Interesting, if tragic, developments in Bangladesh, where four bloggers have been arrested for having written comments “insulting to Islam” (possibly something like “fake religion soaked in violence and blood, created by a bloodthirsty pedophile”; but I have no exact news). Muslim hardliners want the death penalty for blasphemers of Islam (see above for a possible definition), the others want to tell them where to stuck their ideas.
The four now risk up to ten years in jail, and the matter caused the blood pressure to rise all over the country. Apparently 90% of the Country is Muslim, and again 97% of those Sunnis.
Being Bangladesh a very poor Third-World country I do not doubt they are recipient of more than generous transfer from a number of UNO organisations, which means they get an awful lot of money from Western countries.
One is curious to see how the West, always oh so attentive to the instances of even perverts by us, will react to this rather, ahem, unedifying “human rights situation” in a Muslim country.
The BBC coverage will also be interesting to follow. Remember, these are the people who gave order to call the terrorists “fighters” after the 7 July 2005 bombs who killed 52 innocent people going about their business.
I truly do not know why, with all the names at their disposal, they had to pick “religion of peace”.
It might be good to review again Andrew Klavan’s lesson about how to behave during an Islamic massacre..
From the otherwise rather sleepy and windy Wales, news of some importance reaches us: it says here (I know it’s the BBC, a lair of pedophiles and other perverts; but this they should have managed right) that a mother has beaten her son to death with a stick, as a punishment because the boy could not learn the Koran fast enough.
The detail gives a lot of interesting details: the woman (forget “lady”) is a university graduate; when she discovered that her son had died out of the injuries inflicted to him she set fire to the body of her dead child; she said she did so in order to avoid being killed by her husband upon discovery of the death; she also managed to accuse her husband of the killing. What a delicate person.
You might wonder: why does Mundabor bore us with this individual case of a loony family? Because it seems to me that there is a system of values at play here, which was if not directly causative at least an important contribution in what has happened.
Firstly, you hear every now and then of White mothers who are very cruel to their children (rare, though); but you see, they generally aren’t observant Christians; they come from the worst of the urban plebs, and tend to have a history of alcohol or drugs. Here, we have a family of observant Muslims who want their son to become a Koran memorisation expert. The family is certainly not destitute, taxi-driver isn’t bad in Cardiff and if they had lived in misery this would have been used by the defence for all it’s worth (look, it’s so difficult; the stress of the abject misery, and having to care for so many children at home; of course the one or other gets beaten to death once in a while…).
Secondly, the mere idea of a mother burning her son’s dead body and then accusing her husband of the killing is utterly inconceivable in a Christian setting, as is the affirmation the husband would kill the wife upon discovery of the death. Strangely enough, both acts do not seem so strange if put in a Muslim setting: if a Palestinian mother can set her many children against the IDF and cash a lot of money if one of them is killed, one isn’t very surprised that another Muslim mother would beat his son “like a dog” (not my words; hers) for not memorising the Koran fast enough. As to the fear of being killed, I have known of Muslim women killed by their relatives for much less, though here it was probably an excuse; still, in this setting it is a less improbable one.
All in all, a climate emerges in which, though Islam must certainly not make of people such beasts (and I am sure many perfectly decent Muslim families live in England, though they follow the wrong religion; I have known some I can only define as exemplary), it is instrumental in what has happened here, where a well-educated woman beats her own child to death for not memorising the sacred book of her religion fast enough.
In a related news, the mega mosque in London will not be built; at least not as it is now proposed, a 9,000-place concrete nightmare.
Why am I relieved?
Religion of peace, my foot.
Chose a child rapist as a “prophet”, and this is what you get.
Read here on Deacon’s Bench about the latest “inclusive” madness. It has been organised by some interfaith group or other, and everyone has been invited to participate. In short, in every one of the participating houses people from the other two religions will get in and read from their own scriptures.
Truly, it is as if the First Commandment didn’t exist anymore. These people get together and everyone appreciates how good the other’s religion is. That this should happen also in Christian churches is another manifestation of the new religion, Niceness.
