Mediaboss Marketing

This article was written exclusively for Investing.com.

, , and other cryptocurrencies made a substantial comeback from their lows following the steep correction that occurred after the April and May peaks. Bitcoin dropped from $65,520 on Apr. 14 to a low of $28,800 in late June or over 56%. Ethereum reached its peak at $4,406.50 in mid-May and fell to a low of $1697.75 in late June, a decline of nearly 61.5%.

The market cap of the entire asset class of over 11,180 digital tokens more than halved from around the $2.5 trillion level.

While prices plunged, the speculative frenzy in the cryptocurrency asset class continues to attract new participants each day. On Sunday, Aug. 8, Bitcoin was back above the $43,800 level, with Ethereum at just over $3000 per token. The market cap for the entire class was nearly $1.775 trillion.

Stories of incredible wealth creation from those with the foresight to turn a $1 investment in Bitcoin at five cents in 2010 into over $2 million is a powerful catalyst. Moreover, technology companies continue to embrace the libertarian form of money, with Squares (NYSE:) Jack Dorsey leading the way.

At the , the CEO of both SQ and Twitter (NYSE:) called cryptocurrency the internets form of money. As more businesses begin accepting tokens for payment, governments are not likely to stand by idly.

Governments have repeatedly challenged cryptos because of their nefarious uses. However, it is control of the money supply that is at the root of their concerns.

Control of the purse strings is the most significant factor in retaining power. Surrendering the money supply to any libertarian currency diminishes control.

The status quo means governments can expand or contract the money supply with the push of a button. The ideological divide between governments and a form of money that transcends borders creates a vast gulf.

Governments embrace Blockchain as it represents the technological evolution of finance. The speed and efficiency of fintech have broad appeal. However, the digital currencies themselves pose a massive threat to power.

China appears to be the first government to issue a digital form of its currency, the yuan. In preparation, the Chinese have cracked down on Bitcoin and other cryptos. It will not be long before the US and Europe roll out digital dollars and euro. Washington DC and the EU are more than likely to follow Chinas lead to retain control of the money supply and hold onto financial power.

Post-2008, in the aftermath of the financial markets crash, the stage was set for cross-border regulatory cooperation. Given the move towards globalism under the Biden administration, we are likely to see regulators in the US, UK, and EU work together to establish a framework for cryptocurrency regulation.

While they will present this as a regulatory environment to protect investors, traders, and the sanctity of money, the underlying factor will be control and maintenance of the monetary status quo.

I expect that fintech will bifurcate into two regulatory protocols. One will cover government-issued digital currencies and could include so-called stablecoins that reflect hard asset values.

These are likely to be the blue chips that will face a more lenient regulatory landscape as control will continue to come from governments, treasuries, central banks, and monetary authorities.

Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, could face far more regulatory hurdles to mitigate their threat to established power bases.

One of the most potent tools governments have at their disposal is taxation. A sign that cryptocurrencies are already in the US governments crosshairs are two competing crypto tax amendments in the Senates infrastructure legislation. The taxation comes down to defining the role of a broker in cryptocurrencies.

Ironically, Senators initially looked to impose stricter rules on taxing cryptocurrencies to help fund the infrastructure bill. The Wyden-Toomey-Lummis amendment would narrow the broker definition to exclude miners and validators, hardware and software makers, and protocol developers from the designation. The amendment would seek to keep the crypto business and market from moving overseas to less restrictive jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the Portman-Warner-Sinema amendment would only protect proof of work (PoW) miners from the newly proposed reporting requirement. The amendment would not make proof of stake (PoS) developers, operators, validators, or liquidity providers from the reporting requirements.

The bottom line: strict taxation is on the horizon in some form. Taxation is the most significant device governments can use to maintain a grip on the asset class and exert control.

Under the umbrella of paying for infrastructure, the IRS and other government agencies would have the power to control money flows with complete transparency. Moreover, cross-border cooperation could be a silver bullet that drives the market away from cryptos toward government-issued digital currencies and stable coins that reflect the value of regulated assets.

Libertarian ideology shifts power from the state to individuals. Libertarians believe in free markets where prices come from transparent transactions without government interference. Ironically, many believe that libertarianism is a right-wing doctrine.

