Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types--religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries. . . .

-- Alexis de Tocqueville

To this, we should add: "And form BBQ relief organizations".

God bless our civil society.

(I don't care if he was influential; I just don't care for Phillip Glass. It's like getting kissed by a eunuch -- sure, it's enjoyable foreplay but it doesn't go anywhere.)

Amy, that was simply wonderful hahah! I'm going to steal that line--hope you don't mind.

Seconded.

Yes. A thousand times, yes. Of course, to suggest so is to admit that one is a bigot and a racist. It will never even be considered in Congress, but it is certainly necessary.

Someone who never worked a day in his life, who leaches off the state, and who isn't productive, should not have the same vote as the man who worked all his life, owns his own business, and is a productive citizen

I always loved the Lilac bushes around my parent's house. They are the finest flower.

Mine is a picture of Barley, my old roommate's beagle/foxhound. I had two lovely years with this beagle. Sadly, the roommate moved out. Advice for people with roommates: Don't let your roommate get a dog! It will eventually leave, and you will be sad and beagleless...

On the flip side, my snacks and shoes are now safe. I swear, that hound had an insatiable lust for my loafers....

Sorry that I'm late to my own party here.. (busy weekend)..

What really confuses me, is this: At some point, someone had to say to someone else, "Hey, ya know what's a great idea? Having a month dedicated to masturbation, because, you know, reasons!" At which point, the other person said, "Yes. Yes indeed, my good man. That is a fine idea."

That exchange must have taken place at some point. Boggles the mind.

Pseudo, my dear man, sometimes I believe that there isn't a single book that you haven't read. How on earth do you have time for all of this? I suspect that there are no TV/video games in your routine. Bravo.

Edit: Further, you, of all Ricochet members, have contributed most to my ever-growing Amazon/Audible wishlist...

(cont.)But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christian was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a questions of words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

C.S. Lewis sheds some light on the subject:

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word that we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouth's simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man.... (cont)

Right you are. Guys, if you ever need a pick-me-up, go into a gay bar. I'll tell ya, it was an eye opening experience having a drink bought for me!

As a resident of the even more liberal Arlington, Virginia, I agree.

I know this may sound distressing, but it can feel very disorienting for a Catholic to enter a non-Blessed Sacrament containing church building. It feels empty, whereas in the Catholic church there is always Someone home.

This is the sentiment I was trying to get across in an earlier post. Mamma Toad, thanks for putting it far better than I could have.

Wow. Donald Todd, that was a wonderful post. I'll echo Tom's sentiments and say that I greatly appreciated reading.

Aaron, where have you been?! Great to see you back. I'm looking forward to reading this thread as a--much needed--break from SSM.

You're right, of course. After I posted that, suspected that I should have clarified that "I" have no right to forgive a crime where "I" am not the victim. My point is in a more general sense. I apologize for the ambiguity.