Stunning revelations raise serious questions about late lawmaker’s honesty, morality, character and decisions
Presiding over his own father’s funeral, Father Paul Scalia showed that God isn’t the only one who can condemn family members before, during or after death, saying, “We are here to pray for God’s inexplicable mercy for a sinner, to this sinner, Antonin Scalia. Let us not show him a false love and allow our admiration to deprive him of our prayers.” The “inexplicable mercy” bit was a nice touch, implying that God bends the rules if sufficient prayers are offered, which of course flies directly in the face of the long established, statistically lousy track record of the Big Bopper answering any prayers.
At the service, held at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (another whopper in the “you-better-believe-it-cause-it’s-in-a-book” fable) the young Rev. Scalia went on to demonstrate why it’s a bad idea for people to attempt to apply logic to such a quaint cultic belief as “everyone’s born a sinner”, since even the lifelong efforts of the otherwise deep thinking Justice Scalia obviouslyweren’t sufficient to allow him to escape the condemnation of the “Father in heaven”, let alone his own son. Speaking of which, Father Paul right away let it be known that he “personally” knew one “Jesus Christ”, someone for whom there is zero historical record, and thereby modestly inferring that, like the myth, he was about 2,000 years old himself (and, if I may say so, looking absolutely marvelous).
What’s this Thing Called Sin?
Apparently both Scalia’s were unrepentant to the point of avoiding revealing to anyone, each other included, exactly what egregious sins they had committed. “He had found himself in my confessional line and he quickly departed it,” the reverend said. “As he put it later, ‘Like heck if I’m confessing to you.’ The feeling was mutual.” So, while such confession is good enough for the obsequious and faithful flock, the Scalia’s felt they were above any such accountability, perhaps the guilt for which the younger Scalia was now hoping to relieve himself of by condemning his father. Since confession may be one route to gaining forgiveness of one’s sins (never mind that a third party is magically absolving you of your own self-responsibility for possible harm you’ve done to someone else) the Scalia’s must not have been thinking ahead to this day of reckoning.
With the definition of sin including “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”, and with divine law presumably being higher than manmade law, obviously the late justice was, quite simply, a criminal. This certainly will call into question decisions by Scalia and may open the door for review of many, if not all, of them.
It’s also pretty certain that a devout Catholic who dies at 79, and is publically, officially condemned as a sinner, wasn’t just guilty of eating meat on Fridays, when that was still on the list. Since the good reverend left out all the juicy details, we are left to ponder what sins Scalia had committed, meaning was he among those who were:
Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, etc.?
And because we’re talking about people who declare that they are “born in sin”, exactly which of those or other sins had Baby Antonin managed to already pull off?
Catholics don’t accept the concept of reincarnation, so how is it that innocent babies*, just showing up here presumably for the first time, are actually cosmic criminals, sinners who, by definition have already committed some or all of those terrible things?
It may relieve you to know that the element of forgiveness associated with the quaint, cannibalistic ritual involving not only symbolically munching down the “body of Christ” but “drinking the Blood of Christ” may be the earliest cultic version of what’s today known as “drinking the Kool-Aid”, which may be available with artificial sweeteners for those with blood sugar issues. There’s more about it here, among other places.
Please don’t drive or operate heavy machinery while contemplating this stuff.
For those who may find even the symbolic association troubling and illogical because they, somehow, avoided having all their brain cells killed off by either religion or alcohol, we’re assured here that:
“Although they still look like bread and wine, they have, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood. How can we know this? It requires faith. It is a mystery which, like love, we will never fully understand.”
“Never fully understand”? You can say that again, in Latin if you like.
The Necessity of Higher Temperatures
Carrying on with the culinary theme, the young Scalia, perhaps plucked these words from The Catholic Cannibalism Cook Book, “Christ was not yet perfected in him, we are here then to lend our prayers to that perfecting … in freeing dad from every encumbrance of sin.” Hidden in such sweet sentiments is the suggestion that perhaps higher temperatures are still needed to “perfect” Antonin, further suggesting that his ticket was punched for a southbound departure, rather than the cooler, northern nether regions with its delightfully dewy, fluffy clouds and endless harp plucking, etc.