When it comes to money, it decreases the governments role. However, socially, libertarianism can also appeal to the political left. Right and left political ideologies embrace different forms of libertarianism.

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, neither the government nor proponents of the burgeoning asset class will be pleased with the outcome. In the US and Europe, the growth of technology companies that have created oligarchies sets the stage for an epic battle over the future of the money supply.

Government officials are on one side, with Jack Dorsey, Tesla's (NASDAQ:) Elon Musk, Amazon's (NASDAQ:) Jeff Bezos, and other titans embracing a fintech world that transcends government control on the other.

Both sides have vested interests. The governments will do anything to preserve their hold on power. The crypto market and technology companies seek to return power to individuals, but they stand to be financial benefactors.

The bottom line: regulations are on the horizon, and they are likely to create a class system where digital currencies and stablecoins are not subject to the same treatment as cryptos.

Two competing payment systems could become mutually exclusive, creating lots of volatility and an epic financial battle for control. Governments may have the right to taxation, regulations, and armies of agents at their disposal. However, the technology sector has know-how and skills that dwarf the capabilities of those looking to maintain the status quo.

Speculative interest is currently fueling the libertarian asset class, which is why Chinese regulators have put their foot down. China is an authoritarian system, making it easy to suppress anything that is not in the governments interest.

Expect the US and Europe to try to do the same. However, in social democracies, that task is far from easy.

Source: CQG

The monthly chart of , above, shows that the speculative frenzy is likely to continue. Nearly 11,200 cryptocurrencieswith more coming to the market each dayis another sign that the asset class has rising appeal. Moreover, the existence of Bitcoin and means the cat is already out of the bag, and the US and Europe will now seek to tax and regulate from a weakened position.

Many agree that Blockchain is the future of the payments system. However, the form of money is an issue that will continue to stoke controversy for years to come.

Continued here:
Cryptocurrency Regulations On The Horizon; Expect 2 Sets Of Protocols - Investing.com

Mandates for the COVID-19 shots are popping up all over the country now, which means you may soon have to show proof of vaccination if you want to go to work, the gym or an indoor public event.

The requirements are a reaction to slowed vaccination rates that have left significant parts of the population without protection from the virus, just as the highly contagious delta variant is spreading. Among those supporting the new requirements is President Joe Biden, who has issued one for federal workers and encouraged both private and public employers to do the same.

The requirements seem to be relatively popular. As many as two-thirds of Americans support them, if some recent polling is correct. But there are plenty of opponents out there. Among the loudest are some high-profile leaders in the Republican Party.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) says vaccine requirements are products of the lefts authoritarian instincts. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) describes the push for requirements as vaccine fascism. House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) responded to Bidens announcement by tweeting, No mandates for anyone, and vowing that Americans will stand for freedom and then punctuating the line with an American flag emoji.

Republicans at the state level are saying similar things and they are acting too, putting in place prohibitions on vaccine requirements in more than a dozen states. One of them is Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued orders and signed legislation thatbansvaccine requirements by private companies as well as local government agencies.

Florida is a free state, and we will empower our people, DeSantis said in a fundraising letter this week. We will not allow Joe Biden and his bureaucratic flunkies to come in and commandeer the rights and freedoms of Floridians.

The virtual flag-waving, appeals to personal liberty, and warnings about fascism suggest there is something fundamentally un-American about vaccine mandates.But requirements to get inoculations have been around since the very first days of the republic, claiming broad support and withstanding legal challenges.

This isnt because officials or judges are ignoring freedom. Its because they believe vaccination is a key to securing it.In fact, among those who support vaccine requirements today are some well-known conservative judges and libertarian scholars in other words, precisely the sort of people you would expect to protest government overreach most vociferously.

What Liberals And Conservatives Say About Vaccine Mandates

A basic justification for vaccine mandates is that your freedom doesnt include the freedom to endanger the rest of your community.The principle is a bedrock of democratic philosophy and the American legal tradition, with courts applying it to a variety of contexts including public health.

You cant walk around assaulting people just because you feel like its an important part of your self-expression, Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, said in an interview. And you cant dump pollutants into a towns drinking water just because youd rather not pay for cleanup. By the same token, we require kids to get vaccinated for all sorts of illnesses before they go to public school. Otherwise, their bodies could be used as vectors to harm others.

SOPA Images via Getty ImagesFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose state's hospitals are filling up with COVID-19 patients, has said that vaccination requirements threaten freedom.

The most important legal precedent on vaccines specifically is a 1905 case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring smallpox vaccination for adults. Just this week, a panel from a federal appeals court cited Jacobson when it upheld, unanimously, a new COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students at Indiana University.

The author of that ruling, Frank Easterbrook, is a well-respected conservative first put on the bench by President Ronald Reagan. In the opinion, Easterbrook argued that the Indiana University requirement was actually less onerous than the old Massachusetts requirement, because it applied only to people who are choosing to enroll at the university.

People who do not want to be vaccinated may go elsewhere, Easterbrook wrote.

That appears to be true for all of the vaccine mandates now in place or under discussion: They are not requirements per se, but rather conditions for some kind of voluntary activity. Although the consequences can still be harsh say, if it means giving up a job many of the mandates, including the one Biden introduced for federal workers, offer alternatives like undergoing frequent testing plus a promise to observe social distancing.

Thats in addition to exceptions for people who can cite legitimate religious grounds or who cant get shots for medical reasons.

In the eyes of the law, nothing under discussion is actually a mandate, in the sense of a government command backed up by coercion, Bagley said.

What Some Libertarians Say About Vaccine Mandates

Bagley is generally thought of as a liberal, but its not hard to find conservatives and libertarians who take the same view.

In a 2013 paper titled A Defense of Compulsory Vaccination, Jessica Flanigan, a University of Richmond professor known for libertarian writings on bioethics, cited the example of people firing guns into the air in order to celebrate Independence Day. Governments can and do prohibit such behavior even though its a form of expression, Flanigan explained, because the bullet could end up hitting and even killing somebody.

People are not entitled to harm innocents or to impose deadly risks on others, Flanigan wrote.

Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan made a similar argument in a 2018 journal article called A Libertarian Case for Mandatory Vaccination. That was two years before COVID-19, but, he told HuffPost last week, he thinks the case for mandates now remains strong.

Bill Clark via Getty ImagesElise Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair from New York, punctuated her tweets on vaccine mandates with an American flag emoji.

In my view, people have the right to harm themselves by making bad choices, Brennan said. This is about protecting others from the undue risk of harm you impose upon them by being unvaccinated. The lower the personal costs/risks of the vaccine and the higher the risk that the unvaccinated impose upon others the stronger the case is for mandating vaccines.

And then there is Ilya Somin, whom nobody would mistake for a fan of government power.

A professor at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, he has spent much of his professional life decrying what he sees as state encroachments on personal liberty, whether its local authorities taking property under eminent domain or the federal governmentpenalizing people for not getting health insurance.

But Somin said in an interview that vaccine mandates make sense under certain circumstances and that the present situation qualifies. He described taking the shot as a small burden for the sake of much larger benefits, like slowing transmission and reducing the opportunities for new, more dangerous variants to emerge.

The issue here is not just that it saves lives, but that it potentially saves a great many of them, and not just those of the vaccinated people themselves, Somin said. It also protects others in the community. That makes it different from primarily paternalistic restrictions on liberty, such as, say, requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Somin said said he would feel differently about imposing a requirement on the public at large, rather than making the vaccines a condition for engaging in certain activities, in part because it would be a law enforcement nightmare. Somin also noted that many of the mandates are coming from private-sector companies acting on their own.

American laws and courts have long given private companies all kinds of leeway to dictate terms of employment, as well as whom they serve as customers. Libertarians like Somin are especially reluctant to see that erode, because they believe owners, workers and consumers end up better off when corporations operate with fewer restrictions.

Where The Debate Goes From Here

One group that would be happy to cut down on management discretion over employees are labor unions, and thats a big reason so many unions representing teachers, health care workers and other sectors subject to the mandates have been fighting them.

The unions are also representing workers who, in many cases, are genuinely fearful of the vaccines. This is especially true for the health care unions whose memberships include large numbers of Black Americans, whose vaccination numbers nationwide have lagged in part because of deep distrust of the medical establishment that has built up over the centuries.

Of course, from a public health perspective, thats all the more reason to impose the mandate: to boost vaccination among people who take the pandemic seriously and are part of communities that have suffered disproportionately from COVID-19. And thats not to mention the biggest reason, which is that unvaccinated health care workers are a direct threat to the safety and well-being of patients.