Scandalously enough, among the Christian parishes adhering to this unheard-of summer sale of Christian values is one Catholic parish. Behind the initiative seems to be (as usual, I would say) a Jesuit, called Father Pat Earl.
In another example of how distant Jesuits have become from Christians, Father Pat Earl is on record with the following words:
“Just having something public is not going to be a big, big deal here, but to have someone come in and read from the Quran and to recognize publicly the existence of Islam and to reverence and respect is a good thing for the church to do,”
Truly, the Jesuits have become the enemies of Christianity and the worst defender of the moral relativism criticised by the Holy Father. This is even worse than moral relativism though, this is active promotion of other religions under the pathetic disguise of fashionable words like “reverence” and “respect”.
I can understand a certain feeling of vicinity (and a rather detached one, anyway) with our – to use the Holy Father’s words – “older brothers and sisters”, the Jews, though I’d never allow this to create any confusion whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong. But it is still not clear to me why I, a Christian, should have any “reverence” for Islam, or show any “respect” for a murderous, false religion founded by a pedophile.
I do hope that the responsible bishop stops this initiative and doesn’t allow the Catholic parish to participate. I am not holding my breath, though.
Read here on CNA about the heavy damage suffered by a Nigerian Cathedral by the hand of the usual group of supporters of the, erm, “religion of peace”.
The group’s name translates in the local dialect as “Western education is a sin” and I hope their sons and sons’ sons never learn anything else than their stupid, blasphemous Coran, thus adequately preparing themselves for a life as toilet cleaners; unless of course they get themselves killed beforehand, which is clearly in the cards.
The group has been carrying on these attacks on what appears to be an almost daily basis, probably to fight the boredom of modern office life or perhaps, who knows, because they are simply people who understand the message of Islam and put it in practice.
You’ll be pleased to know that they don’t seem to exclusively target Christians, though, as in the same day two police stations have been targeted, too. Busy people.
In such circumstances, one is reminded of the nice Andrew Klavan’s video about “sensitivity training”.
Truly, for certain countries decolonisation seems to have been rather a self-inflicted punishment.
This is not really new anymore, but in my eyes it touches themes and a way of seeing religion that is at the same time still actual and very well argued. The comparison with the “gigantic german mouse” is powerful, the one with the carmelite nuns even more so.
Enjoy this brilliant video of Andrew Klavan.
This is not a joke; just, I am afraid, the last idea of some idiot Episcopalian who has completely forgotten what he should stand for.
Read here about this lates Episcopalian exploit. Cupio dissolvi at its best.
And if you happen to be one of those misled souls, do yourself a favour and convert to some Christian organisation (I would suggest the Only Church; the only one founded by Christ) before it’s too late.
In keeping with the spirit of pacifist co-existence and tolerance of every abomination, every fanaticism and every attempt to undermine or destroy Christian values that is proving so beneficial to all of us, this Andrew Klavan video helps us to reach towards the more lively among our Muslim friends; through a series of easy-to-understand steps we are guided to embrace their different values and cultural climate and are therefore effectively helped to be better prepared for a peaceful outcome of our small disagreements.
Isn’t this beautiful?
Take this as Mundabor’s little contribution to the cause of peace in this days of Holy Week 2011.
After Jones’ burning exercise, UN workers have been attacked and several of them killed in Mazar-i-Sharif, a city in northern Afghanistan.
There are several considerations to be made here:
1) The freedom of Terry Jones to burn however many Korans he wants to burn must not be put into question: I have already made this point in the previous message, but repetita iuvant.
2) The cause of the killings is very obviously – though I am sure people of slow intelligence will not get this – not Terry Jones burning the Koran, but the existence of fanatical muslims ready to take every excuse to kill people.
3) What has happened in Mazar-i-Sharif not only cannot be blamed on Jones, but makes his point in the most impressive manner.
Please listen to this interview with ABC. The rather cretinous journalist continues to pose suggestive questions to Jones, all the whilst exhibiting the most sanctimonious of tones. Jones answers to them simply like one who has nothing to do with the killings, and condemns these animals. When the sanctimonious lady throws the mask and poses the question openly (whining tone, oh so virtuous): “do you fe-eel res-po-on-si-ble?” he clearly answers that he isn’t; when she asks “how wou-ou-ld you fe-el” if someone burned a bible he gives her a lesson in democracy and civilisation; when she says to him that he “en-c-couraged” the killing (an astonishing affirmation, this, not only factually wrong but showing a breathtaking illiberal bias) Jones again keeps calm (kudos to him; I could never have achieved that) and repeats his “Islam is dangerous, see events in Afghanistan” point.
