“: “Single people live alone and proudly consider themselves families of one — more generous and civic-minded than ‘greedy marrieds.’”

And look at NBC Sports in its coverage Olympic gold medalist skier David Wise. It described him as living an “alternative lifestyle” because he happened to be young and married with children.  The clear inference was that he was abnormal.

The promotion and glorification of single parenting which got its start with the Murphy Brown TV series of the 1990s has gone into hyperdrive now. Check out online services such as Modamily, that matches people with “parenting partners,” with whom they can draw up a contract, arrange for artificial reproductive technologies, and forgo marriage.

And let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves, with more than a bit of irony, as a Stepford wife to the State. The narrative was clearly hostile to the idea of marriage and supportive of policies to abolish it.

6) LGBT Push for Same Sex Marriage in Developing Countries

The rush by LGBT activists and the Obama administration to lift bans on gay marriage in all 50 states is peculiarly fast and furious. Oddly so for a movement that seems to be gaining steam and social compliance. A reasonable question would be: What’s the rush if things are going so swimmingly your way? The only answer seems to be one of fragile timing.

The sudden LGBT push globally, especially in Africa, should give us pause as well. Why the abrupt shove into poor countries, threatening to cut off aid unless they comply with such a massive cultural shift and adopt the Western LGBT agenda? Why the laser focus on Uganda and Malawi instead of places like Iran where abuses of homosexuals are likely just as common?

We are witnessing a major strategy to export gay marriage – and all it entails for the abolition of marriage — worldwide. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have made an example of Uganda by threatening to cut off its aid over the existence of its anti-sodomy laws. Other developing nations are expected to take note and fall into line, creating a cascade effect until any other nation who resists will feel the noose tightening.

We might reasonably ask why this particular agenda is getting so much attention while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. Syria is overrun with vicious terrorist gangs at least as bad as its president. Russia is flexing its muscles, having just invaded the Ukraine and Crimea. Christians are being exterminated in record numbers throughout the Middle East. We’re looking at nuclear weapons in Iran. There’s a nuclear threat from North Korea, which not only starves its own people but is run by a guy who, it was said, feeds his political enemies to starving dogs. And yet President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been spending special quality time focusing on the LGBT agenda in in the poor countries of Africa?

Clearly the Western LGBT agenda represents a new brand of cultural imperialism that is not content to shape life at home, but intends to propagate itself – and all it entails – worldwide.

Ending Marriage Leads To A Centralized All Powerful State

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.

Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.

Isn’t it ironic that feminists would replace the “paternalism” of marriage (what happened to strong women?) with the new paternalism of state regulation of personal relationships? Isn’t it ironic that singles in this scheme of things simply end up marrying the state?

At some point, we must conclude that freedom of association has its source in state acceptance of the core family as the primary buffer zone between the individual and the state. There is no escaping this fact, no matter a particular generation’s attitude or public opinion polling, or advances in medical technology, or whatever else comes our way.

Marriage Is The Template For Freedom Of Association

Without state recognition of – and respect for – marriage, can freedom of association survive? How so? On what basis?

Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children. It also assumes the right of spouses to refuse to testify against one another in court. It presumes survivorship – in guardianship of children as well as inheritance of property. If we abolish civil marriage, these will no longer be rights by default, but rights to be distributed at the pleasure of a bureaucratic state.

When a couple enters into a civil marriage, they are not inviting the government into their relationship, but rather putting the government on notice that they are a family unit. It’s the couple – not the state – that’s in the driver’s seat.Otherwise, they needn’t marry. Otherwise, central planners wouldn’t be so intent on abolishing marriage as a private and autonomous association from which the state must keep its distance, unless one partner wishes to exit by divorce.

Children – i.e., all of us born into a family – inherit that presumption of autonomy and broadcast it into society. We do so whether or not we ever get married ourselves. The presumption of family autonomy and privacy informs our right to freely associate with others – through romances, friendships, business contracts, and so on. It would be catastrophic to freedom if we threw it away.

State recognition of this autonomy cannot exist without state recognition of marriage. In fact, traditional marriage — just like traditional oxygen if you will – helps all of society breathe more freely.

If civil marriage is abolished, you can say hello to the government at your bedroom door because that comfortable little meme about “getting the state out of the marriage business” will have flown out your bedroom window while you were sleeping.

Stella Morabito can be followed on Twitter here.  She blogs at www.stellamorabito.net

Dating a porn addict

 

