Religion: To bind back to.

Is that the definition?  It's under some dispute; that English inherited it from Latin isn't disputable, but which components of the Latin noun are in play?  All the way back to the Romans this was under debate.

Nonetheless what is not under dispute is that a religious tradition is, by the definition of a tradition, not yours to define as you wish.  You can debate what things mean within the group of people who adhere to a certain set of beliefs, but at the end of the day you can't forcibly change their mind.

Nancy Pelosi, along with Biden and many other politicians, think they can.

While speaking with The Seattle Times editorial board, Pelosi said, “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic.” She added, “They say to me, ‘Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope.’ Yes I do. Are you stupid?”

A devout Catholic eh?

Well, no you're not Nancy, because you don't get to define what "Catholic" is.  There's a process for that, it takes place over long periods of time and utterly nothing you can do, say or otherwise will ever change any of that.

I have plenty of issues with the Catholic Church and haven't set foot in one in quite some time.  Those who have read these pages along with Musings, before The Ticker was my primary publishing outlet, know why.  But that is neither here or there; the facts are that the Catholic Church holds that certain acts are serious, mortal sins and other acts are inherently disordered.

That doesn't mean you hate people who do these things.

It does mean if you support such you're not in a state of grace appropriate to receive Communion -- or other sacraments, other than Confession, of course, which requires that you repudiate those acts.

The Catholic Church has been absolutely steadfast on this issue, with published writings going back to the 5th century in which affirmation of an aborted fetus' soul-hood, and thus recognition as both a human and entrance into eternity, as the Church defines it, were were.  As such if personhood exists then "thou shalt not murder" is rather clear.

For private individuals their state of grace, such as it is, is a private matter.  But politicians, when they advocate and legislate, along with other public figures, are placing their "state of grace", such as it is, on public display and using it as part of their argument.  It is the difference, in short, between a priest offering you communion ignorant of the fact that you screwed another woman as a married man last night and you preaching to the entire congregation, with full knowledge of the pastor, that you did so and yet are in "grace" appropriate to receive communion during the Homily as a guest sermon.  In the first case you may damn yourself; in the latter, if the Church goes along with it, said damnation could reasonably be extended to the Church itself!

One does not have to sacrifice one's own life in furtherance of another's, but that's where the line is drawn under that standard.  You can disagree with that and many people do but that is how the church sees it and has since the earliest days.

Why don't Pelosi and Biden (along with the others) leave the Church and go find a faith community that agrees with them?  There are many.

At the root of this from Pelosi is not religion at all.  It is thuggery.  She, Biden and others, believe they can force the Catholic Church to change its views and do as they will.  Their deliberate thumbing of their nose and in fact erecting the middle finger at Catholic doctrine is simple and pure arrogance -- and long past the point where the Church should have slammed their fingers in the door.

That this has finally happened is a good thing.

The Catholic Church is notoriously slow in virtually every respect.  It is slow to make decisions, it is slow to shift perceptions and, when it comes to someone sticking up the middle finger repeatedly in Mass and in the media, as Nancy Pelosi has done over the last decades, it is also slow to react to that.

Deliberative processes that are slow are often a very good thing.  They give someone involved the capacity to rethink what they're doing and perhaps change their mind.  They give the institution time to contemplate not only the action but the possible and probable reactions, along with the consequences.  They give everyone, in short, time to act with thought instead of on a rash, reactionary basis.

Pelosi has had that time now, and the Church has spoken.  It should speak to the rest of the political sphere and make clear that if you're in a policy-setting role and speak directly against what the Church believes then the Church will uphold what it believes and not participate in your hypocrisy nor bow to it.

In short: It's about damn time.

"It's time for common sense gun control" - Any politician, anywhere, every time.

Is that so?  We now think that law should be applied to what someone -- anyone or some group of people -- call "common sense."

Perhaps you'd like to square this with a few other common sense facts.

First, all manner of things related to sex.

It is common sense that one's sex is determined at conception and at any time beyond that point is immutable.  One either has "XY" or "XX" sex chromosomes and in a very, very small percentage of cases has a disorder in that you have some other combination (e.g. XXY, etc.)  Therefore there are exactly two sexes and any attempt to claim otherwise, especially when it produces an obligation of others, ought to be prohibited by law -- right?

