Daily Archives: August 31, 2010

Liberals and the Right to Cannibalism

Discriminated against by Liberals: Hannibal Lecter

Absolutely brilliant entry from Matthew Archbold regarding a spoof restaurant adv inviting clients to “donate a part of their body” to the restaurant and also looking for an “open-minded surgeon”.

Having reported the news, Mr. Archbold rightly reflects that a society allowing everything two adults consent to should also not have a problem in allowing cannibalism; similarly, a society allowing a mother to kill a baby in her womb shouldn’t be too much upset at allowing that same person to get rid of, say, a toe or some pounds of flesh she might desire to shed.

The reflection is more serious than it could appear. We live in a society that whilst remaining Christian in many ways and therefore reacting in an automatic way to many Christian taboos (cannibalism, incest, bestiality to name a few) has partially decided to set aside Christian thinking in some other matters (abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality come to mind). To persuade the populace to accept these perversions several arguments are used, like for example that it is a human right to behave as one pleases; that one is the owner of one’s own body or that one is not bound to adopt a Christian system of values.

Still, all these arguments also apply to cannibalism, incest and bestiality. If you take leave from Christian values when it is about homosexuality, why should you stick to them when it is about cannibalism, incest, or bestiality? Who is to say that a dog cannot “love” his or her owner, when everyone knows how affectionate dogs can be? How can anyone maintain that a dog would suffer a physical damage in any way bigger than the physical damage undoubtedly procured to a homosexual? And who is to say that two brothers (of whatever sex, as we are being tolerant here) shouldn’t be considered “a loving couple” in the same way as your butcher and his bearded “partner”, whose “union” was recently blessed by a smiling, inclusive Episcopalian pastor-ess, say they are one?

The real truth is that every supporter of abortion and homosexuality cannot explain to these people why he is “discriminating” against them, their dogs, their sheep, their siblings and their right to sell or donate their belly as they are allowed to sell their hair or donate their blood. There is no logical argument why the one should be allowed and the other shouldn’t and in fact, some years ago an incestuous couple in Germany went up to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the German Constitutional Court) claiming that they had a “right to love”, that their rights were being denied, their freedom oppressed and in a word recurring to exactly the same nonsense commonly heard from homos and from their supporters.

The way to Hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions. I’d say that bad intentions make an excellent job of that, too.


Male-only Priesthood: CNN gets it right

Womyn elephant demanding the right to whinny.

Barring women from being Catholic priests is not the result of sexism 2,000 years ago, it’s because women cannot fulfill a basic function of the priesthood, “standing in the place of Jesus,” a leading British Catholic thinker argued Monday.

This is the incipit of a CNN contribution about the same matter of the money-wasting but economy-helping wymyn I have covered here.

Note the difference with much of today’s superficial journalism: the article starts with the clear statement of a fact, coming from the only source authorised to say what the facts in the matter are.

It gets better. Instead of giving us the more or less stupid opinion of a more or less stupid author about what the Church should do in the fantasy world in which they live, this journalist not only tells you what the facts are, but even reports the Church’s explanation as to the why. The statement is faithfully reported that the protest

is based on a fundamental misunderstanding,


the Church has no authority to ordain women

Short and sweet. Nothing much to add. See how easy it is?

The article provides even better information:

The bottom line is that Jesus chose 12 men – and no women – to be his apostles,

This is also not difficult to know, but still seems to go beyond the “knowledge” of many commentators on the matter. After so informing his reader about the only two or three things one needs to know, the author even reports a more profound explanation of why cats can’t bark. Reporting the Vatican source, the journalist writes:

Men and women are equal in Christianity, he continues, but “this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident.”

Just simple, easy-to-grasp facts. It goes to show that if a journalist makes the minimum of effort of informing himself a bit (which should be his job, I presume) or at least listening to what his sources say (which should be his job, I presume) it is perfectly possible to actually inform without deforming everything with one’s own astonishing ignorance of everything Catholic and one’s own astonishing arrogance in thinking they can can tell the Church what to do.

This is not even a debate. There can be no debate in the first place. There will never be one! Never, ever!

It is refreshing to know that at least at times the CNN gets it right. Please compare with the BBC writing about the Church on their internet page (about male-only priesthood, no less) that “such things can change at astonishing speed” or such like words. They obviously changed the internet entry at the same speed, but you get my drift…

This blog does not hesitate in exposing the ignorance and superficiality of journalists. When someone does his job properly, it is nice to let one’s readers know.


%d bloggers like this: