It may have been that way when you went to school, but I think overall it has changed. You only have to look at the likes of Georgetown to see the current fruit of the Jesuit tree. Remember when Obozo went to Georgetown to give a speech and the school covered up all the crucifixes and paintings in order not to offend? Do you think the early Jesuits that crossed the English Channel to help keep the Catholic Faith alive in England? I have no faith in the Jesuit Tree today. The liberal virus infected this tree long ago and most of the fruit it bears is rotten.

..”Jesuit education is built on that premise and it is the greatest enterprise in the world today.”

Good to hear that they are still standing strong.

And I want to puke when I hear the likes of Rachel Maddow suggest that faith and reason can’t be reconciled. Jesuit education is built on that premise and it is the greatest enterprise in the world today.

Because I went to Jesuit schools I can spot BS instantly. Especially when it comes from a Georgetown alum like Bill Clinton or Boston College alum like John Forbes Kerry. Dick Durbin and Chris Matthews are two more.

“We don’t know the whole story on homosexuality on whether it is nature or nurture or something else.”

It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that homosexuality might be nature due to varying levels of testosterone in utero. How people express their sexual preferences is their choice. The color of one’s skin is not an activity but is a physical trait. There is no analogy between an obvious physical trait like skin color which is difficult to hide and sexual orientation which leads to private actions which most people practice out of public view in their own bedrooms between consenting adults.

A second mind parasite which infects the left is their illogical use of causation. They often attribute causation to human behavior against common sense or evidence to indicate that there is a cause/effect relationship.

The left claim that they are the logical scientific thinkers vs. loony Christian conservatives who believe in God and miracles (at least to the extent that they believe their holy books are inspired since inspiration itself is a type of miracle).

Since the left are generally materialists, they can’t believe in free will and moral responsibility. This leads them to surprising conclusions like the believe that many humans who engage in violent behavior are really innocent victims. The more loathsome the “victims” behavior the more the left sympathizes with them since according to their deterministic philosophy the only reason anyone would do those terrible things is because they had been treated horribly themselves in the past. In other words a sadistic murderer rises to the level of a saintly victim since obviously that murderer must have come from a particularly evil environment which caused him/her to be so violent. On the other hand, the left especially hates people who are kind and gently but who have the temerity to oppose the left’s agenda. For the left, the fact that these oppressors are kind and gentle actually proves that they are evil since they obviously come from an especially benign environment (i.e. white privilege) which explains their kindness and gentility. The oppressors are especially evil because they have enjoyed that environment at the expense of the violent lawless classes which the left view as victims.

This entire exercise is really irrational since in a truly deterministic world the victims and the victimizers are both equally the product of their environment and are equally helpless to change who they are. Therefore for a materialist to chose one as good and the other as evil or to express moral outrage is itself an irrationality. In a genuinely deterministic universe the left are just as helpless to control their own thoughts and their own behavior as are their victims and their oppressors.

In a materialistic universe everyone is entitled to his/her own truth in the same way that two computers which are functioning correctly but are programmed differently can arrive at different states. Neither computer is in a position to prove that the other computer is wrong since both computers are slaves to their own programming which neither computer can transcend. The fact that the computers have arrived at different states proves that they are both functioning normally and are equally praiseworthy as computers.

The Left intentionally equated race with sexuality. It was part of the plan and because most people can’t think clearly and are very poorly educated they fall for it. I have respect for Charles Barkley’s basketball opinion but he is a dope outside his circle of competence and never should have weighed in on RFRA.

The law is that a suspect class must be due to an immutable characteristic. You can’t change your race.

But people do change their sexual preferences. Friend from college got married, had a kid and is now an open homosexual. Same for many others.

We don’t know the whole story on homosexuality on whether it is nature or nurture or something else. Until then, not a suspect class but I will lose on this in the end. The elites want their way.

Most moral people will agree that our out history of slavery and segregation was wrong and that the wrong might even have risen to the level that it was worth overriding people’s freedom of association to some extent to make amends. Is gay marriage analogous – hell no.

Incidentally, in the segregated South the major problem was that the government had laws which codified segregation. As with all laws they were enforced with the threat of violence towards anyone who broke the laws. Those laws had outlived any usefulness they might have once head, they were morally wrong, and they needed to go. If those bad laws had been repealed but individual liberty for free association had been respected things might have worked out as well or even better than they are now. The inequality built into the system to correct the previous wrongs has also outlived any possible usefulness, they are also morally wrong, and they are probably as destructive as the original race laws they have replaced. Because they are wrong, they have fueled a level of racial hatred which is rapidly approaching the boiling point similar to what Martin Luther King confronted when he started his marches.

The civil rights movement was meant to stop necessary public facilities from denying service to blacks. It seemed like a noble idea at the time because in the Jim Crow South all blacks were discriminated against. That principle of non-discrimination has now been expanded to cover all kinds of “victim” groups and to the use of government force to make businesses comply with new demands.

Yet, in Minneapolis Muslim cab drivers are allowed to refuse service to passengers who are carrying alcohol. Additionally, foot baths have been provided in airports to accommodate Muslim religious practices.

Tolerance requires some good will and common sense on both sides of an issue. Requiring bakers, florists, wedding planners, ministers, musicians, etc. to “participate” in a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs is the equivalent of requiring a Christian piano player to play the piano in a whorehouse if the whorehouse decides they want the piano player’s services.

Nothing has stoked my sense of foreboding about the future as this case has. It is tyranny masquerading as goodwill.