Christian leaders and rash judgement

  Being someone of acknowledged mixed racial/ethnic background, I am finding that some of our Christian leaders are starting to support Black Lives Matters.  I can (and do) agree with the statement.  Although, when their supporters say that you're magically a racist because you don't support them, because you dare say something like "All lives matter", ALL lives matter isn't racist, it's BIBLICAL
And I feel like that's what is missing.  When I see my bishops marching, or openly supporting a group like Black Lives Matters, it scares me, because the inference I am getting from BLM, is that being White somehow makes you a racist.  Let me give you a history lesson.  My great grandmother was born in Georgia, but her dad was born Indian Territory, he somehow ended up in Pennsylvania.  My guess is, that he went to Indian school.  My grandma and my great grandma knew him by his Indian name, but we can find very little about him (the paper records don't match the DNA records, his death certificate says he was born in Pennsylvania, but WITHOUT exception, all available census records say he was born in Indian Territory/Oklahoma, but, they're inconsistent with his Indian name).  My great grandmother's first husband (my great grandfather) was a mixed blood, and my dad was of Métis descent.  I also have some Roma ancestry (Sinti and Romanichal), and somewhere, mom is part black.  I agree that there is some systematic racism, but I feel like some of the things folks are calling racist simply aren't.  I agree that Christian leaders (in my case, bishops), have authority given by God (Matthew 16:13-19, Matthew 18:15-20).  This cop in Atlanta that shot a guy.  The dude was extremely drunk, hand an arrest record, stole the guy's taser, and physically fought the cop.  Yet, we're supposed to believe it was an act of racism.  I'm sorry, why?  Or the dude up in Minneapolis.  An abuse of power, certainly, but I have seen no evidence it was racist.  I think people are judging by appearance alone, just as in the case of the Covington Catholic kid.  Nathan Phillips, Judging by appearance alone
I think it would be wise if our Christian leaders found out what BLM (the group that uses the manipulative name, not the phrase itself), believes, before tacitly supporting them. 
The jogger that was killed, yeah, that was racist.  But it wasn't by cops.  You know who the racists are?  The people who assume disagreeing with them is racist.  I don't know about our Christian leaders, but as for me, I will not bow

Could we stop treating the Latin language like it's magic?

  "If only people received on the tongue", "If only people knelt at communion"  "If only Mass were in Latin".  I'm about to destroy some of your expectations, so hold on.  First of all, we're not sure if the Apostles received Our Lord in the Eucharist kneeling or in the hand, seriously Don't be leagalistic about how others receive Communion.  The truth is, that we just don't know (watch the video to find out more).  Now, there are other things that I think we should not be doing as Catholics, and that is somehow, thinking that Latin has some kind of holy power for being, well, Latin.  I've got news for y'all, but the devil doesn't flee from Latin.  The demons flee from holiness  The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus preached in Aramaic.  Jesus was able to drive out demons, not because he spoke to them in Latin (which, by the way, he didn't), but, because he is the Son of God.  (Luke 8:26-38, Mark 5:1-20).  Nothing there about the Latin language being holy.  Now, I want you to understand what I'm not doing.  I am not denigrating its importance.  It was, in the west, the language of the learned, and the liturgical language for most of its (western) Christian history (although, not all of it).  .  I am not denigrating your preference for Latin Mass if you have one.  I am not denigrating your preference for receiving on the tongue.  I am not denigrating your preference for receiving communion whilst kneeling.
But the truth is, this is not universal. There is some evidence that receiving on the hand was communion in the early centuries of Christianity.  I'm not getting into that debate.
As for kneeling, well, in the east, you've never had to kneel whilst receiving communion.
Receiving in the hand doesn't happen, though.  Intinction makes that kind of difficult.
But why is it that some people denigrate the so-called Novus Ordo?
If people bothered READING what the Vatican documents say, a lot of the complaints they have aren't actually because of the council.  In fact, I'll get you started with that.
DOCUMENTS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL.
It wasn't me typing in call caps, it was the Vatican website.  That said, I do hope the text jumped out at you.
I do want to point out, I actually AGREE with many of the grievances that the more "traditionalists" sorts have a problem with.  Spineless bishops (though, I refuse to criticise individual bishops), poor catechesis, and an odd willingness for our bishops to jump on the most popular Social Justice Warrior bandwagon of the day (again, Social Justice is a teaching of the Church, that's not my complaint)
Beware of Social Justice Warrior preachers
I think it may be, because here in the United States, most people associate Catholics with Latin Catholics (or, as they mistakenly call us "Roman" Catholic).   So, if Catholic=Roman, Catholics should use Latin.  But that's not true.  First of all, modern Latin is a wide range of different languages.  I took French for two semesters in college, I know.    Maronites are Catholic, why would they use Latin?  Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use Arabic or Syriac?  Lebanon, the country from which most of them come from, speaks Arabic, and they use a variation of the West Syriac rite.  Or Melkites, another group from the Middle East.  They mainly speak Arabic, and are historically Byzantine.  So, wouldn't Greek and Arabic make more sense for them?
This is what bothers me.
When we hold Latin in such high esteem, we are forgetting about the hundreds of millions of Christians that have never used it.  It's not that it isn't important (it totally is), but so are Syriac, Greek, Coptic, and Old Church Slavonic, amongst others.
And this has me worried.
One thing I think that Pope Francis is right about is his relationship with the Eastern Orthodox.  Francis has experience with Eastern Catholicism in his home country of Argentina, and has taken great strides to be ecumenical with Patriarch Bartholomew.   THAT is a step in the right direction.  And if we keep making this argument that Latin is the best thing since sliced bread (which, to be fair, Latin is much older than, little aside, sliced bread was invented in the city I was born, Davenport, Iowa, although, it was not quite popular until the 1920s, YAY TRIVIA), we have no chance of reunion.  The schism WILL end in my lifetime (for the record, I am 32), but if we keep having this weird obsession with Latin, how are we going to have reunion?  The answer: we won't.

