Chateau Lloyd

Recently, I've been getting some inquiries about why I chose to use the term "Yard Sign Calvinism" to describe the moral framework of woke leftists.   I coined the phrase about three years ago, and used it  describe the kind of people who use yard signs to signal their moral superiority over the rest of us.  These have a variety of catch phrases, but of particular note is the "We believe" secular credo loaded with phrases like "love is love," and "science is real."

The emergence of these yard signs pushed me further into the realization that people are not really motivated by politics - that is to say policy decisions and their real-world impact - but by faith, and though they may claim otherwise, secular materialists absolutely have a religion.

Thus, the key to understanding (and predicting) their behavior was to understand their theology, not through their tangled, illogical and contradictory policy positions.   Using this lens, one sees their moral framework as a Christian heresy rather than a cohesive political/economic program.

If it is a heresy, what are its features?   This post will answer that question.

For one thing, it is all about moral superiority.  Yard Sign Calvinists are just better than you, in every way.  They're so good they have to let the world know.  It's not enough for them to donate heroic amounts of money or volunteer at a soup kitchen, that takes actual effort.  The yard sign does all the work necessary.

Theologically speaking, this very closely resembles the Elect of Calvinist doctrine.  Those who aren't of the Elect, are governed by the doctrine of Utter Depravity, deserving neither mercy, or even respect.  This is why the Elect treat everyone else with such utter disdain.  It also explains why there are two sets of rules - one for them, and one for everyone else.  Thus, one of the Elect harassing someone online for a meme, trying to get them fired, or even driving them to suicide always has a clear conscience.  They may not phrase it that way, but they feel they are doing the Lord's work.  Often they'll claim it is karma.

However, the same tactics used against them are vile, evil, horrific because they are Good People.  Bad things shouldn't happen to Good People, and they get really upset when they do.

This is why I use the term  Yard Sign Calvinists - by their yard signs they are saved.  They also believe in Justification by Rage Alone instead of grace.  They don't really experience grace as Christians do.  For them the use of power is their chief source of pleasure.  That is why this is also a demonic faith, fueled by pride (the signs they display for social status), wrath and envy.

Only a Yard Sign Calvinist would live in a 3,500-square-foot home with two SUVs in the driveway while keeping a "Climate Change Now" sign in the yard.

Now let's look at an actual Calvinist apologetic and see whether there is any alignment with their beliefs.

They have a nifty (naturally Dutch-centric) acronym to capture their Five Graces:  TULIP, which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance.  

I'll let them speak for themselves:

Total depravity says that we are not just sick, but we are dead in our sins, in our trespasses, and there’s nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to procure our salvation.

Unconditional election says that before the foundation of the world, before we were born, before there even was a creation, God in his own immutable decree determined who would be saved—that he elected. He chose those who would by faith come to him and this choice was not based on foreseen faith—not just God putting in the tape to see what we would do millennia later—but based on his own good will and purposes he chose us.

Limited Atonement, or sometimes called Particular Redemption, means that the extent of Christ’s work on the cross—insofar as it was a saving work to save sinners—is for the elect. That Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the elect only. So the extent of the atonement is limited in that way.

Irresistible Grace means that God sovereignly, supernaturally, irresistibly by his Spirit, of his own accord and not cooperating with us—so it’s monergistic not synergistic; that is, he’s the only one working, mono—saves us and causes us to be born again and implants within us the faith to believe.

And then finally the P is that God will work out in all of his chosen ones, in all of those who are truly justified, that they will persevere to the end and will ultimately be glorified.

To me, this sounds a lot like how the yard sign virtue-signalers think.  They are the Elect, Good People chose because of who they are.  Maybe not by God, but by the Goddess, or karma, or whatever.  They also believe that everyone else is irredeemable, so they don't even try to convert them.

It's interesting that in the discussion below, the presenters go out of their way to say that Calvinism seems to contradict evangelization because if God picked the winners and losers before time, what good will missionaries do?  They don't really have a strong answer to that, which is interesting, and they admit that a number of Calvinists believe that.