It is common sense that the act of sexual intercourse is dangerous.  It can result in very bad consequences, up to and including diseases that cannot be successfully eliminated from one's person and even death.  While one can take mitigating measures it is not possible to remove this risk entirely except by never having sex with any other person or thing.  This is even true for two virgins; pregnancy can and does sometimes kill when it goes wrong.

It is also common sense that only heterosexual penile/vaginal sexual intercourse can produce a child.  All other forms of sex cannot.  Producing another generation is a societal necessity since exactly zero ordinary humans are immortal and thus without a next generation society will cease to exist.  It is therefore common sense that any promotion or public exhibition or depiction of any other form of such a dangerous act that cannot produce another generation is against common sense and ought to be prohibited by law.  Right?

Since the only way to be completely certain that you will not wind up with a serious disease or die when engaged in penile/vaginal intercourse is for both participants to be virginal when they first have sex, and remain monogamous thereafter, and you must engage in this act in order to produce another generation which is necessary for society to continue it is thus common sense that laws prohibiting anything else when it comes to sex are not only reasonable they must be debated and passed since they're of great public benefit and significance.  Right?

Given all of the above anyone promoting or otherwise teaching children about any so-called "alternative" are by definition placing said children at risk of permanent disability or death and at the same time damaging society's capacity to continue to exist and thus it is common sense that such should not only be prohibited if you do it you should face capital punishment because your crime is not just against a child, it is against all of society.  RIGHT?

Ok, let's get off sex for a bit.

A college degree is a credential that claims you have mastered some subject to a specific level (e.g. Bachelors, Masters, etc.)  It is common sense that the most skilled and capable candidates will be the easiest, and thus most-efficient, to teach the required material to and thus it is always cheaper and more efficient to accept and teach them in favor of anyone else.  In addition it is common sense that forcing someone to pay for something another person consumes or uses is called "stealing", and is a criminal act.  Therefore all "affirmative action" admissions, test "bonuses" for various groups, scholarships based on any criteria other than academic merit and similar are crimes.  It is common sense that every member of any institution that does or has done this should immediately be arrested, indicted, tried and imprisoned.  Well?

At all levels of education, in fact, "passing" is a credential.  If you graduate from High School that diploma is a statement that you can read, write, perform arithmetic at least through basic algebra and more.  Therefore it is common sense that "social promotion" and allowing someone to graduate without demonstrating these capabilities is a fraud upon not only the person in question but employers and the public at large and since fraud is a criminal offense any teacher or school administrator who participates in same must be locked up -- now.  Well?

Folks, firearms are tools that have as their design purpose killing things.  This is in fact common sense.  However, despite the fact that we have "civilized" large swaths of our land it remains true that from time to time something needs to be killed for various reasons.  Therefore it is also common sense that everyone should know how to reduce the risk inherent in the use of said tools and at all times be armed because, frequently without prior warning, something needs to be killed and, some percentage of the time failure to kill said thing when required means you die instead.

RIGHT?

And finally, is it not common sense that someone who tries to put in place a mandate that you must die instead of whatever needs to be killed, whether that occasion has arisen because you have a requirement to eat (and said thing is a suitable source of nutrition) or is a violent predator about to kill you, your children or someone else who you care about is in fact a monster and perhaps they, themselves, are indeed one of those violent predators who needs to be killed?

Thus ends my treatise on "common sense."

You can run all the rhetoric you wish.

I don't care.

Let's cut the crap eh?  The government wants (big shock) a monopoly on the use of force.  Its argument is that despite the right to use force in defense of self or others being the foundation of the Second Amendment, and the reason for the people having same, and said right pre-existing all forms of government itself was on full display in Texas the other day, they wish to argue we "must give that up" for "safety."

Uh huh.

I remind you that indeed the citizens originally did consent to exactly this paradigm for their children in Texas.  They allowed the State and Federal Governments to pass "gun free zone" laws for schools.  They allowed the prohibition of ordinary citizens from carrying arms in those buildings, whether those people be teachers, administrators or otherwise, and indeed permitted the establishment of dedicated police forces within the school districts with an explicit monopoly on the use of deadly force.

Ok, they made their laws, the people consented, and there we were.

Then those very same people to whom said monopoly on the use of deadly force was delegated stood around with their dicks in their hands after one of the teachers deliberately propped a door open and, I remind you, all of the school staff failed to lock the building down when a nutjob was just across the street firing at civilians a few minutes before he decided to gain entry through said open door.

In the several minutes between those two events the people in said school, to whom were charged the safety of the students, sat on their hands despite gunfire being clearly audible in the immediate vicinity.

