Daily Archives: July 4, 2013
Yours truly is not, as you might have imagined, a worshipper of Democracy, preferring God by far. Unfortunately, in these disgraceful times many seem to disagree with me, and to consider democratically elected governments the only acceptable way to organise a nation. The thinking is, it seems to me, rather more spread among liberals; who, being largely atheists, must look around for their man-made gods and find in democracy (or pacifism, environmentalism, and inclusiveness) one of the idols they consider suitable for worship.
One of these idol-worshiping atheist Liberals is, of course, The First Fag President, who did not hesitate to throw out of the window the most trustful ally of the West in the Middle East as soon as he thought it might let him look good; and good he certainly felt as he delivered Egypt to the new god. Unfortunately, Arabs in their Countries rarely “do” democracy, as the prompt victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and the following prompt move of Mr Morsi towards autocracy abundantly show. Several turbulences later, we appear to have come back to square one, with an unelected but halfway reasonable military apparatus as the “Kingmaker” and real backbone of power, just like in Mubarak’s time. Yours truly can’t hide from you his hope it will stay this way for a long, long time, and that soon a new Mubarak will emerge from the ranks of the still sane and remedy to the madness of Obama’s kindergarten foreign policy.
The Arab Spring has been followed by a torrid Summer, with militant Muslims either taking or attempting to take power in countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria, whilst the persecution of Christians is wildly on the increase in the “liberated” Countries. Muslim countries do “persecution of Christians” far better and faster than they do “democracy”, and to look at reality for what it is helps not only the local Christians, but the interest of Western Countries far better than allowing the Muslim foxes to be in charge of the henhouse. Look at Syria, though, and you will see most Western Governments do not want to say in public that Realpolitik has its uses and democracy is no God, with the result that Christians in many Arab Countries keep dying or fleeing, or at the very least look to an uncertain future. This morning, the Foreign Office was still struggling to tell the British voters how much they ohh prefer Egypt is ruled by a ohh democratic ohh government, just in case we should think they are secretly happy at the latest developments; which I am absolutely sure they are.
Bastards as they generally are and were, Arab dictators protected and protect Christian minorities far better than this is the case under the rage unleashed by the new “Spring democracies”. Well then, give me an Assad (or a General Sisi, if he becomes the new strong man behind Mansour) every day of the week, then.
Interestingly, the Egyptian army does not seem very fearful of Obama’s opposition. They have acted without doing things half, with apparently the “entire presidential team” now in detention. After so much rhetoric, Obama will look, methinks, like an idiot. All normal, then.
What, I think, we should take away from the events of the last two years is that Countries dominated by the “religion of peace” cannot be treated as if they were ready for democracy, or even civilised. The best for them is a smart dictator who protects the Christians from the Muslims, the Muslims from themselves, and the West from the antics of brainless terrorists. Let’s hope Egypt is on this path again.
Stuff the Arab spring. I prefer Arab wise men.
Read here on the usual Rorate a well-written (and beautifully translated) article appeared on an internet site of the Orthodox.
Besides being well argued, the article points out to something about which I have written often in the past, and will continue to insist upon on this blog: God doesn't do sexual perversion, and a sexual pervert most certainly can't be a priest.
One of the safest ways to recognise a sound thinking Christian from one polluted from the modern religion of “inclusiveness” is his attitude towards homosexuality. The sound Christian considers homosexuality as being in the same ballpark as other sexual perversions like pedophilia, incest or bestiality, whilst the polluted one subscribes to the “born that way” mantra. At this point he will start to say “gay” instead of homosexual, and slowly but surely this sexual perversion will become just another way of being normal. From there to not objecting to a homosexual priest the step is automatic, and the most confused might even consider him “a saint” because he is a celibate pervert. Erm, let me think….
The article points out to another hard but salutary truth: far from seeking the friendship and, so to speak, embrace of other homosexuals (with actually fairly predictable dangers) the homosexual priest must recognise his utter lack of fitness to be a priest and leave the priesthood. There is simply no other way, in the same way as it is unthinkable that a priest may be a celibate pedophile and think he is in any way, shape or form fit for the priesthood.
Whilst it is sad to see the Orthodox also have to deal with a liberal strain among them, I reflect the struggle between popularity and appeasement on one side and straight defence of Christian values on the other side is as old as Christianity himself. When history gives us the picture of a solid, monolithic Church it is not because those ages were deprived of dissent or internal subversives, but because the one and the others were effectively fought against. The Church is now doing a horrible job of this fight, and in some of them -even wearing black shoes – the doubt is justified as to whether they want the fight in the first place. We, the sound Christians, carry on regardless.
Reblog of the day
Damon and Michael Douglas put in great performances, as does the rest of the (star-studded) cast, who all deserve sincere praise for their commitment to this project, which others in the industry were reportedly too scared to touch. However, whilst both leads put in commendably watchable performances, I am not quite sure how much they were really able to feel some of the emotions they perform.
Read here (or perhaps not) the considerations of a chap who appears not to be a religious, but who is still published by the web site of the British Jesuits. I have written and reblogged about these people already.
The entire article does not mention, not even en passant, the sin of the Sodomites as being reprehensible in any way, shape or form. People simply are homosexual in the same way as they are, say, blond. There is a mention of “darker issues”, but…
View original post 361 more words