Daily Archives: March 18, 2011
In the very early days of this blog I wrote about the scandalous decision of the mickey-mouse tribunal called Europe’s Human Right Court (an organisation not even part of the EU and mainly created, as all these institutions are, to give jobs to the friends and the friends of the friends), that said that a crucifix in a schoolroom was, well, not atheist enough.
It seems a long time but it was, in fact, a little more than eights months ago. Today the matter comes to its provisional (and hopefully: definitive) conclusion with the decision of said mickey-mouse tribunal (appeal, this time) that er, no, well, the crucifix is a religious symbol but, er, ah, well, it also isn’t.
What has happened is, in my eyes, very simple:
1) the “court” is a motley conglomerate of well-connected, lefty cretins mainly without experience as a judge, or a legal background in the first place;
2) said cretins enjoy playing God, but they would also like to keep their, no doubt, very well paid jobs;
3) in order to do so they must avoid ending in the centre of the public opinion, their incompetence and ideological bias exposed;
4) their decision about the crucifix was clearly against point 3). They angered the Vatican and the Italian government massively, and the latter were certainly not isolated at all. In short, our cretins were biting more than they could chew.
5) A backpedaling was clearly in order, as otherwise the shutting down of this useless, senseless, non-Eu (“what”? Yes. “Are you sure?” Yes, I am) organ would have become a real possibility.
Only eight months after the blunder, the solution: the absurd decision (which everyone pretends to believe) that the Crucifix is a social symbol.
The Crucifix. A social symbol.
What’s next: that Muslims bow in direction of the Mecca because it’s good for your back?
Of course, crucifixes have a vast social importance in countries like Italy, or in places like Bavaria or rural France. A country that is Catholic in its very social fabric will obviously see its religious symbols acquiring a cultural role. They’ll be part of the landscape like the pizza, the Weissbier, or the baguette. But this role is there exactly because of its religious significance, not because, say, Italians like football, pizza, beautiful women and, of all things, crucifixes.
By all the efforts of my imagination, I really can’t see how the realistic depiction of a Man horribly suffering whilst being tormented to death can be something of a social phenomenon. Cricket is a social phenomenon, not crucifixes!
Be it as it may, the idea of the “social” significance has been the argument of the Italian government from the start. Gotta love these Italians, really 😉 : always ready to twist and turn with suave shamelessness, as long as they reach their goal 😉 . The “social” argument allows the Italian government to play “secular” whilst making very clear (what, make no mistake, more than 99,99% of the Italians will immediately grasp) what the real issue is and where the journey goes. At the same time, this kind of argument allows the above mentioned cretins (or their colleagues, equally concerned with their job) to backpedal in a halfway elegant way, keep their job, congratulate themselves on the continuation of the lucrative employment and promise to themselves that they won’t do anything so stupid anymore, ever.
Once again, I must point out to what I have written on several occasions: that the government of the rather uncontrolled Berlusconi is making things for Christianity that a Cameron would find not only inconvenient, but positively “intolerant” and “discriminatory”. Whilst I do not think that any of them has big chances of avoiding hell, my pint is on Berlusconi any day.
Summa summarum, the situation as per today is that a huge suppository is hovering around the offices of the so-called Europe’s Human Right Court.
I wonder whether the suppository is a social symbol, too.
“Cordileone” is clearly a dialectal version of the Italian “Cuordileone”; that is: cuor di leone; that is: Lionheart.
Nomen omen, you would say as Cordileone is the name of the Bishop of Oakland, California. Bishop Cordileone is the author of the most assertive, argumented, aggressively Catholic attack to the neo-paganism en vogue among the Washington so-called elites and part of the judiciary I have ever read. The man truly is astonishing and his clear desire to tell the entire Catholic Truth irrespective of any possible accusation of “engaging in politics” (which, let us remember, in the US can have heavy tax consequences; a good excuse for cowards btw) does him great honour.
You find the link to his intervention here, but I’d like to report some excerpts for your convenience and, so to speak, as an appetiser.
It is a curious irony that in this moment of history, when people in a number of countries in the Middle East are agitating for change from dictatorship to democracy, here in our own country, the oldest democracy with a written constitution in the world, there is a movement of the ruling class toward taking more and more power into its own hands. The flashpoint for this movement? The hot-button issue of our day: marriage.
In an explicit denial of his public duty, the then attorney general of the state of California (now governor) refused to defend the law of the state in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8. His reason? He is personally opposed to it.
Irony No. 2: after decades of hearing Catholic legislators (whose job, admittedly, is to make the law, not enforce it) claim that they could not let their personal views on a public issue (in this case, abortion) influence their public role, we now have the chief law enforcer in the state doing exactly that.
When the City Council of Washington, D.C., passed a local ordinance to allow same-sex “marriage,” the citizens organized to put it to a vote so they could decide for themselves. The City Council obstructed them from doing so every step of the way. Bear in mind that the city of Washington has a very large African-American population. […]
Thus, irony No. 3: a small group of political elites (almost all of them white), in a claim to expand rights, deny one of the most fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy — the right to vote — to the masses of black citizens.
Irony No. 4: During the presidential campaign, Obama stated that he favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a change of course, he more recently had said he favors the repeal of DOMA, but asserts it should be done through the legislative process, not the courts. Now, he has taken an action that does exactly that, i.e., repeals DOMA by the decision of a federal court judge.
[……] irony No. 5: In the court case challenging the constitutionality of the legislation that allowed the revival of cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had expired long in the past, the federal district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs. With regard to the argument that the Church was targeted, he did not deny this claim (the evidence was apparently too overwhelming that we were). Rather, he argued that it is not unconstitutional to target a religious group, as long as their access to worship is not impeded. Why, then, would it be unconstitutional to target a sexual minority (which defining marriage in the law does not do, anyway) as long as their freedom to engage in sexual activity as they choose is not impeded?
The fact of the matter is, wherever “gay marriage” has become the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic process, and sometimes even goes directly against it. On the other hand, whenever the people have had the chance to vote on marriage, they have consistently affirmed it. And this, despite the proponents being outspent (sometimes by huge margins), facing opposition from the cultural elites and enduring strong media bias
Regardless of one’s position on the marriage issue, these and so many other moves by our public officials should give cause for concern about the fate of democracy in our country. I urge all of our people to inform themselves of the facts, to inform their consciences from the natural moral law and Church teaching — understanding that marriage is not discrimination against anyone, but benefits everyone and that we must treat those who disagree with us on this issue with respect and compassion — and then to take action by speaking truth to power, advocating for this fundamental good of our society and voting their conscience at the ballot box.
I so wish we had one (nay, half; nay, one quarter!) of these good men of God among our bishops.