Still, many of the unions fighting the requirements are focusing more on the specifics of verification and exceptions to the rules.Thats different from the categorical rejection of mandates you hear from Cruz, DeSantis and the other Republicans. And although the unions certainly represent a lot of members, those GOP officials have a lot of influence especially when it comes to the part of the population most hostile to getting vaccinated.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

See original here:
Opponents Of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Have A Curious Definition Of 'Freedom' - HuffPost

Let me start with a brief story about a nearly lost man and the simple thing that saved him. Three years ago I was on the road for work, and I was picked up at the airport by a young guy who looked like a vet. We had a ninety-minute trip to the speaking venue, and so we struck up a conversation. I asked him if he served. He said yes. I asked him if he deployed. He said yes, to Afghanistan. I asked how he was fitting in after he came back home.

He got quiet for a moment. He said, Have you heard of Jordan Peterson? I said yes, absolutely. In fact, Id just reviewed his book for National Review. Well, Jordan Peterson saved my life.

How? The story begins the way a lot of veterans stories begin. After he came back from war, he felt lost. He had no purpose. In a flash hed gone from an existence where every day mattered and every day had a mission to a world that seemed empty and aimless by comparison. To put it in the words of a cavalry officer I served with in Iraq, I wonder if Ive done the most significant thing Ill ever do by the time Im 25 years old.

The young man I was talking to had no mission. He also had no mentor. He picked up the bottle so much that he couldnt put it down. Eventually he had suicidal thoughts. How did Jordan Peterson bring him back? He told him to clean up his room. Yep, clean up his room. He told him to get organized. He told him to stop saying things that arent true.

It all sounds so simple, so basic. Dont we need transcendent truths to turn our lives around? Well, yes. But sometimes the process starts with direction and with discipline. Especially for young men. The small disciplines led to larger disciplines. Small purpose led to bigger purpose. And there was my new friendworking hard, in a relationship, and saving for a down payment on a house.

No wonder he was choked up with gratitude.

Why bring up that story? Because of one of the most remarkable podcasts Ive ever heard. Its by Mike Cosper at Christianity Today, and it chronicles the rise and fall of Mars Hill church in Seattle and the corresponding rise and fall of its celebrity pastor, Mark Driscoll. The thing thats remarkable about the podcast is that it spends as much time describing what worked about Mars Hillwhy Driscoll and his church became a sensationas it does describing why it failed.

And we cant start talking about either what worked or what failed without talking about young men like the driver in the story above. Driscoll, you see, was a Jordan Peterson figure before Jordan Peterson. He was a Christian celebrity pastor who understood that many millions of young men were lost. He aimed his ministry straight at them, provided them with a unique version of a boot camp Christian experience (hed sometimes browbeat the men in his congregation for hours at a time), but then ultimately burned up his credibility in the bonfire of his own arrogance.

Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill in 2014, under fire for his harsh, domineering leadership and almost a year after Driscoll apologized for mistakes following plagiarism allegations. Mars Hill Church dissolved shortly thereafter.

Its a story worth remembering, because young men are still struggling with modern masculinity, the church is still struggling to reach them, and Driscolls story is one part guide and one part cautionary tale.

I use the word guide advisedly, with full knowledge of Driscolls deep flaws. But he did see something. He did understand that young men were flailing. Theyre still flailing. Heres how I phrased their predicament in my review of Petersons book:

Theyre deeply suspicious of organized religion, yet they cant escape the nagging need for transcendence in their lives. They want answers to great questions, but theyre suspicious of authority. They want purpose, but they dont know what purpose means apart from careerism. Oh, and all but the most politically correct are keenly aware that mankind is fallen, that men and women are different, and that, while the post-Christian West has allegedly killed God, it cant seem to replace him with anything better.

This is the landscape of spiraling rates of anxiety and depression, of extended adolescence, and of a generation of young men whove been told that masculinity is toxic but not taught how to live in a way that recognizes or even cares to comprehend their true nature.

Driscoll stepped into this void with key insightsthat men need male mentors (thats one of the reasons why boys often respond worse than girls to absent fathers), that men often react quite well to direct and confrontational challenges to their manhood, and that men shouldnt be ashamed that they are strong and often full of competitive fire.