October 3, 2012    

Years ago I met a handsome young man, who was an adorable father of a 4 year old son. In a short time I learned of his painful journey living with a sexual addiction. It had begun quite early in his life, when he had been exposed to pornography and other sexual behaviors through a friend at school. At the time, he was very vulnerable from feeling abandoned by his Father, who had left their family when this young man was only 6 years old. Because of this, it was difficult for him to see that the excitement of viewing pornography and participating in these sexual behaviors was just a temporary distraction from his painful feelings about his life and himself, and would eventually lead him to more pain from involvement in destructive behaviors that would ruin his future happiness, opportunities, and dreams for a healthy family. At about 21, He ended up getting a 19 year old girl pregnant. They married because of pressure to do so, but divorced several years later because of his going to prison for acting on his addiction. He was sexually inappropriate with 4 year old girl. This young man lost many opportunities to progress academically, career wise, and personally such as being able to choose where he would live because of his involvement in Porn. He also lost out on the joys of having a healthy family life which he seemed to so badly want. It had been destroyed by his addiction to sex and porn.
When I met him, he was still troubled by the affects of his actions, that were prompted by his sexual addiction brought on by porn. We were unable to have a healthy relationship. He was still dealing with the after affects of his divorce. His ex-wife was still dealing with the affects of being married to a porn addict. There was stress and pain from the fragments of his previous married life, as well as the continuing affects of his addiction, that caused him to continue to be unable to achieve a healthy family life which he said he wanted so much.
Within several years, when his boy was about 6, he got another younger woman pregnant. At that same time he was still trying to convince me he wanted a relationship with me. He once again drop out of school, which he’d been back into for a year or so, in order for him to take care of his responsibilities as a Dad for the second time. Last I knew he didn’t care about the mother of his new child, but married her anyways. The affects of his addiction have not only hurt him but his children, and the children’s mothers, etc., and basically perpetuates the vulnerability for addiction to all those he has affected, be it woman he dates, woman he gets pregnant, the children he has, and a number of other close or not so close people he influences and interacts with, especially any other victims of his sexual behaviors such as children he could molests.
We as a society cannot remain ignorant or complacent about the destructive and harmful affect’s that stem from even a mild exposure of pornography to citizens of a society. If we do, we will be allowing many more individuals to experience suffering and pain, especially those vulnerable or weak to the affects. In turn, if we continue to push aside concerns about pornography, hoping it will keep us from facing the terrible realities created by the ugliness of pornography, we will soon wake up to an even worse nightmare which we cannot escape through our imaginations. It takes action now to help those entrapped already and those at risk of becoming entangled.

http://pornharms.com/personal/2012/10/03/dating-a-porn-addict/#more-540

Top 10 signs of pornography addiction

All addictions, whether alcohol, drugs, gambling, food or pornography, start when the drug of choice is used as a crutch to combat feelings of anxiety, low self- esteem, boredom, loneliness and/or anger.

Share Tweet Pin Post

Ann Tolley

Oct 10, 2012   |   172 views   |   1 shares

• All addictions, whether alcohol, drugs, gambling, food or pornography, start when the drug of choice is used as a crutch to combat feelings of anxiety, low self- esteem, boredom, loneliness and/or anger. There is not a sharp line that defines addiction – it is a process which happens over time. It can happen with an initial exposure or gradually over many months, or even years. Most addictions escalate, which means that, over time, more and more of the drug of choice is needed.
  Here are some signs of pornography addiction. Any of these things indicate a serious problem and possible addiction. More than three of these things indicate probable addiction.
  

  1. An inability to stop the behavior(s) and porn use despite previous attempts to do so

  Do you feel like you are no longer the one in charge – the compulsion is stronger than your will power?
  

  2. Anger or irritability if asked to stop

  Would you feel defensive or angry if you were asked to decrease or quit your porn use?
  

  3. Hiding all or a portion of porn use

  Do you live a double or secret live related to your porn use? Do you justify and rationalize your pornography use?
  

  4. Continuing the behavior despite obvious consequences, such as a relationship or job loss

  How hard would it be to give up porn if a job, marriage, relationship, or friendship were in jeopardy?
  5. Getting lost while using porn (i.e., spending more time than intended, losing track of time). How often do you totally lose track of time when viewing porn? How often to you spend more time than you intended? (Once I start, I just want to go on and on.)
  

  6. Pornography consumes thoughts – constant fantasies about it

  Is your pornography use a high priority in your life?
  7. Significant emotional distance from those around you and an inability to be emotionally intimate in real-life relationships. Emotionally, are you more attached to the fantasy world of porn than the challenging world around you? Would you rather look at porn than be with friends or family?
  

  8. Having to look at more and more pornography for the same thrill you used to get

  Are you looking at things and doing things which you used to think you’d never do?
  

  9. Using porn as a way to cope with life stresses

  Do you turn to porn as a way to cope with stress, anger, loneliness, boredom, or feelings of low self-esteem?
  10. Rough or demanding when you engage in sex or are emotionally distant during sex. Are you critical of your partner’s appearance, implying they aren't sexy enough. Are you fundamentally angry or frustrated with relationships, sex and intimacy in the ‘real world’? Is the world or porn where you’re most comfortable?

http://familyshare.com/top-10-signs-of-pornography-addiction

I’m a girl and got hooked when I was 10

August 20, 2012     

If I could attach the 20 page story/memoir I have that explains this in great detail,
I would love to, however, I know that it won’t fit into this little box provided here.
Long story short; I am a 19 year old female that started looking up pornography
at 10-11 years old and finally conquered that terrible addiction shortly after my
19th birthday. It was a long, drawn-out battle that definitely hindered my first two
relationships and fucked me over in all ways possible (emotionally, mentally, and
spiritually). However, after living an entire life being an agnostic/atheist, I have
since the beginning of this year discovered God and relish in all of the Love that
He has for me. Ever since my conversion, I have finally stopped watching
pornography for good. Like I said, this is an extremely watered down version of
my life story. I would provide you my contact information but I have no idea what
you guys would do with it and how much you desire to hear the details of my
story (especially since we’re supposed to be anonymous). Please know that I
truly would *love* to share my experiences with people, however, for the sake of
this, I have to stay anonymous. I’m sorry for the inconvenience…

LURED.DECEIVED.VIOLATED.

In her words.