Limited Atonement also rolls into this, because to the extent that they may believe in God, they love it when their enemies suffer from natural disasters.  Hurricanes wrecking the Bible Belt fills them with glee and is proof that the depraved are suffering and getting no grace from God.  (The atheists wing will ask "where is your sky god now?")

Irresistible Grace and Perseverance reinforce the Unconditional Election doctrine by guaranteeing that the Elect will be saved.  They are going to heaven, no matter what they do.  This is why there is such a wide disconnect between their stated goals and the results of their policies and actions.  It doesn't matter whether gun control lowers crime, and if it produces massive violence, well, their intentions were pure, and they're still Elect.  

Indeed, every policy is the Right Thing To Do whether or not it works.

And yes, they can seamlessly transition from calling for civility and respect in one breath to damning everyone they disagree with in the next.  The same people whose signs read "no human is illegal" also want their political opponents thrown in prison for life.  

Even my kids get it, noting that houses with "Hate Has No Home Here" would likely fail the test if a someone wearing a MAGA hat knocked on the door.

This is the part where I make the obvious statement: no, these people are not actual Calvinists.  They are likely entirely ignorant of all of this, but the Puritan belief system is nevertheless deeply embedded in American culture.

Calvinism's greatest strength is the feeling of self-esteem and individual license it offers.  Once you realize you are of the Elect, you can do anything you want.

All religions are prone to individual scandals, but I think it fascinating that the greatest Reform theologian of the 20th Century, Karl Barth, openly kept a mistress in his home for decades.  She was also his secretary, so necessary for his work, which justified his unrepentant adultery.  Also important - none of his colleagues ever called him out on it.  Only decades after his death was the truth revealed.

Barth's actions were the logical end of Calvinism.  One of the catalysts for writing this post was a debate with a Calvinist, and when I remarked that I was but a wretched sinner, he said that those who have true grace no longer sin.  When challenged on this, he said that their actions may resemble sin, but are now sanctified, which sounds a lot like Barth having a mistress but it being no longer sinful because of his grace.

I think the most powerful argument against Calvinism is its fruit.  Or rather, the lack thereof.  The birthplace of Calvinism and one of the most staunchly Calvinist principalities - Switzerland and the Netherland, respectively - have both embraced the modernist culture of death.  The Dutch are some of the most decadent people in Europe, and so loathe their culture and faith that they have invited waves of Muslim migrants into their cities.  The ancient cathedrals - stolen from the Catholic Church - are now mere museums.

The Scottish Presbyterians have likewise collapsed into schism and degeneracy.  Scotland itself is a nihilist wasteland.

Calvinism's zenith was shortly after its foundation, when it could define itself against both the Church and rival denominations, but its evangelization has been chiefly through migration and modern Calvinists struggle to raise their young people in the faith.  I looked at the web page for Calvin University (formerly Calvin College), located an hour west of here, it while it claims to have a 100% Christian faculty, the "about" page has the usual diversity nonsense and brags about minority enrollment. 

This is not particularly good fruit.

Calvinist can hate on me if they like, but I suggest they take the label in stride.  Calvinism is a dying faith, and Yard Sign Calvinism is at least an opportunity to explain the "true" version of their religion.

The most rapidly growing religious group in the US is the "nones," that is, people who have no formal religious affiliation.  Many identify themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" and I was once one of them.

Crisis Magazine has something of a deep dive on what Nones believe and what they practice.

In many ways, they are the heirs of America's fragmented Protestant heritage, which hold that each person can have their own interpretation of the Bible, and refuses to acknowledge any other religious authority.  It is a very American approach to faith.

I think it is also an outgrowth of the mainstreaming of role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, which pushed the notion that people would be judged not by the good or evil of their actions, but whether they followed the faith of their choice.  Thus, worshippers of Zeus would be judged on their terms, Muslims on theirs, and Christians theirs.

This neatly side-stepped the issue of whether there was one true God and also the consequences of ignoring Him.  If you identify as a neo-pagan or Wiccan, well then that is how your fate after death will be determined.

