What Planet Are You From?

This editorial by David Asman involves a case where some of the villains behind the TV show Friends are being sued by a former secretary who considered their comedy brain-storming sessions sexual harrassment. Okay, fine. Maybe. I’d have to know the facts of the case–which aren’t given in any detail in the editorial–to know whether the woman was subject to sexual harrassment.

But Asman seems to think something unusual is going on with the woman’s case. He refers to Hollywood getting a taste of its own PC medicine, concluding:

Hollywood, so long a bastion of political correctness is now being stung by a new level of political correctness. As First Amendment lawyer Harvey Silvergate puts it: “Here, we glimpse the next plateau — punishing bad thoughts.”

I’d like to know what planet Asman and Silvergate have been living on. Political correctness has always been about punishing more than bad behaviors. It has always been an attempt to punish bad thoughts. The way those thoughts are manifested in behavior is simply the entrypoint for trying to squelch the thoughts themselves.

That is the whole point, for example, behind PC “hate crime” legislation. We already have laws on the books prescribing punishment for people who harm others in various ways–for example, by assault and battery. But to create special “hate crime” legislation that seeks to punish people in a special way because of the possible sociological content of their motive in committing assault and battery is all about punishing particular thoughts. Since hate is something that exists in the realm of thought, “hate crime” legislation is what George Orwell might have called “thought crime” legislation, with “hate” (however that gets construed under a particular person’s social agenda) being classified as a thoughtcrime.

The same applies across the PC social agenda. The PC agenda seeks to deal with problematic thoughts (e.g., racist ones, sexist ones) not by reason and persuasion, or even by voluntary social ostracization of malefactors, but by imposing new laws and policies which will result in punishment if violations are committed. It’s all about prohibiting certain forms of thought via the construction of particular laws and policies designed to punish those who harbor and express those thoughts.

Life On Mars? Maybe. And Maybe It Came From Earth.

This article about the possibility of life on Mars is quite intersting.

One reason (among several) is that it’s about a scientist who argues that life on Mars is likely.

Another is that it points out something that doesn’t get a lot of attention in the press: Even if there is life on Mars, it may not be native to Mars. In fact, it may be native to Earth.

We already know that rocks occasionally get blasted off one celestial body and deposited on another. In the last few years there have been press stories about rocks from Mars and the Moon that made their way to Earth. The reverse process can occur as well, and these rocks may carry Earth-native microorganisms to new environments. Some of which are very hardy and can survive in very harsh, Mars-like environments (such as the dry valleys of Antarctica). If they find a survivable environment, they may survive.

The article points that out, but I’ve also wondered about another possibility: Some microorganisms make it way up in the atmosphere, and I’m curious about whether some might make their way far enough out of the Earth’s gravity well to be carried along by the solar wind. If so, Earth may be blowing out a constant trail of microorganisms, some of which might make it alive (or in hybernation) as far as Mars.

So even if scientists one day announce that they’ve found clinching proof of life on Mars (or any other body in this solar system), we shouldn’t instantly take that as evidence of parallel evolution (or creation) on another planet. The stuff may have originated here.

A third reason that I like this article is that it suggests using the Moon as a decontamination base rather than bringing stuff directly from potentially biologically-active zones in space (like Mars). If we ever encounter extraterrestrial microorganisms (even ones formerly native to Earth) and bring them back here, we could have a MAJOR plague on our hands. The devastation to Earth’s biosphere could be unimaginable. In my view, as the space program continues, we need to take MUCH, MUCH more stringent measures than we have thus far for preventing bringing dangerous biological material back to Earth.

4 Days, 4 Shows

A great deal of radio this week . . .

Monday: Did an interview with Michael Coren on CFRB, which is supposed to be Canada’s biggest talk radio station. The subject was Catholicism. Took calls from a mixed audience of non-Christians, Protestants, and Catholics. Went well. Am invited back to the show.

Tuesday: Did an evening interview with Frank Pastore on KKLA, a major Evangelical radio station in Los Angeles. The subject was Catholicism. Took calls from a mostly Evangelical audience, who were quite respectful. Went well. Am invited back on the show.

Thursday morning: Am scheduled to do a show with Theresa Tomeo around 10:45 Eastern Time. The subject is to be the Catholic Answers Voters’ Guide. Tune in if you’re able.

Thursday evening: Am scheduled to do Catholic Answers Live, as usual at 6 p.m. Eastern. Topic will be Q &A Open Forum. Since Jerry’s on vacation this week, the host will be Theresa Tomeo. Tune in if you’re able.

UPDATE: Oops! Forgot that they had someone else scheduled for today’s CAL. Didn’t realize it till I walked into the studio at show time. 🙂

The Sign of the Cross & Non-Catholic Churches

A reader writes:

I hope you can help me with this question. I understand that Catholics

make the Sign of the Cross when passing in front of a Catholic Church in

reverence to the Blessed Sacrament contained within. I also understand

that the Orthodox churches also have the Real Presence of Christ within

their church. Knowing this, is it appropriate for Catholics to make the

Sign of the Cross when passing by an Orthodox church? Thank you very

much and God bless you.

There is no canon or liturgical law on this point. Even the sign of the cross in front of a Catholic church is not itself required. As a result, such reverences are voluntary.

Since making the sign of the cross in such cases generally is taken as a sign of reverence for the presence of Christ rather than the presence of a parish of Christ’s Church, it makes sense to do it wherever a valid Eucharist is reserved.

I myself make such a sign of reverence in front of non-Catholic churches where a valid Eucharist is reserved, though in my case this sign may take the form of a tip of the Stetson as I am driving by in my pickup.

The Sign of the Cross & Non-Catholic Churches

A reader writes:

I hope you can help me with this question. I understand that Catholics
make the Sign of the Cross when passing in front of a Catholic Church in
reverence to the Blessed Sacrament contained within. I also understand
that the Orthodox churches also have the Real Presence of Christ within
their church. Knowing this, is it appropriate for Catholics to make the
Sign of the Cross when passing by an Orthodox church? Thank you very
much and God bless you.

There is no canon or liturgical law on this point. Even the sign of the cross in front of a Catholic church is not itself required. As a result, such reverences are voluntary.

Since making the sign of the cross in such cases generally is taken as a sign of reverence for the presence of Christ rather than the presence of a parish of Christ’s Church, it makes sense to do it wherever a valid Eucharist is reserved.

I myself make such a sign of reverence in front of non-Catholic churches where a valid Eucharist is reserved, though in my case this sign may take the form of a tip of the Stetson as I am driving by in my pickup.

Fr. Damien

FrDamienWikipedia is such a great resource. I’m consistently impressed with how well the open-source encyclopedia is written and how accurate its content is. It’s not perfect, but it’s still truly impressive.

Each day they have a featured article. I’m not quite sure how they pick ’em, but if you want an interesting education, check out the featured article. (Maybe they can get an RSS feed for those. I’ll see about suggesting that to them.)

Yesterday’s featured article was on Fr. Damien.

For those who may not know, he went to Hawaii as a missionary. This was when Hawaii was an independent kingdom, before it was conquered and annexed as a U.S. territory. Upon arriving in the kingdom, Fr. Damian became concerned about the leper colony on the island of Molokai. He sought and obtained permission to go to Molokai and serve as priest for the lepers. He did menial work–caring for the living, caring for the dying, building homes, building coffins, digging graves–and his presence revolutionized the community. In the end, he contracted leprosy and died among the lepers he served.

Though the man is yet only a beatus, in truth he was a saint. (Also a pipe smoker, though the article doesn’t mention that.)

I hope his canonization will be soon.