Are we going to stop destryoing our heritage?

  Support for socialism in America, is incredibly stupid.  It's a proven failure.  Social democracy is a non-sequitur.  You'll find, that, in a lot of western countries that have elected socialist officials, the "socialists" are actually not interested in getting rid of private ownership.  But, I think, therein lies the problem.  People will defend socialism by saying "true socialism hasn't been tried"!  Actually, it has, by the Chinese government, the Soviet government, and the North Korean government.  During the early days of communist regimes (remember, for a country to become communist, according to Marx, it must first have a socialist stage), western journalists would go to the these countries and talk about how great the communist countries were.  That's because, they only showed the westerners what they wanted to see.  The truth came out later, about these socialist authoritarian states.  You had, in Romania, Ceaușesc, who was so bad, that he was killed on Christmas day after a kangaroo court sentenced him.  You had Stalin, the successor to the oddly beloved Lenin (who, contrary to what some modern socialists want you to believe, was not an atheist saint), Stalin was a tyrant that not only suppressed free speech and committed genocide, but told his own stepson he couldn't shoot straight after his attempted suicide.  And don't even get me started on Hoxha.
I had a Chinese culture class in college.  And I learned that, in the 60s and 70s, a bunch of traditional Chinese things were destroyed, like Buddha statues.  This is eerily similar to today.  It's not just BLM or those idiots in Chaz (seriously, Chaz?  What is he, like your jerk boyfriend that won't pay for a bill at a restaurant?).  When someone tears down a statue of SAINT Juniperro Serra, it's a bit of a problem.
The man HELPED Indians, he did not hurt them.  In fact, he was so disgusted with their mistreatment, he WALKED to Mexico City from California to complain about the Spanish authorities about mistreatment of Indians.  (Excuse me, Native American, in spite of the fact Indian is a legal term in the US, and Native means to be born in...First Nations, California's First Nations, I think that is a better politically correct term).  These people are trying to prevent history, not from repeating itself, but from being learned so people don't know what it was all about.  BLM, CHAZ, the people calling for the abolition of the police, these are terrorists and bullies.  DO NOT GIVE INTO THEM.  St. Junípero Serra is a Great American Hero
Some of our Protestant friends may take issues with statues (though, Luther himself liked them), based on, what, I would say, is a misreading of Exodus 20:4 (since God directly commanded "graven images", in Exodus 25, also, read Exodus 20:5, the prohibition is against worshiping the images, not having them)
Maybe y'all should learn Proverbs 22:28 (RSVCE)
"Remove not the ancient landmark
    which your fathers have set."

The anatomy of a mental breakdown

  Say all lives matter, and you're somehow a racist.
 Say black lives matter, and blame whites who were slaveless.
Say my life matters, it apparently doesn't.
Those thoughts, from the past, razorblades and glass, you don't know what it's like to live my life.  Poverty, and senselessness, and lack of sensibility, you may be educated, but you aren't free
I'm not responsible for the injustice committed to you anymore than you are of the same committed to me.
Don't think you know my life, just because I don't embrace your false god, doesn't mean that I'm a racist, the fact you don't realise what a disgrace this is, is a shame, right now, you've got your fifteen minutes of fame, but what about when you realise what this is really about?
 What about when the truth comes out?
 I don't understand how you can possibly think violence is justified, you say you don't condone it, but you say so yourself, "by any means necessary", and it's clear to me you've lied.  
Red, White, Yellow, and Black, and everything in between
All of them matter,
including those with a different lean
If you are naive enough to think your group isn't racist
Hopefully, you'll see how big  a mistake this is.

I will not bow

I will not bow to the BLM idol.  I will not worship the false god of ideology.  I will not support a movement that shames people for their heritage.  I will not support a group that hates the people that protect us.  I will not offer incense to a god which has eyes, but cannot see.  I will not offer sacrifices to a god that has ears, but cannot hear.  I will not join in singing praises to bigotry.  I will not bow.  I will not worship this false god.  I will not honour it.  I will not offer it my oblation.  I will not bow.  I will not genuflect to the tabernacle of Marx, I will not give reverence of the altar of Fard, I will not bow.