Alas, the world doesn't quite work that way, and while you may not be interested in the devil, the devil is very much interested and you.  There are many accounts in the exorcism community of how New Age or neopagans ended up opening doors that were better left closed.

There is also the fact that such beliefs rarely provide a sturdy foundation for success in this world, let alone the next.   While there are indeed plenty of observant Christians who are also screw-ups, the fact is that there are vanishingly few Nones that seem to be happy and/or stable.  I know several that have found material prosperity, but they remain mired in a worldview that keeps them perpetually aggrieved and/or distracted.  

They also tend to divorce a lot.

I think a big part of this is the hubris of someone deciding that all of the other traditions are flawed or incorrect, and that they can achieve something just as good or better based on their own wits and insight.  What actually happens is that they entrench their sins as virtues.

This also leads to Yard Sign Calvinism, performative virtue-signaling where intentions matter more than results.

The only positive element of this is that by acknowledging the possibility of a spirit world, the Nones have a decent chance of finding their way back to the true faith.  

I think it is essential that Catholics especially use a soft touch with these folks, inviting them rather than hectoring them, as Protestants often do.  Above all things, though, there must also be a willingness to speak clearly.  "Nice" Christianity is a dead end.

At this point, most of the Episcopal Church seems to be engaged in some sort of virtue-signaling performance art.  God is at best a tertiary concern, something to be invoked for moral authority, but never a primary concern.

How else to explain the bizarre case of an Anglican Priest withholding the Eucharist until his social justice demands are met?

There are lots of ways to look at this nonsense, but the core problem is that the cleric has a very flawed understanding of salvation and the sacraments.  In orthodox Christianity, there is no collective guilt.  One cannot punish Peter for the sins of Paul.  The whole point of Reconciliation is to receive a personal absolution, and the Eucharist is likewise administered on an individual basis.

To pretend otherwise is to eliminate any motivation for personal holiness, and destroy the hope of salvation.  

Yet this is where we are, because the progressive politics exist to condemn rather than convert.

A couple of years ago I wrote about the national forgiveness deficit, and this is a great example of how it has infiltrated Christianity.  The punishment is increasingly more important than the salvation.

Because that is really what faith is supposed to be about.  This deranged cleric probably thinks he's being very saintly in some way, forcing the world to confront evil, but he's just preening about keeping people from God.  Instead of being an intercessor he's become and interceptor, blocking Communion until his personal demands are met.  His flock's salvation is being held for ransom, and it speaks volumes that his pathetic leadership can't managed to come to a decision after almost three years.

This is Dead-End Christianity, a faith that leads to nowhere.  No conversion, no salvation, just preening and appealing to the Spirit of the Age.  It cannot go away fast enough.

The restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral is a marvelous thing.  How encouraging to see world leaders visiting a sacred Christian space and treating it with such respect?

This goes beyond political pleasantries or diplomatic protocols - the cathedral is itself beautiful.  I have never seen it, but I recall being moved to tears by the beauty of the Dom in Trier.

When I was younger, I partly bought into the Protestant argument that golden chalices and detailed artwork were a form of idolatry, and that money spent on architecture was better used to feed the poor.  

Then I grew up.  I realized that faith is a not a zero-sum game, and that money spent on religious art actually can increase giving the poor because it touches the heart, and moves people to acts of charity.

These thoughts returned to me some months ago, when I attended a friend's funeral at a rural Baptist church. The building was purely utilitarian, the fit and finish were right in line with any other institution.  Other than the cross on the far wall, the main space could have been confused for a hotel conference room, which even had a projection screen.  The entire laying was sterile, reminiscent of a public school auditorium.  There was nothing to elevate, or inspire.  The service itself was something of a variety show, with the pastor sitting like Johnny Carson off to one side as the acts performed.

Returning to my parish, I gratefully took in the various images and icons, the Stations of the Cross carvings, chapel and various grottos for private devotions.  I should add that as far as Catholic church buildings go, my parish is actually pretty modern, having been built in 1957 in a college town, so it has many mid-century flourishes and the seating forms a semi-circle, rather than the traditional cruciform aisles.

