Extremist Principal Of Florida School Loses Mind

Freedom Elementary School ain’t that free anymore. Its principal (possibly in collusion with the school board or other unnamed malefactors) has imposed a set of absurd and draconian prohibitions on what will be allowed this winter.

FOX (not The Onion or ScrappleFace) reports:

Freedom Elementary School in East Manatee, Florida, is banning not
only Christmas and religious-themed songs from its winter concert this
year; it’s banning references to winter, altogether. Snowmen and
snowflakes are strictly forbidden.

The
schools principal insists, "[We’re] trying to be respectful of
everyone." So, according to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, students are
now planning to sing songs about America and patriotism.

Oh, yeah, like those won’t offend anyone.

A Good Idea! . . . Mostly

According to news reports, Vatican officials are now urging the United Nations to recognize prejudice against Christians in the same way prejudice against Judaism and Islam are recognized.

Good idea!

Prejudice against Christianity has too often gone unrecognized while members of other religions have been given special treatment. Fairness all ’round is a good idea.

HERE’S A CNA STORY ON THE SUBJECT.

AND A PARALLEL REUTERS STORY.

While I think the Vatican demanding that anti-Christian bias being recognized in an explicit way, I think that there is a problem with the way the proposal is (according to news reports, for whatever those are worth) being advanced.

It’s a matter of words.

The term that is being proposed to refer to prejudice against Christians is "Christianophobia," which would mean "fear of Christians."

This term is a bad idea.

Consider: How many times have you heard complaints about opposition ot homosexuality being described by the term "homophobia," as if people who merely disagree with and disapprove of homosexual behavior are "afraid" of it.

Such charges amount to an attempt to psychologize the beliefs of those who disagree with your beliefs, which results in a species the ad hominem fallacy (in this case, "You disapprove of X because you are the kind of person who fears X"). This distracts from the objective merits of the discussion of whether X is a good thing or not and veers into the subjective world of emotions.

It’s bad argumentation. We should stick to analyzing the merits of a position rather than simply attacking the (alleged) subjective feelings of those who hold it.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so if we recognize the "-phobia" fallacy when others use it, we should not employ the tactic ourselves.

Instead, we should recognize that prejudice against Christians is anti-Christianism, the same way we recognize that ethnic prejudice against Jews is anti-Semitism (and that theological prejudice against Judaism is anti-Judaism).

The problems with "Christianophobia" are particularly underscored by the fact that the Vatican officials urging the use of the term are (according to news reports) specifically concerned with attacks on Christians in the Muslim world that have been stirred up by the War on Terror (e.g., the bombings of churches in Iraq).

This makes it obvious that the problem is not fear of Christians.

It’s hatred of Christians.

Let’s be honest about that.

The more we confine our rhetoric to reality, the better off we’ll be in the long run.

U.N. – U.S. = Leage Of Nations = 0?

That’s an equation I’m thinking about at present.

I’m wondering–seriously, not just as an act of macho posturing–whether the U.S. ought to withdraw from the U.N. and what would happen in the event of such an eventuality.

Other folks seem to be thinking the same thing (more seriously this time than when the idea has been voiced in the past).

HERE’S A GUY WHO’S THINKING ABOUT THE FATE OF THE U.N. ESPECIALLY SERIOUSLY.

Made more serious by the fact that he’s a former consultant to ex-U.N. topguy Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Thanks to the Powerline guys for posting this.

Whadda y’all think?

Wednesday Photo Caption

Thai_guards

[SOURCE.]

Starting captions:

1) Alternate Histories: When The British Empire Was Based In Thailand

2) Conehead Invasion Fleet Attempts Feeble Disguise

3) Military Uniforms To Make Your Opponents Double-Over In Laughter

4) White Gloves: What Every Soldier Needs In Battle

5) Military Can-Can Lines

6) Soldiers Angered By Shortage Of Well-Fitting Chin-Straps Storm Palace

Okay, Something's Odd Here

This is something I’ve been meaning to blog about for some time, but things have been hectic.

You remember how, just before the election, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) published a book called the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC)?

Because of the potential bearing of a work like this on the Catholic Answers voters guide, I had a copy hotfooted over to us from Europe (the document–for some reason–not being available on the Vatican web site and not being published yet in America).