In other words, in order of deliberately grossly negligent actions by the very people allegedly "entrusted" with safety we have:

• The original act of propping open the door.  Who did that and why did they do it?  Name and position.
  
  
• The failure, upon hearing gunfire across the street, clearly audible inside the building, to immediately secure the building and the classrooms.  This is directly chargeable against every single adult in the building all of whom are grossly negligent in that they knew damn well at that point that someone was shooting in the immediate vicinity of the school.
  
  
• The "dick in hand" response from the cops.  I don't give a crap about what you think; they knew there was a madman in the building, there are kids in the building and he has a gun.  If he's not shooting right now you cover the exit from the room he's in and get everyone else out.  They did not.  They have said on the record in the media that they didn't go in because they were afraid of getting shot.  No kidding, someone's shooting and you might get shot?  You want a monopoly on the use of force and then you claim the right to stand around while people are murdered?
  
  
• Detaining, cuffing and tazing parents who decided they'd had enough of the "dick in hand" crap. That's felony assault; those are not your children, dick-in-hand pussies, they are the parents' children and if you won't do your ******ned job and they're willing to put their ass on the line then get out of the way.  Every one of the *******s who participated in harassing, cuffing or tazing said parents must be identified -- names, *******s.  NOW.

Had the first two grossly negligent acts not taken place the slaughter would not have happened.  Had the last two not taken place perhaps some of the dead kids would be alive.  All four are wildly and outrageously negligent and malicious and every one of them is exactly why there is no reason for anyone to put up with any mealy-mouthed bull**** coming from the cum dumpster in chief or her diversity-hiring "boss" when it comes to firearms.  Any firearms.

A singular example?  Nope.  Here's another from NOLA just in the last few days:

That's a guy who had his car stolen (a serious felony), was able to track exactly where it was because it had telematics in it, told the cops where it was and they didn't care even though it was being used as a shooting platform by thugs.  He ultimately took an Uber to where it was and stole it back.  The cops literally sat around with their dicks in their hands (again!) for more than 12 hours and refused to go bust the perpetrators despite the victim knowing exactly where the vehicle was.  Get this through your head folks: One drive-by-shooting was committed as a result of jacking off by the cops and they wanted to wait until a second shooting took place before they'd act and so stated to the person who owned the vehicle.  Got it yet folks?  They wanted that second shooting to take place.  How does this not lead to the instant arrest of the police involved as accessories before and after the fact?  They not only wanted murder to happen they directly enabled the offense exactly as does someone who knowingly drives a person to a bank when said person has openly stated they intend to stick up the teller and steal the money.

I don't give a crap what you or anyone else thinks.  Any individual who does not immediately recognize that in this particular situation delegation of the right of defense was made on a voluntary basis and as a direct result those kids were defenseless and slaughtered ought to to suck on the tailpipe of a running 1970s era vehicle (modern ones do not produce enough carbon monoxide to be "safe and effective.")

If you haven't recognized by now that nobody -- and I do mean nobody -- gives a crap about whether your kid lives or dies other than you, as their parent, you're not very bright.  If you think your school officials, teachers and police officers give a crap about your kids then you're really stupid and the price of that stupidity, in this case, was the lives of said children.

The same applies to you personally.  You think not?  Go ask the black woman who saw another nutjob about to unload on people and stuck a load of hot lead in him, ending that crap.  She quite-possibly saved many lives.  Oh, and the jackass she capped?  He'd been to prison a "few times."  Mind telling me why he wasn't still in prison?  Its rather hard to commit a shooting while in prison, you know and in particular this jackass among his crimes he shot another woman in 2016.

Wake up America.  The 2nd Amendment exists for exactly this reason; the people who work for the government, in all respects, don't give a crap and, almost to an individual, will not put themselves in harms way when the situation is nasty.  Yes, there are exceptions -- we saw one, with the border patrol guy, off-duty, who showed up and said "screw this, I'm taking care of business" -- and did.

The more than four dozen others tell the actual story however; the count was one in fifty, approximately, who did give a crap and the one, from reports, had a kid in the school so for him it was personal.

If we do not prevent what is now being put on the table we will all die next along with our children.  It doesn't matter what we have to do to stop that from happening -- we must stop it now or exactly what happened in both Rwanda and Nazi Germany is likely to happen here.

We already saw it happen in Uvalde on a much smaller scale than what will occur if not.