Still, when the there are slow moments, I am comforted by those images, which help keep my mind on task.  I also think of the artisans responsible for the work, and the satisfaction they no doubt derive from glorifying God.

That's the larger point - if we view religious art as decadent and wasteful, we will have only secular art, which is far more vulgar and typically points to sin.  Is it not better to have talented painters evoke salvation history or should they go for the make their money in pornography?

One of the greatest negative outcomes of Vatican II was the destruction of so much religious art.  Our cathedral is currently undertaking a massive restoration project to undo the damage wrought on it by the reformers.  Vivid murals were simply painted over and the building was given a white, sterile appearance.  Nothing to elevate or inspire.  It looked Protestant.  I can understand why people would have left the Church upon seeing that - and I can also see how people might consider conversion when beholding the meticulous devotion and financial investment in sacred beauty.

This power was celebrated by G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh, who already seeing the destructive hand a modernism calling for new "efficiencies."

I'm sure they would loathe what passes for Protestant religious art, which is either abstract or kitchy and saccharine and self-indulgent.  I'm thinking specifically of soft-focus portraits of Christ, making him look more like a 1970s hippie musician than the Savior.  I suppose it's an outgrowth of the "personal savior" motif and as such He's more of a boyfriend or pal than the Son of Man.

Of course, a recurring Protestant criticism of religious art is that its somehow idolatry, which is patently absurd.  No one is offering sacrifice to the images, or attempting to trap a deity within a sacred statue.  Icons are what they appear to be - images that help center our thought on God.   What better way to contemplate the sacred mysteries than by gazing on an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

That's another element - much of the art has historic value, and when we look at it, we see how our forefathers perceived God and salvation history.  This in turn points us to seeking the wisdom of the Church Fathers and the writings and acts of the saints.  Archeology confirms that sacred art has always been used in both Judaism and Christianity.  That modern variants of the two have turned their backs on it only underlines how out of the orthodox traditions they have become.

Last week Carl Trueman, a frequent contributor to First Things, posed an online essay explaining why he is not a Catholic.

If you are a subscriber, you can read my reply on the site, which pointed out that becoming Catholic is often a strugged between one's beliefs and accepting the fact that others may actually know more about the faith.  I specifically mentioned John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton and Evelyn Waugh as people who possessed far more knowledge than I, and in a context of wisdom, their combined insight was more than a match for mine.

I also that a lot of objections to the Church center on vanity; whether it is good enough as opposed to being valid, and that for many Americans, faith is much like picking out a car - you try the find the one that best suits you.

However, having read other responses (and re-read Trueman), I've noticed that the vast majority of his essay isn't about the lineage of the Church, the wisdom of the Church Fathers, the validity of the sacraments, etc., it's most about a personal dislike of the pope and a disdain for the veneration accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Protestant really seem to have a particular hate for Our Lady, and I'm not sure why.  I freely admit that it took me time to get used to Marian prayers, but that was simply because I wasn't very well churched.  In time, I realized just how important a figure the BVM is in salvation history.  

She's not a rebranded Venus, but a figure foretold in the Old Testament and brought into fruition in the New.  I think a lot of Protestants know what they have said about Her, and it would be tough climb down to take all that back.

But the larger issue is clearly the pope, and I think this is not because of arcane arguments about the sweep of papal authority, or his role in the Magisterium, the relative precedence among bishops and patriarchs, but instead Protestantism's unique focus on the holiness of the individual ministers.

For Protestants, ministry is a unique, individual calling, which is why you have major figures emerge like Billy Graham.  Their personal charisma is the proof of their divine sanction.  In addition to living an upright life, they have to deliver inspiring sermons and constantly preach with confidence as this shows that they have "the spirit within them."  Because there is no apostolic succession, no sacrament of ordination,  or even sacraments at all, personal charm is all that Protestants can fall back on.

One need not even be formally educated to preach and develop a following.  Indeed, such figures are often treated far better than those with doctorates in theology because they are more "authentic."  Thus,  it may be difficult for someone like Trueman to understand that Catholic clergy can vary greatly in their personalities, knowledge and holiness, but their sacraments are all just as valid.