It took longer to get here than advertised. In fact, it was after the election before I got it.

But still, I’m one of the first people in America to have one. So here’s an early report from someone who actually has a copy of the work in question.

There’s something funny going on with respect to this work.

It’s the "baby" of the late Vietnamese Cardinal Van Thuan, who was head of the PCJP. When the work was first announced, it was claimed that the body would be producing a "Catechism of Social Doctrine" paralleling the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)–see, for example, the Zenit story archived here. This was one of many stories touting the document as a parallel "Catechism," in Cardinal Van Thuan’s words.

This was a source of concern to for those worried about the recent emphasis in many circles on "social teaching" over basic the basic doctrines of the faith. The announcement of a social doctrine "Catechism" seemed to further the placing of "social teaching" (about which Jesus and the apostles had to say little) on the same level as dogmatic theology (on which they had to say much). Indeed, the very use of the word "catechism" was disturbing, as a catechism is intended to teach the basics of the faith, not just one area only contingently attached to the doctrines of the faith.

If the new document was truly to be a parallel for the CCC then one would expect it to have similar authorization.

To authorize the CCC, Pope John Paul wrote an apostolic constitution (the highest form of papal writing, superior even to an encyclical) in which he personally discussed his authorization of the process of drafting the text, which involved all the world’s bishops, and referred to the Catechism as "a sure norm for teaching the faith" [SOURCE.] The CCC did not have changed the doctrinal notes attached to particular teachings (see a forthcoming post of mine), but it’s hard to ignore an apostolic constitution from a pope stressing the worldwide collaboration of bishops that went into a document and indicating that–as a whole–it is a reliable guide.

Nothing like this happened in the case of the CSDC.

First, proximate to Cardinal Van Thuan’s death in 2002, a document was released by the PCJP that seemed to correspond (minimally) to the description of the promised "Catechism." In actuality, it was a collection of quotations from various other Church documents having a bearing on social doctrine, but nothing more than this. At the time, I downloaded a copy, but have not been able to locate it. (If anyone can provide a copy, please let me know.)

UPDATE: A kindly reader points out that the document in question was The Social Agenda, ONLINE HERE. Collective brainpower rocks!

At the time, I thought, "Okay. They’ve severely downgraded the expectations for the document. This is what they’re releasing, and that’ll be the end of it."

But it wasn’t.

They eventually announced that this year another document would be coming out–the "Compendium" issued by the PCJP under its new head, Cardinal Martino.

This could have been a document parallel to the Catechism–if it carried similar authorizations to the Catechism–but it didn’t.

First, it didn’t have an apostolic constitution up front of it. This, of itself, was a severe downgrade from the Catechism. In fact, it didn’t have any papal document up front of it. What it did have was a letter from Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

Second, this letter did not indicate any special authorization from the pope. Indeed, the closest it comes to a papal endorsement is the following sentence:

The Holy Father, while hoping that the present document will help humanity in its active quest for the common good, invokes God’s blessings on those who will stop to reflect on the teachings of this publication [no. 5].

That’s about as tepid as it gets.

Nothing here about the Compendium being a "sure norm for the teaching of the faith." It’s just something that the pope "hopes" "will help" humanity and "blesses" those who "consider" what it says. This is not the language of definiteness and obligation; it is the language of tentativeness and conjecture. And the message was delivered by a subordinate, not by the pope himself.

Add to this the fact that the central descriptor of the work has been downgraded from "Catechism" to "Compendium" and we are looking at a severe lowering of expectations.

The Compendium thus seems to be a project that the Vatican may intend to be buried in silence. It is in no way a parallel document to the Catechism. It may be something its originators hoped would be a parallel to the CCC (hence the language they used to describe it in the beginning), but as time went buy, the folks in authority in the Vatican decided that it would not be prudent to issue such a parallel document (if they had ever contemplated it to begin with). They thus progressively sent signals downplaying the document relative to the Catechism, and in the end we have a document proposed for the reflection of the faithful that carries only very restricted weight, and that derived only from the force of the documents it quotes.

Soon I’ll provide a look at the contents of the Compendium, but for now I wanted to provide some overall perspective on its origin and level of authority.