And in fact, the man is perfectly right in this: that the koran burning exercise is juts the last excuse for something fanatics want to do in the first place. You want proof?
1) Even the most moronic islamic fanatic can go on youtube and delight himself with Koran burning galore. I have already pointed out in the past to the fact that on Youtube, “every day is burn a Koran day”. Why do the chaps wake up only today? Where have they been all the time? The videos have been on youtube for years and there are many more where they come from……
2) I am not aware of any islamic fanatic ever being short or reasons why he should behave like a fanatic. If it’s not the burning of Koran it is the threat to burn Korans; if it’s not the threat to burn Korans it is a cartoon about their most famous child rapist, Mohammed; if it’s not Mohammed, the child rapist it’s the invasion of Iraq (supported by a couple of dozens Arab countries); if it’s not the invasion of Iraq it’s the presence of American boots on Saudi soil, & Co, & Co. Still, the slow of intellect will, no doubt, have problems in getting the point.
3) Even within the very liberal, champagne-sipping walls of the ABC the simple principle of responsibility of one’s actions should find application. To ask terry Jones whether he feels responsible for what fanatical asses have done in Afghanistan is not only a betrayal of common sense, but a blatant disregard of that principle.
4) As already said, the events in Kabul prove Terry Jones’ case. The more the idiots react with such fanaticism to him, the more they prove that the problem is their fanaticism, and the religion fuelling it.
Terry Jones is not a genius, but he certainly has a point.
I have often noticed in the past that when Christians hurry to help Muslims, the latter are generally appreciative of the matter only for as long as the emergency goes on; but as soon as Christians have taken them out of the shite, the help received is soon forgotten.
Take Bosnia, where a coalition of – in his absolutely vast majority – Christian countries risks lives and material to save muslims from indiscriminate carnage, without this having any long-lasting effect on the prejudice of too many Muslims towards Christianity.
Or take Iraq, when (again) the armies of Christian countries free a 28-million people from an extremely cruel dictator, from whose heel the Iraqi themselves had never had the gut to free themselves. Here too, within 48 hours the jubilations had left place to complaints because, hey, electricity has not come back yet. After six months, complaining about the Americans had become more fashionable than a drug addicted poof stylist. The simple fact that just a handful of months before everyone would have died just for complaining had already been conveniently forgotten.
In the last days, we are assisting to a new episode of this new, three-tongued, arab-muslim little game. The intervention is good in principle, but of course the way it is being made has already been criticised by a very high ranking arab official with, oh what a coincidence, political ambitions in Egypt. Chap obviously says, one day after when the news has gone through the entire Arab world, that he has been misinterpreted, so he now has both sides hedged. Inevitably, he and the Arab countries in general will end up saying that no, they were certainly not for doing things as they have been done; it will be, as always, us being very bad, imperialists, & Co.; not before the backside of the inhabitants of Bengasi has been saved by the intervention of Christian countries, of course.
And now please raise his hand who believes that Muslim countries would have risked their men and material in a military operation meant to avoid Christians massacring each others.
If you ask me, only one of the two can be true:
1) some people live on the moon.
2) some people find it convenient to talk as if they did.
The latest example is the utter lack of realism in the Christian-Muslim “dialogue”. The naivety of his most ardent proponents it even surpasses the “ecumenical” process a’ la ARCIC.
A beautiful example of this delirious mentality is the (thankfully) retired nuncio of the Vatican for several Muslim countries, El-Hacheb. The chap seems to live in that beautiful world in which children start to march all together for world peace and behold, it becomes a reality. Among the measures our chap would like to see more seriously implemented are schools filled with Catholics and Muslims. Let us mix all together, ponders the man. That in this way a serious Catholic teaching becomes impossible (because it makes the occasion of conflicts even nearer) doesn’t seem to worry him as his implied solution seem to be to dilute Catholicism to make place for “diversity”. Catholics will become a little more Muslim, and Muslim will become not one bit more Catholic but hey, it sounds so good.