It also bears mentioning that Catholics have a different understanding of suffering and humiliation.  I see Francis not as the pope we wanted, but the one we needed.  He has done more to expose the corruption of the church than anyone else.  His flirtations with heresy have reinforced the importance of the Magisterium in Church doctrine, demonstrating that the pope cannot simply wake up one day and redefine dogma.

Protestants really seem to believe this, in part because in their churches, it's absolutely the case.  Time and again, we have seen televangelists and mega-churches riven asunder in personal and family disputes.  The assumption clearly is that Francis is the harbinger of some terrible liberal Catholic future.

In reality, he's likely to be the ignoble last gasp of liberal Catholicism.    As I've noted before, the seminaries are packed with very orthodox young men.  Francis imagines himself the future, but he is part of a fleeting movement that is already fading into the past.

Trueman does not understand this, and it diminishes his stature, which is unfortunate, as he does have some keen insights into the weakness of Protestantism.  As in so many other cases, his pride seems greater than his wisdom.

I've noted before that much of American culture is built upon Puritanical beliefs.  This is where we see the celebration of industriousness and a certain contempt for the poor, who are assumed to not try hard enough.

Despite this Calvinist foundation, Catholicism has worked its way into the national consciousness as well.  For one thing, the idea of receiving absolution, that is forgiveness of sins in real time is very much embedded in the national psyche.

Like the anointed kings of old, the American president has been granted the powers of clemency and pardon, acts of mercy celebrated in the Bible.  Pagan societies also admired mercy, but rarely granted it.  To both the Greeks and the Romans, mercy was dangerous, and the safer (and wiser) course was to carry out the law in the harshest possible way.

While clemency and pardons are useful, they are inherently limited by the nature of the legal system.  It is one thing to offer clemency to a repentant model prisoner or remedy a faulty conviction with a pardon.  But how does one create a secular form of absolution, which erases all sins?

In an absolute monarchy, one might be able to achieve this, but not in a federal republic, because while the various executives at the state and national level can offer pardons, their jurisdiction is limited.  There is no equivalent to a Roman emperor proclaiming and amnesty on a beloved subject.

America actually used to be quite good at forgiving, but the rise of Yard Sign Calvinism has shifted the balance away from mercy to pure punishment.

It will be interesting to see of arguments for clemency become stronger in the coming years.  Keeping score is tiring and ultimately pollutes the soul.  There is a better way.

Yesterday was the Feast of All Saints, a Holy Day of Obligation.  The homily at Mass naturally turned to the various saints and how we are called to imitate them.

Afterwards, I was reminded of an exchange between a Baptist friend of mine in college.  He was explaining how saints were distractions at best, idols at worst, and that was why his faith didn't recognize them.  I was no Catholic, but my grandparents were, so I was somewhat sympathetic to the notion of saints and so I asked:  "What about Mother Theresa?  Surely she is a living saint."

He grudgingly admitted that yes, she had many admirable qualities, but held his ground.

I think the Protestant disdain for saints is unfortunate, because while they seem strange and cultish to outsiders, it's really just people testifying from beyond the grave.  All of the saints experienced suffering of some sort, and that in turn teaches us that we, too, will suffer, but that in the end we will find our reward.

One of the many problems with Calvinism is that you're either saved or not, and this was decided long ago.  If one is suffering, that presumably means you're not with the 'in' crowd.  Conversely, prosperity is a sign of God's grace.  This denies the sacrifice of martyrdom, or of people who find God through affliction.

In thinking this topic over, I tried to think of contemporary Protestant religious figures who had achieved some sort of holiness that could compare to St. Theresa of Calcutta or Saint Padre Pio.  I can't think of any.

The most prominent Protestant figures are generally preachers, like Billy Graham, who may spread the Gospel, but also derive great profit from it.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was certainly a force for goodness, but his personal life was pretty sordid.   

Karl Barth was pretty respected as a theologian, but he also kept a mistress in his household and a lot of his colleagues knew about it.  He reasoned that it was part of God's plan for him, and thus morally acceptable.