So when Driscoll walked into Seattle life and directly challenged men to get a job, to stop watching porn, to stop sleeping around, and to start supporting a family, It worked for much the same reason the Peterson message resonated a decade later. He gave men a sense of virtuous masculine purpose. Shape up. Protect and provide.

In fact, I joined legions of other Christians in appreciating Driscolls message to men. I excused and rationalized some of his excesses, believing he was doing good work challenging men to lead better, more responsible lives.

(I fully recognize, by the way, men are not all the same. They dont all respond to the same kinds of appeals. The Driscoll blunt approach can repel as well as attract. But it attracted hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands of young Christian men as Driscolls star kept rising.)

But Driscoll ultimately failed. My appreciation was ultimately mistaken, and Ive tried to learn from my own failure of judgment. Even worse, Driscoll didnt just fail as an individual, the way so many celebrity pastors fail; his philosophy and approach failed the men and the women in his church. It caused great harm. And its worth exploring briefly whybecause the why also applies to multiple modern Christian efforts to reach young men.

One of the core reasons for the Driscoll failure (and for other failures before or since) is that he met a cultural overreaction with an overreaction all his own. He opposed a specific secular extremism with a Christian extremism that ultimately proved his critics correct.

Ive written a considerable amount about the secular war against so-called toxic masculinity, and while I recognize that toxic masculinity does exist, its definition often sweeps way too broadly. As I wrote in one of my first Sunday French Press essays, the American Psychological Associations 2019 declaration that traditional masculinitymarked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggressionis, on the whole, harmful represented a formal manifestation of a misguided cultural trend.

Look at the list of characteristics above. Aside from dominance, the characteristics above can be vices or virtues depending on the context. Stoicism can be harmful, yes, but (as Ive argued before) it can be indispensable to helping a man navigate the storms of life with a calm, steady hand.

Aggression seems like a vice, right up until the moment when you need a good man to stop an evil man in his tracks. A competitive spirit can be harmful, but it can also build companies, institutions, and even nations. It can inspire extraordinary innovation.

No, you dont want to jam any person into the masculine stereotype and demand that they exhibit the characteristics above, but when those characteristics are presentand they are in many, many menthe challenge is to channel them into virtue, temper them away from excess, and ultimately subordinate them to the way of the cross.

So whats the Driscoll sin? Whats the common mistake of so many efforts to celebrate Christian masculinity? Its to functionally take the exact opposite approach of the APAinstead of treating these characteristics as inherent vices, the Driscolls of the world turn them into inherent virtues. They glory in aggression, competitiveness, and achievement.

The end result was a theology that conformed Christianity to traditional masculinity rather than conformed masculinity to Christianity. A theology and community that focused on sex differences created a world in which masculinity and male power was central to the identity of the church and the movement.

The most heartbreaking of the podcasts so far was Episode Five, entitled The Things We Do to Women. It discusses how the churchs extreme focus on empowering men and fostering a biblical masculinity resulted in a culture that subordinated women to such a degree that wives were often treated as playthings for their husbandsencouraged to strip for them and perform sex acts that they found deeply uncomfortable and degrading.

But the smoking hot wife was the reward for the godly man, and satisfaction of his insatiable sex drive was his entitlement.

And thus you see the depravity of a thinly Christianized version of true toxic masculinity. What was first a church that challenged men to restrain their vices (Stop sleeping around! Stop watching porn!) ending up indulging men in modified versions of those same vices (You can still have all the sex you want! Your wife is your porn!) At the end of the day, the Driscoll example for young men was dangeroushe sent a message that with daring and discipline, you could become not just a responsible man, but a dominant man.

Thus, perversely enough, Driscoll sanctified a secular version of masculine toughness and virility. The (sometimes necessary) act of grabbing men by their metaphorical lapels and shaking them out of their stupor ultimately pointed them away from the cross and towards the same will to power that has bedeviled mankind since the Fall.

Lets return to the young vet at the start of the essay. Like Driscoll did to young men a decade before, Peterson woke him up. He gave him a sense of immediate purpose. He spoke to a man in the way that so many men understanddirectly, challenging them to do better, to be better. These kinds of direct challenges, whether they come from dads, pastors, authors, coaches, or drill sergeants, can be immensely valuable. Sometimes theyre the only thing that can reach a mans heart.