This ecu-maniacal thinking is deluded because it starts from the assumption that if Christian and Muslim would only know each other better, they would avoid being in conflict. This is more than naive, this is outright moronic and the fruit of total disregard of the simple reality under the sun.
Christians and Muslims have been living together in several countries for many centuries now; the idea that conflicts be caused by not knowing what the other thinks is more than outlandish and the fruit of the same delusion which has caused the creation of that other child dream made expensive reality, the United Nations; namely, the thinking that just because people talk, wars stop happening.
Christians and Muslims fight each other because they know each other good enough, not because they don’t. The real facts the ecu-maniacal sissies do not want to understand (or conveniently pretend not to understand) is that Christianity will never be compatible with Islam, and Islam will never be compatible with Christianity.
Besides being theologically incompatible, an even bigger obstacle is that they are both expansive: both want to convert the world, an exercise in which – say – Jews and Buddhists are not interested in the least. The reasons of conflicts between Christianity and Islam is built-in in the way both religion work, and no amount of daydreaming and wishful thinking will ever change an iota in that. Christianity and Islam can, at best, avoid actual war and they actually do it most of the time. But even that might not be possible, or not be expedient and this is another reality conveniently forgotten nowadays.
But then again, the former nuncio also wishes for summer camps where the young of both religion meet and spend some day together, which gives you the measure of his detachment from reality. Muslim parents sending their daughters in a holiday camp with Christian boys? “That will be the day”, I hear the Duke saying…..
The simple fact is that for too long the pretension of childish dreams of “peace” has been conveniently used to mask cowardice; that ecu-maniacal efforts and fantasies of “dialogue” have been used to disguise the unwillingness to become vocal and aggressive in defending Christians in predominantly Muslims countries; that the fundamental nature of the conflict between Christianity and Islam makes the end of such a conflict utterly unrealistic; that only a moron can give any credibility to a “dialogue” with members of a religion which allows them to lie to further its interests.
It is high time that we stop burying our head in the sand, abandon the convenient blindness of political correctness – what is political correctness if not the demand that one be blind, lest he be offended by what is plain to see? – and start to hammer into the heads of the Christians that Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible and there is no place for any coexistence of the two. Not from a theological point of view (because we must work to convert the whole world, not to convert the non-Muslim one) and not from a practical one (because Islam has the same ideas we have, and there’s only one planet to convert).
This conflict is here to stay. It is inherent in the way the two religion work. Nothing short of the eventual defeat of Islam will change it.
We need to wake up to this elementary truth.
I will blog today about the extremely grave episode that has happened in one of the cradles of Western civilisation, Florence and has since dominated world news.
As in the meantime everyone who doesn’t live on the Moon knows, an extremist Christian has succeeded in entering a Mosque in Florence and has violated and desecrated a place of worship. The entire action was filmed and has been on youtube & Co. for some days now. This caused widespread outrage among the Muslim community the world over, repeated threats from the Iranian government, calls to Jihad in all major Muslim capitals, great burning of Western flags, the killing of several priests and Christian laymen and in general frightful tensions between the Christian community and the Muslim one.
I am sure that every reader of mine will agree with me that such acts are extremely shameful and and that sincere Christians feel ashamed at what their co-religionist has done.
For this reason, it is also not surprising that the NY Times, CNN, BBC, the “Guardian” and in general the world media have condemned the action as one man, echoing the world wide outrage this senseless act has caused. This has been going on for days now so if you haven’t noticed, you must have been sleeping all the time or more probably, you are dead already.
This was to be expected, I hear you say. You can’t violate a place of worship of a religion with a worldwide following and around a billion faithful without the entire media world making a huge uproar about that, can you?………………………
Oh well apparently (and to use a phrase very much en vogue, at least until the beginning of November) yes, you can!
The only thing you must do is avoid targeting Islam. Best thing to do is to target Christianity. This way, you will be sure that you will be able to dance on the high altar of the Florence cathedral without the world media noticing the episode in the least!
