Anonymous wrote:
She skipped because there were 10 people in the stadium and she's already got his stink on her.
Anonymous wrote:
She skipped because there were 10 people in the stadium and she's already got his stink on her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Maybe this is a better question for the religion forum but as a Catholic who isn't totally versed on all the intricacies, this strikes me as weird. Easter is when the RCIA (rite of Christian initiation for adults) candidates are baptized. That's a year long process for adults, and the baptism is part of the mass with the renewal of baptismal promises. Children are usually baptized on other Sundays, in a more informal process after mass that is for the family. Although most Catholics baptize their kids as babies (to avoid limbo!), I grew up in a heavily immigrant parish where it was not uncommon to baptize later either because people were in transit, waiting for a family member to be able to cross, or saving up money for a baptismal gown/suit. I don't know why this would be done on Easter. Everything he does is just a little weird and off.
I assume they are doing it now so that the child can receive Reconciliation and First Communion with the other kids his age -- that's second grade in this Diocese but requires a two year class in most parishes (although I'm sure they'd allow him to start the class before being baptized). He said his older son "chose" to be baptized at 7. I wonder if the compromise with Usha was that they would let each kid choose when they go to the 1st/2nd grade point. I don't know if that's much of a choice, since kids that age are usually happy to do whatever will make their parents less disappointed in them, particularly if that choice also comes with a cake and potentially some presents. (My own kids were a little disappointed to realize that Catholic presents generally stink...while their Jewish friends were raking in the cash, all they got was religious jewelry/statutory/books).
It is unusual for a little kid to be baptized on Easter. Maybe, since he converted, he doesn't know that? There's nothing wrong with it either, it just isn't typical.
Baptizing on Easter is exactly the right day when your whole intent is on how it looks politically to MAGA
Anonymous wrote:
Maybe this is a better question for the religion forum but as a Catholic who isn't totally versed on all the intricacies, this strikes me as weird. Easter is when the RCIA (rite of Christian initiation for adults) candidates are baptized. That's a year long process for adults, and the baptism is part of the mass with the renewal of baptismal promises. Children are usually baptized on other Sundays, in a more informal process after mass that is for the family. Although most Catholics baptize their kids as babies (to avoid limbo!), I grew up in a heavily immigrant parish where it was not uncommon to baptize later either because people were in transit, waiting for a family member to be able to cross, or saving up money for a baptismal gown/suit. I don't know why this would be done on Easter. Everything he does is just a little weird and off.
I assume they are doing it now so that the child can receive Reconciliation and First Communion with the other kids his age -- that's second grade in this Diocese but requires a two year class in most parishes (although I'm sure they'd allow him to start the class before being baptized). He said his older son "chose" to be baptized at 7. I wonder if the compromise with Usha was that they would let each kid choose when they go to the 1st/2nd grade point. I don't know if that's much of a choice, since kids that age are usually happy to do whatever will make their parents less disappointed in them, particularly if that choice also comes with a cake and potentially some presents. (My own kids were a little disappointed to realize that Catholic presents generally stink...while their Jewish friends were raking in the cash, all they got was religious jewelry/statutory/books).
Anonymous wrote:He's a decent dude, and his wife is great. But he's quite ambitious and made the political calculus a while ago that the National Review brand of conservatism was not a viable path for his political fortunes. He can be thoughtful and nuanced (and some of his writings reflect this, even if you do not agree with him), but nobody is buying that these days, especially with the specter of Trumpism looming. He's had to walk back a number of his anti-Trump opinions in order to try to carve out a niche. This is the calculus that has been made, but it does not appear to be working.
Look at Asha Rangappa, who was at YLS at the same time as JD and is now a twitter warrior. These things happen when visibility, attention, ambition, scrutiny and brand-building enter the mix.
As evidenced by Ted Cruz at the SCOTUS confirmation hearings recently, you would be surprised (or perhaps not) by the number of esteemed, venerable people who are completely obsessed with their twitter mentions and the concomitant attention high. Sign of the times.