Part of it is the self-denial aspect, which is quite rare in Protestantism.  I think some sects are returning to the practice of fasting during Lent, but for most, that was one of their grounds for rebellion.  

Of course, Protestant theology regarding the dead is all over the place, with a large amount of them believing that there is no Purgatory and therefore no need to pray for the dead.  Funerals are "celebrations of life" and the Baptist service I attended, everyone said the deceased was saved because he believed in Jesus.  If that's the standard, why live in poverty?  Why accept suffering at all?

This is yet another one of the bitter fruits of the Reformation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, 'tis the season for warning kids not to play with Quija boards.  This naturally raises the question of what they actually are - portals to another world or a cheap parlor game?

Before we answer, we need to consider the state of American theology.  For most of American history, it was predominantly Protestant, and largely Puritan.  The Puritans were something of a paradox: radical monotheists with no use for saints or intercessors, but people acutely terrified of the devil and witchcraft.  Protestants seem to have been particularly preoccupied with witches, no doubt a subset of their belief that the Catholic Church was the Anti-Christ.  The same animating spirit that wanted Jesuits killed on sight was convinced that sharp-tongued housewives could bring crop failures or droughts.

The Salem Witch Trials have since come to mean different things to different people.  Are they the result of superstition gone mad?  A stinging indictment of Christianity?  A classic case of crowd psychology?  The epitome of the Patriarchy victimizing women?

Like the vast majority of Americans, for much of my young life I embraced a combination of the above, and subconsciously followed the cultural Protestant notion that while God did exist, He did so at a distance.  Miracles were rare and because there was only one God, everything else was hallucination or manipulation.  The Jews had a line to God, but every other pagan society was just randomly thrashing about, cutting open animals and looking at their entrails in fever desperation and stupidly following their instructions out of ignorance.

I've since come to learn that I was the ignorant one, and that a close, orthodox reading of the Bible indicates that the pagan gods are in fact renegade angels.  The pagan gods are real.

What this means is that my old take on Ouija boards (which I never used) was radically wrong.  Back then I thought there were no spirits other than God, so playing with one was like a fixed game of three-card monte.  The same was true with Tarot decks - they were the tools of card sharks and their marks, entirely secular in form and function.

I now know otherwise.  American society was subverted by wicked people who used secular materialism as a way to drive people away from God.  "Let your kids play with Quija boards, and if there are subsequent behavioral issues, medication will solve the problem.  Under no circumstances should you look for a spiritual solution to the problem."

That was their mantra, and it was very effective.  However, at this late date, the truth of the spirit world is undeniable.  When governments ban silent prayer, you know something is up.

That being said, I'm not sure what I believe regarding moral panics.  There is an uncanny anticipation here, eerie parallels between the demonic daycare scares of the 1980s and the claimed association of D&D with devil worship.  Both were thoroughly debunked, but in a way that made actual scandals easier to deny.  Was it an accident that the daycare devil worship was used to paper over priestly abuse of minors?  That the overblown panic over D&D so precisely anticipated actual demonic practices in Hollywood and Washington?

Unlike a nerd-driven role-playing game, today we have people openly bragging about their pagan politics.  Perhaps the future will provide additional clarity.

In the meantime, stay away from those Ouija boards!

With Halloween looming, I thought now would be a good time to look at some modern guides for spiritual warfare.  Over the past few years, Catholic media has gotten a lot more strident about All Hallows Eve and All Saints Day, which is a good thing.  Yes, Halloween is generally a secular excuse to eat candy and dress up, but it also presents a unique opportunity for people who are already in the mood for tales of the supernatural to look at the reality of faith.

Halloween can therefore be a gateway for good, but also evil, since modern "goth" takes and overtly satanic themes and practices are becoming more common.  Witchcraft has never been more popular and naive young people are particularly vulnerable to being caught up in 'naughty' rituals or 'games' that purport to use magic (such as the vile Ouija board).

Two fairly recent books provide good advice on how to avoid these snares and a larger look at the reality of spiritual warfare.