Now if you had proposed to, say, burn a Koran, this would have been different of course. One just doesn’t do such things unless he is a racist Nazi Ku Klux Klan fundamentalist bastard deserving of death by stoning and subsequent frying in camel’s urine.
But if you desecrate an altar to the point that it will possibly have to be reconsecrated, then it is very fine and no world wide outrage will erupt.
Similarly, there will be no calls to a Crusade, no danger for the life of Islamic clerics in European countries, no world wide self-flagellation from soi-disant intellectuals and no global media coverage to the point of nausea.
Which probably explains why nothing has happened in this case.
ICN reports about the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy coming to the defence of Catholicism in general and of Pope Benedict in particular.
Mr. Lévy’s assertions are of a certain importance due to his notoriety and reputation. Also please note that he is a Jew, but he does not indulge in the anti-Catholic self-victimhood so typical of some liberal Jews (to be clear: of those who don’t believe in God and are enemies of religion anyway).
His point about the desecration of Catholic cemeteries are in my eyes particularly relevant. In his words:
“In France there is much talk about the desecration of Jewish and Muslim cemeteries, but nobody knows that the tombs of Catholics are continually desecrated. There is a sort of anti-clericalism in France that is not healthy at all.”
I’d add that this unhealthy anti-clericalism is alive and kicking in the UK too and probably worse than in France. Here in Blighty you can build your notoriety on savage anti-Catholicism, though a strong attitude towards Islam (eg in Oriana Fallaci style) would be frowned upon and probably lead to security concerns.
Kudos to Monsieur Lévy then, as one of the so-called “intelligentsia” who has the guts to defend the Pope is not so easy to find nowadays. I’ll pray for him and for his conversion.
There can be no doubt that the military superiority of the West (and in particular, of the Unites States) is overwhelming and few in Europe – where the press spreads so many lies that one is not even angry anymore – know that the Iraq campaign has been made without moving more than the little finger of the immense US-american war potential.
One is reminded of the Roman Empire and stands in awe in front of such supremacy.
Still, one is reminded of the Roman Empire also for another aspect: that its end could come because of internal weakness and degeneration rather than because of the objective strenght of its adversaries.
Today, a beautiful example of how this country (which many in Europe admire and continue to consider the light of the West) works against itself comes from a new example of judicial activism, a decision of a federal judge in California about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” politics used by the Army. I read here that the judge has decided, against the opinion of the army, that not to allow a soldier to discuss his sexuality is a discrimination, because heterosexual soldiers can discuss it.
To me this has the same logic as to say that as normal people can talk about their love for dogs, people with tendency to bestiality should be allowed to talk about their, ahem, love for dogs. It just doesn’t make sense in any other logic than in the logic of the pervert for whom perversion is normality, and its condemnation “oppression”.
This still extremely powerful country works on its self-destruction. It allows the corrosion of everything which has made it big, piece by piece; from the symbolic advance of Islam to the toleration of so-called same-sex marriages to the ruthless secular mentality of his abortionist “maybe even Christian but no one is so sure anymore”-President to the systematic attack to its Christian values.
It will be interesting, for us European, to see if and how the Army reacts to this in the courts, in Congress and Senate, and by taking influence on the Government. I do not know American politics so well, but I’d be extremely surprised if the Military didn’t dispose of a rather powerful lobby in Washington. I might be wrong, of course.
Still, one thing must be said clearly: it was wrong to allow homosexuals in the first place. This silent toleration was not good from day one, and it is in a sense not bad that its intrinsic absurdity is now exposed.
It is time to wake up to reality, start switching the brains on and reclaim the supremacy of reason and common sense.
Rome was not built on homos.
From the Syllabus of Errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc
You would think that a cardinal would have at least a vague knowledge of these simple things. You would think that a Cardinal wouldn’t stoop so low as to go to a gathering of Muslims and tell them that if they believe in Islam, than it is perfectly fine to stay that way. You would think that even the worst heretics and troublemakers would just shut up once they are retired.