When you can understand this reality, you can start to see Driscolls appeal. His ministry did change lives. Others like himbefore and sincehave changed lives. And when you change a mans life, you can inspire fierce devotion.

But pastors and leaders must handle that devotion with great care. When countering a culture that often attacks traditional masculine inclinations as inherent vice, the answer isnt to indulge traditional masculine inclinations as inherent virtue.

In fact, in our efforts to define what it means to be a Christian man, we shouldnt center our efforts on masculinity at all, but rather on understanding a persona person who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Driscoll, in all his toughness and swagger, tried to make men out of Christians. The church, however, should make Christians out of men.

One last thing

The Mars Hill podcast also reminded me of this marvelous song by Sandra McCracken. We had the pleasure of hosting her in our home a few years ago, in a setting very much like this. Sandra is talented and a thoughtful, delightful person as well. I hope you enjoy this song as much as we did:

View post:
Why a Masculine Ministry Rose and Fell - by The Dispatch Staff - The French Press - The Dispatch

: Pope Francis Apostolic Trip to Iraq / Wikimedia Commons

Pope Francis has been warning Catholics (and all Christians) against the dangers of ideologies, how they precondition us to think in patterns which run contrary to the teaching and praxis of the Gospel. Ideologies are rigid. They try to condition everything to closed systems which have no room for grace, no room for mercy, no room for freedom, and no room for love. They might speak of grace, mercy, freedom and love, but they do so to limit them, and so, when embraced, ideologies corrupt and defile the church. When they become powerful, when they influence too many within the church, especially those in positions of leadership, we need them to be dismantled so that Christians can once again be led by the Spirit to follow the Gospel in its fullest. This, then, is what Pope Francis wished for in his prayer intentions for August: Let us begin reforming the Church with a reform of ourselves, without prefabricated ideas, without ideological prejudices, without rigidity, but rather by moving forward based on spiritual experience an experience of prayer, an experience of charity, an experience of service.[1] It is also what he preached about at Pentecost; ideologies limit us and keep us away from the whole of the Gospel; following them prevents the church from being holistic and embracing the whole of its mission, a mission which no one systematic presentation of thought, no ideology, can in and of itself present:

Today, if we listen to the Spirit, we will not be concerned with conservatives and progressives, traditionalists and innovators, right and left. When those become our criteria, then the Church has forgotten the Spirit. The Paraclete impels us to unity, to concord, to the harmony of diversity. He makes us see ourselves as parts of the same body, brothers and sisters of one another. Let us look to the whole! The enemy wants diversity to become opposition and so he makes them become ideologies. Say no to ideologies, yes to the whole.[2]

Sadly, in the United States, it is clear that a wealthy ideological base is trying to transform the Christian faith so that the faith will be in its own image instead of following the fullness of the Gospel and all its teachings. This ideology ignores the basic praxis of the church, the social doctrine of the church and its preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, as the ideology promotes the wealthy and their own interests over and above the poor and needy. It is using its wealth to transform Catholic educational institutions so that they will teach according to its guidelines, according to its limited and distorted vision of the faith. By doing so, by making itself so central to what is being discussed in the United States, this ideology is causing great pain and sorrows to countless Catholics as their needs, both spiritual and physical, are not being met because they are not considered important. This is exactly what we see happening with the Napa Institute, its allies, and their influence over all kinds of Catholic dioceses and educational institutions. The University of Notre Dame, once considered one of the greatest Catholic educational institutions, is now being taken under their grip, as they are now using Notre Dame to influence the next generation of seminarians, as John Gehring writes in the National Catholic Reporter:

The Napa Institute, a conservative Catholic organization known for its annual high-end conference featuring wine tastings and cigars, announced plans to expand its work to include programs on priestly formation and a lecture series at the University of Notre Dame, with the latters first scheduled speaker to be U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.[3]

Timothy Busch, one of the co-founders of the Napa Institute, fights hard against Catholic social teaching, which can be seen in the way he suggests Catholicism stands against labor unions:

As Timothy Busch sees it, Catholicism takes a dim view of labor unions and raising the minimum wage, is in favor of right to work laws, and absolutely rejects political leaders who fail to be strictly anti-abortion. Capitalism and Catholicism, he has said, can work hand in hand. In 2017, he greeted the inauguration of President Trump by declaring that a time of light was now at hand, which he contrasted with a time of darkness, by which he apparently meant the Obama presidency.[4]

Labor unions, far from being viewed with suspicion, are promoted by Catholic teaching:

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are to a certain extent common for all of them; at the same time however each type of work, each profession, has its own specific character which should find a particular reflection in these organizations. [5]

Pope Benedict XVI warned of the way labor unions were being hindered by governments, which of course, comes from the influence of the rich and powerful and the ideologies they use to control and manipulate governments:

Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Churchs social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.[6]

Pope St. John Paul II pointed out that trade unions, and their work to help the people in them, are the modern day successors of medieval trade guilds, which demonstrate the necessary role they play in society:

In a sense, unions go back to the mediaeval guilds of artisans, insofar as those organizations brought together people belonging to the same craft and thus on the basis of their work. However, unions differ from the guilds on this essential point: the modern unions grew up from the struggle of the workers-workers in general but especially the industrial workers-to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production. Their task is to defend the existential interests of workers in all sectors in which their rights are concerned. The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrialized societies. Obviously, this does not mean that only industrial workers can set up associations of this type. Representatives of every profession can use them to ensure their own rights. Thus there are unions of agricultural workers and of white-collar workers; there are also employers associations. All, as has been said above, are further divided into groups or subgroups according to particular professional specializations. [7]

The preferential option for the poor, and the need for the poor to work together to fight against the powers which would strip them of their integral value, is under attack by Busch and the Napa Institute. They are for the wealthy. Their programs are for those who are rich. The poor are left behind. This is not the only dangerous aspect of the Napa Institute and its ideological foundations, but it shows how it and its leaders misrepresent Catholic teaching for the promotion of a dangerous and false ideology. This is also why they should not be given the power to train future generations of priests, for they are training seminarians to stand against Catholic teachings.

It is no surprise that those associated with the Napa Institute are promoting other right-wing agenda and ideologues, such as the way Bishop Barron argues in favor of the teachings of Jordan Peterson. How can anyone claim Jordan Peterson is The person most responsible for reintroducing God and the Bible into mainstream secular culture today? Jordan Peterson, an atheist, a staunch opponent of Catholic social teaching who has told Catholics to go on strike from mass, is not the person most responsible for spreading the Gospel, but rather, limiting it and turning many people away from it (either through a corrupted version of it which they take on, or having people believe him and so have nothing to do with the faith).

Pope Francis understands the church is in crisis. He understands the influence of various ideological entities around the world and how they are harming the faithful. It is easy to see this happening in the United States. The Napa Institute represents one such important example of this problem; it is taking over the Christian narrative in the United States. The crisis is real. But this also means the church is also living. The struggle against ideologies and the dangers they present shows the Spirit is working, and the church will not stay down. Let us remember that the Church always has difficulties, always is in crisis, because shes alive. Living things go through crises. Only the dead dont have crises. [8] We must not let the Napa Institute, and its ideological allies striking against the teachings of the church (and Pope Francis himself) win. We must resist. We must make it clear that its conferences are not acceptable, that our future priests should not be influenced by its poison.

[1] Pope Francis, Video of the Holy Father with the Prayer Intention for the Month of August, Disseminated via the Popes Worldwide Prayer Network (8-3-2021).

[2] Pope Francis, Homily for Pentecost. Vatican translation (5-23-2021).

[3] John Gehring, Napa Institute Expands to Fight the Culture War, in National Catholic Reporter (8-4-2021).

[4] Katherine Stewart, How Big Money Is Dividing American Catholicism, in New Republic (3-9-2021).

[5] Pope St. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens. Vatican translation. 20.

[6] Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate. Vatican translation. 25

[7] Pope St. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 20.

[8] Pope Francis, Video of the Holy Father with the Prayer Intention for the Month of August, Disseminated via the Popes Worldwide Prayer Network (8-3-2021).

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook. If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Read the original post:
Ideologies And The Faith | Henry Karlson - Patheos

Greg Jordan's first season at Liberty County was a far cry from his previous 14 seasons on the sidelines of Blountstown and then Port St. Joe when he won just over 70 percent of his games.