Diary of an American Exorcist by Stephen Rossetti is a fascinating book that explains the modern practice of exorcisms, the difference between spiritual possession and oppression, and provides specific references from the Bible that help explain what is going on.  It's a quick, engaging read and not particularly scary because - as Rossetti points out - God wins in the end.

A Family Guide to Spiritual Warfare by Kathleen Beckman is a bit more detailed and includes some case studies.  I enjoyed it, but she does tend to repeat herself and I found myself skimming ahead a bit because yes, I get the value of prayer, etc.  I can't help but wonder if it was a series of essays that were brought together without sufficient editing, which would certainly explain the repetition.

What's interesting about both books is how mundane evil is. No need for head-spinning and pea soup eruptions - a lot of oppression and possession is just terrible life choices or cruelty that we write off as a personality quirk.

The books also highlight how people can be drawn into evil simply by assuming the spirit world doesn't exist, so cool goth tattoos or Santa Muerte decorations are just fashion statements.

Even after reading the books, I find myself still reflexively defaulting to the secular materialist explanation for things.  Intellectually, I'm well aware of the limitations of the view, but it pervades society and is arguably the greatest victory the devil has ever achieved.  The notion that an abstract principle of individual freedom supersedes God's written commandments is a monumental surrender to the forces of darkness.

The laws of men are supposed to reflect those of God, not the other way around.  It is no accident that having gained the commanding heights of government, nominally secular people now demand that people of faith violate their believes in the name of some abstract right that didn't exist until 20 minutes ago.  The drama regarding silent prayer in England is perhaps the perfect distillation of the wickedness dressed up as bureaucratic bungling.

I remember many years ago thinking that my true political home was "classical liberalism," which had somehow been perverted into socialism.  Thanks in part to reading G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, I now know that it was baked into the cake from the start.  Placing an abstraction like liberty as the highest good must inevitably force constraints on alternative sources of morality, which is why Catholic hospitals are constantly being sued to compel them to perform abortions and public prayer is being criminalized.

Both books provide insight into why these particular issues are being litigated, something unimaginable just a few years ago.

To put it another way, you may not be interested in the spirit world, but it's very interested in you!

What is one to think of the British Establishment's fanatical attempt to stamp out pro-life prayers?

Even silent prayer is being treated as a criminal act.  Setting aside the fact that the constables should sure have more pressing matters, does this obsession with stopping prayer not attest to its potency?

British society is far more secular and far less Christian than ours.  The Church of England is a hollow shell, reduced to holding raves and silent discos in its otherwise empty cathedrals.  Catholicism is slowly returning, but Catholics remain a small minority.

Note also that there is almost no part of the Establishment that objects to abortion.  The "Conservative" Tories are just as supportive of it as Labour.

All of which is to say that there is no rational explanation for caring whether random people pause on the sidewalk near an abortion mill and think things.  Atheists must surely regard these antics as pathetic, pointless, and silly, and therefore no noticed should be taken of them.

But notice is being taken, a lot of notice, to the point that this is regarded as a serious matter regarding a strong police response.

More than anything else, this convinces me of the power of prayer, and its importance in spiritual warfare.  Otherwise, why would anyone care?  Clearly someone can sense what is going on, and they want this praying business stopped right now.

Our British cousins like to pretend that they are the wellspring of liberal democratic government, but they also have a sordid history of killing people for their religious beliefs.  The British Empire emancipated slaves before Catholics, and even today, Catholics are subject to constant slander and abuse.  Just about every British period piece shows Catholics as corrupt, self-flagellating weirdos.  (Seriously, they insert scenes of self-flagellation for no reason.  It's weird.)

Clearly the slow growth of the Catholic faith and the restoration of ancient shrines like Our Lady of Walsingham is raising some hackles and as with other persecutions, I think this will also ultimately prove self-defeating.

Creating new martyrs has never worked.  If burning people at the stake failed to stamp out British Catholicism, harassing pensioners is hardly going to move the needle.  But what it will do is cause people to wonder why these victims are so willing to suffer for their cause.  Why do they chose a prison cell over the comfort of their home? 

Once the questions start, people become more open to the answers that they previously overlooked.