Naturally, I wonder if papa Scalia ever considered that filling his young son’s head with incoherent mush – all of which would be inadmissible in any legal proceeding – would ultimately result in a surprisingly scathing send-off, demonstrating that the kid really got the message, as well as perhaps inspiration from a celebrity chef. And are any of the faithful concerned that the younger Scalia – obviously a major league sinner in his own right (or wrong) – was unrepentant himself when outing pops, like a consummate magician directing the attention away from himself?
Perhaps such concerns were overshadowed by Glenn Beck’s chiming in recently to put another nail in Scalia’s coffin, when he suggested God’s displeasure with the dearly departed justice was in evidence, showing that even the brain-dead can engage in religious delusion in their lingering afterlife.
They Got a Whole Lot of ‘Splainin’ to Do
It’s too bad that we never heard the eloquent and erudite Justice Scalia explain his belief in, and adherence to, all these gems of Catholicism before he was appointed, or even after he was safely sequestered for life when espousing this superstitious hodge-podge couldn’t result in cries for his removal from the bench, or compulsory psychiatric examination.
Presiding over the cesspool of debauchery and defilement that is the institution (read: big business) perpetuating all this hokum is Il Papa, the Big Potato himself. As a side note, if the Pope is the “Holy Father”, is he an unwed father or a bigamist? If the mothers of the Pope’s “holy family” don’t remember marrying or divorcing him (that’s a no-no in Catholicism) what about all the billions of illegitimate children in this “holy family” – many of whom were also magically fathered by the previous pope(s)! – are they un-savable bastards; just how does all of this work, logically speaking, of course?
And should anyone actually be troubled by this Holy Father thing, fortunately we have this:
What we have here is a classic example of eisegesis (reading into and imposing one’s views and biases upon a passage) as opposed to exegesis (drawing out the meaning of a passage from its full and proper context).
I think the actual definition of eisegesis may be “thinking through illogical nonsense for oneself” and the definition of exegesis being “making up stuff to explain mind-numbingly goofy theology”.
Lest the Mind Be Boggled
I hope this also clarifies why I unhesitatingly tell people that I have absolutely no respect for their precious beliefs…and that I hope they feel the same way about mine, should they detect any. I do respect people, especially those who demonstrate through their actions that they live good, true, higher values – like peace, love, freedom and harmony – however they’ve come to embrace and embody them. Some may want to point out that I have fudged the fine points of this belief system, its Halloween costume-wearing, wealth-seeking leaders, etc. But as we approach Easter with its savior rising like yeast in the east, with thoughts about bunnies and rolling painted eggs across the lawn, let’s reflect for a moment how heads now also actually roll in retribution for the Christian Crusades, as the adherents to another wacky, bloodthirsty cult has its eyes set on the Church, its “clerics, priests, bishops, cardinals and many others” as ultimate targets.
Before we snicker in contempt for so-called modern people still awed by mumbo-jumbo muttering minions, still carrying out the superstitious traditions and symbolism of a blood-sacrificing ritualistic cult whose motto should be, “Et Quaestus Pedophilia in Perpetuum”, the more forward thinking slave masters already have a splendidly seductive program moving right along to capture present and future generations who, in this age of instant gratification, may be more readily seduced by the flashing lights of technology, as a read of this document, and numbers 40. and 127. quite presciently foretold.
What’s the antidote to all this insanity and irrationality, how do we decontaminate ourselves from all of this?
Quite simply by a self-responsible study and testing of the non-religious, belief-free, logical spiritual teaching. Of especial, immeasurable value, for fast relief from confusion and insanity, I also recommend The Might of the Thoughts and The Way to Live.
*The problem with all these very bad babies is compounded by what’s suggested here:
“2) Before the Sin, a person must have been mindful of the serious wrong, having reflected on the gravity of the situation, with SUFFICIENT REFLECTION, beforehand.”
Why those little devils, who knew that babies were even remotely capable of mindfulness and reflection?
And troubling as this is for babies, how hypocritical Scalia must have been by this definition:
“3) A person must have freely chosen to commit the Sin, with the full consent of the FREE WILL, in spite of possible coercion.”