The Bulldogs struggled to a 2-6 record, not a particularly surprising mark given the recent struggles of the program, which went just 7-32 over the four seasons previous to Jordan taking over.

Liberty County does return its leading rusher and top tackler from a season ago, and Jordan hopes that, along with an extra year of strength and conditioning, will lead to a second-year leap and more wins this season.

Here's a look at what the Bulldogs are working with in 2021:

Key Departures:

QB Austin Waller, LB/FB Joeseph Finuff, WB/DB Cole Parker, LB John O'Neal.

Waller departs after leading the Bulldogs in total offense last season. He'll be replaced by sophomore Rylan Roddenberry.

Key Returners:

RB/LB Kole Ellis (jr.), DL/OL Adam Layne, FB/DL (sr.), FB/DLJosh Peterson (sr.), QB Rylan Roddenberry (so.) WR/DB Arron O'Kelley (sr.).

Ellis is back after leading the team in rushing with over 500 yards in 2020, while Layne compiled nearly 100 tackles to lead the defense. Layne is also one of three returning starters on the offensive line. Roddenberry sat behind Waller as a freshman but it will be his show in 2021.

Jordan on Roddenberry: "He'll be a 10th grader so he'll go thorugh some 10th grade growing pains. Being the starting quarterback on the varsity as a 10th grader is not an easy task, but he's a cognitive kid. He's pretty smart and understands what we're doing. We just need him to play to his strengths and away from his weaknesses. Hopefully he'll have a good year."

Impact Newcomers:

RB/DB Nate Carpenter (so.),ATH TyTy Braggs (sr.), WR/DB Tryston Lopez (sr.)

Jordan: "Nate Carpenter is a small kid, but he's got a lot of heart and he's got some wheels. He can run a little bit. Tryston Lopez is a kid who has played centerfield on the baseball team here and is a really fast kid who can help us skill-wise for sure. TyTy is basically a first-year varsity guy since he hurt his labrum and had a torn ACL since getting to varsity, but he's an athletic kid who can play multiple positions for us."

Team Strength:

Offensive line.

The Bulldogs return both of their starting offensive tackles in Riley Grim and Blake Sanders, along with Layne, who started at center last season but moves to guard this year. Sophomore Scott Harr steps into the role as starting center.

Jordan: "The offensive line has got a year under their belts. Other than our center all of our returning guys have experience with what we're doing offensively. We're going to need to maintain possession of theball and be physical with good offensive line play and play good defense. That's always been the formula that I've used."

Areas for Improvement:

Defense.

Liberty County surrendered 32 points per game in 2020, including 40.3 per game in their losses. The Bulldogs will need to sharply cut into that number if they're going to turn things around in 2021.

Jordan: "It's just making plays in space and getting off the field on third downs. It's something we struggled with last year. We also need to get more turnovers. Last year we scored points in some games and just gave up more than what we hoped to give up and it cost us some games. We just need better tackling and better overall defensive play."

Team Outlook:

It has been six years since Liberty County last posted a winning season and doing so this year will be a challenge. Getting back above .500, however, is certainly the goal, at least in the near term.

Jordan: "I hate to put a number on wins and losses and that part of it, but having a winning season would be big. We want to win as many games as we can win and be competitive and relevant again. That's what we're trying to get these guys back to, competing the whole time and get the program back to being relevant when it comes to playoff time in November.

"These kids don't know what it's like to practice during Thanksgiving and get out and get to play in the third round. That's a lofty goal for this group, but that's where we're trying to steer these guys to, but it's based on talent andhow hard they're willing to work andbe committed. It's got to matter to them. I think the young kids have that desire, so hopefully we'll be better."

2021 schedule

8/20 Blountstown, Vernon (Kickoff classic) 7:30 p.m.

8/27 Wewahitchka 7:30 p.m.

9/3 at Bozeman 7 p.m.

9/10 at Cottondale 7 p.m.

9/17 at Franklin County 7:30 p.m.

9/24 Graceville 7:30 p.m.

10/15 North Bay Haven 7:30 p.m.

10/22 Holmes County 7:30 p.m.

10/29 SSAC TBA

11/5 SSAC TBA

Read more here:
PREP FOOTBALL PREVIEW: Liberty County looks to improve in Year 2 under Greg Jordan - The News Herald