Well, in the case of Cardinal McCarrick, you would be wrong. our home-made heretic is on record with saying these words:
“If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’ So that I think we are, we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”
What this old idiot (twice so, because a Cardinal) is saying is that faith in Islam is God-Given and he has nothing to say to that. Mind, he’d talk to the Muslim to see whether his faith in Islam really comes from God; but if he thinks this is the case, hey buddy, gimmefive….
Please also note that there is no reference here to the fact that conversion might be punished to death. What counts here is that Islam is the result of freedom of conscience and in his heretical mind comes from God.
People like him were, in better times, burnt at the stake. I understand that we now live in different times, where the respect for a single, utterly wasted human life dedicated to the perdition of souls comes before the interest of protecting Christianity. But still, there is no possible justification for a Cardinal, albeit retired, spreading such heresies and confusing Catholics.
The place where to send your email asking for the immediate excommunication of the above mentioned heretical idiot, Cardinal McCarrick, is.
Congregazione per il clero
Sua Em.za Rev. Card. Dario Castrillòn Hoyos, Prefetto
A link to the CNS article and your request to act will suffice. They’ll get enough mails anyway.
After reading this CNS story titled “interfaith leaders denounce anti-islamic actions, call for cooperation” (with the explicit reference to the questionable, but absolutely non-violent Koran-burning exercise planned by a small ecclesial community in Florida) I can’t avoid noticing the double standard.
When Muslim violence (I mean here people being killed, not American flags burned) simultaneously erupts in several parts of the (Muslim) world, the accent of the Western press is generally on the offence created to Muslims, but I can’t recall any massive call to Muslim countries to stop becoming violent every time there’s something they don’t like. They basically say “this cartoon creates violence” or “burning Korans create violence”.
Wrong. Violent people create violence. Cartoons may be in bad taste, but they are not violent. The pathetic attempt to construe cartoon-publishing and koran-burning as “violence” (pathetically espoused by a Muslim chap yesterday evening on the Muslim Self Victimhood Support Club, aka BBC World Service) is utterly devoid of any reality in fact. By depriving the words of their own meaning, leftists and Muslim fanatics open the door to the usual doublespeak so beloved by both leftists and Muslim fanatics the world over. If Koran burning is violence, then everything the Muslim perceive as offensive is violence, and then killing foreigners is just self-defence. Which is exactly the thinking of the Muslim fanatic.
“Oh, but this is our religion”, Muslim whiners always say. “Oh, but this is exactly our point“, we should answer.
Every appeal to not do what might upset Muslims actually encourages them to be upset, because 1) they see how well it works and 2) it encourages them into thinking that they are actually right. This is the same as not doing everything which might upset a spoiled child. Correct the child instead, it works much better and is a long-term solution.
In the end, I have the strong feeling that the ecclesial community in Florida will announce that it renounces to perform the burning exercise. Still, I think that their initiative – apart from questions of taste – has already achieved its aim: to show the potential for senseless violence inherent in Islam. This should lead everyone to some serious reflections about what you invite in your country – irrespective of your religious convictions or opinion about the opportunity of the ceremony – by doing everything (yes, I am thinking of that Mosque) which encourages its spreading in the West.
Switzerland, a country blessedly deprived of political correctness and immune from the EU-disease, is clearly showing the way.
As the Daily Mail reports, Prince Charles yesterday informed us that Islam is, as far as its “spiritual principles” are concerned, more environmentally friendly than Christianity. That is to say that Christians are supposed not to kill the planet but they do not take this reaaally seriously after all, while Muslims are at the forefront of environmental awareness….
In Islam there is “no separation between man and nature”, he goes on saying. I assume that this means that when a Muslim beheads a Christian it is as if he were beheading, say, a goat or a duck or cutting the top of a tree. This does sound rather new age-ish and very environmentally friendly and whilst it might not lead to a decreasing in the number of beheadings of Christians, it might prove useful to make Prince Charles feel smug and oh so attentive to the sensitivities of his Muslim subjects.
The Prince went so far as to appear the only human being (Christian, Muslim or Environmentalist) still insisting in using the expression “an inconvenient truth” without understanding the laughter and ridicule it causes everywhere.
This is the “Defender of…” what!?
I wish Queen Elisabeth a long and happy life.