Believing God doesn't make you stupid

A few years ago, I found myself bemused at the statement that atheists have an, on average, higher intelligence than Christians.  Okay, although, I suspect confirmation bias may play a role.  The interesting thing though, is people with Asperger's Syndrome have a higher (on average) IQ than atheists.  Yours truly is an aspie.  If you are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to an autism spectrum disorder, that, since the revision of the DSM, is no longer a diagnosis in the United States.  Instead, people with it are generally place under a level of "autism spectrum disorder", which is helpful to me, as I basically describe it as "high functioning autism, without the language delay", as that is basically what it is.  Now, I am certainly no genius, but I'm not stupid.  I occasionally get mistaken for smart, which is odd, because when I was younger, people thought I was "slow", because I barely talked and how I talked.  Not sure how that correlates, but whatever.  I'm also a little confused about the people that think you can't believe in God and believe in science.  Many fundamentalists are young earth creationists, true, but saying they "don't believe in science", is inaccurate.  Many are farmers, fisherman, and hunters.  They know all too well about pollution, invasive species, and other things that can upset the ecosystem.  They make very good conservationists.  Being skeptical of Darwinian evolution isn't stupid, in some ways, it's common sense.  Darwin was a racist that did not believe white people and black people were the same species (I have an odd ethnic background), whilst some species can interbreed with other species (zebras and donkeys, for instance), they usually produce infertile offspring.  My own ancestry is from Europe, Africa, and Asia, and the Americas.  My mixed ethnic/racial background parents produced fertile offspring.  Know why?  Because humans from those continents are all the same species.  There is variation in the definition, but, generally speaking, a species is one that produce offspring with the opposite sex of the same critter.  Now, I don't doubt evolution, and I think the earth is much older than 6,000 years old, that isn't the point I am trying to make an argument for or against young earth creationism, it is to point out that one does not have to be a dummy to believe in God.  Einstein was no dummy, he believed in God (Einstein was, NOT an atheist, he was a deist), One of his colleagues, Georges Lemaître, the guy that came up with the Big Bang Theory, was a Catholic priest.  I'm interested in herpetology, and try to catalogue reptiles and amphibians, I can tell you the differences between every common box turtle subspecies.  Again, I ain't no dummy.
So, what point am I trying to make?  This, and only this.  Belief in God may seem foolish to those of the world, but to those of us in the world, but not of it, it's the other way around.  Psalm 53:1

The problem with Calvinism

Christ died for all people.  Not just the elect, EVERYONE.  "For God so loved the world", begins one of the most well-known Bible verses, "that whoever believes in him, should not perish, but have eternal life".  The WORLD, includes everyone, not just "The Elect", which, by the way, are not automatically saved anyway (Matthew 24:24).  If God's atonement is limited, it would not be a saving act.  John 4:42 says, that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.  How in the world can he be the Saviour of the world but die only for the elect?  Or, the absurdity of resistible grace.  One cannot hold this position, and truly believe in the Bible, for the Bible says, "You always resist the Holy Spirit".  Grace isn't irresistible.  Which, an aside, every time I talk about Calvinism, I am reminded of the song. Simply Irresistible" by Robert Palmer.  I know that people criticised Billy Graham (the preacher, not the wrestler) when I was growing up, because he said you *gasp* had to make a choice for Christ.  The problem, I guess, I am having, is that the verses that Calvinists use to "prove" their position don't say what they want them to say.  That's not to say that I don't think they are partially correct.  Part of being Catholic is recognising that Protestants do indeed share a common Christian faith with us by virtue of Baptism.  If you would like to know more about the Catholic view on this topic, James Akin (he now usually goes by Jimmy) write an article about it many years ago.  A Tiptoe Through TULIP
And I'm not going to lie, I heavily used him as a source.  But one verse, that I think refutes Calvinism entirely, is this one, 1 Timothy 2:4.  Go look it up.

ALL lives matter isn't racist, it's BIBLICAL

First, let's define terms.  Someone can be racist by discriminating against someone on the basis of ethnicity. Second of all, I don't want Ashton Kutcher or Seth Rogen's movies anyway, I prefer actors have talent.  Saying all lives matter is the sum of the gospel.  Jesus died for ALL,   Isn't that the message of John 3:16?  Do we not read in Galatians 3:28, that there is no Greek or Jew?  My problem isn't I support institutional racism (I don't), my problem is that we are not treating this equally.  You want to stop racial inequality?  Great, but when was the last time you donated to these folks?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Ridge_Indian_Reservation.  I can count on one hand the people who have donated to them.  Where's the outrage over this?  ALL lives matter, Christ died for ALL, not just some, and as Christians, we need to stop encouraging people to put their skin colour before their salvation.