Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.

This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor

Good Lord, not an Assisi gathering again!

Assisi, St. Peter Church, 27th October 1986. A statue of Buddha is placed over the tabernacle. Buddhists make an offering with incense, Catholics priests assist to the ceremony.

I gather from “Rorate Coeli” that in today’s Angelus the Holy Father announced that

on the 25th anniversary of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Assisi for the meeting of different religious leaders in 1986, he will visit Assisi in October 2011 for a meeting with “Christian brothers of the different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions, and, ideally, all men of good will”.

My first observations, a caldo as we say – are as follows:

1) I wonder how long will it take before the Church stops repeating JP II’s mistakes, just because he made them. JP II’s “franchise” might still be strong, but whether it is useful to orthodox Catholicism is a different matter altogether. Methinks, it isn’t. Not in the least. The old Assisi gatherings were a goddamn disaster and a shame. They should be remembered only to be ashamed about them. For details even more shocking than the photo posted above, please follow here (yes, it’s about “interreligious” projects in Fatima. No German? Ahiahiahi….).

2) I am absolutely sure that this will not be allowed to become another new-age-cum-Buddha heretical fest like the former occasions, particularly 1986. Pope Benedict is the one who stopped the original Assisi-gatherings (of which a further one was planned already when he became Pope) in the first place. In the matter of orthodoxy, nothing untoward is going to happen. Those who have experienced the Pope’s visit in England & Scotland know that he can talk very, very straight.

3) I do think, though, that this is a mistake. Whilst the Pope is never shy of pointing out that to him ecumenism means “you come to me”-ism, in this case the choice of the historically and emotionally laden Assisi seems to me the worst possible. It will easily – nay, surely – become a battleground among conflicting tendencies: the Holy Father’s desire to come to Assisi to point out what real ecumenism is, and the Birkenstock-clad cohorts of pacifist, third-worldist, socialist and covert-liberation-theology troops (many of them, I am afraid, Franciscans) that will unavoidably try to hijack the event for their own agenda.

In my opinion, the Assisi gatherings should have been left alone as an example of how not to do ecumenism. This initiative is bound to create false hopes in all those who don’t really get the Pope’s message and are always waiting for an excuse to say that the Holy Father is aligned on their position.

If you ask me, this is a bad start of the year.

Mundabor

Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Big Brother Is Googling You…

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor

LA Times Agrees With Conservative Catholics on Catechesis

Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum, Quod Pro Vobis Tradetur

The LA Times feels the need to tell us that, on average, atheists know more of religion than the faithful. What is not clear is why this should be surprising.

Firstly, it is apparent that an atheist has had to inform himself about why he doesn’t believe (thank God, we still live in times where you can’t go around for long saying “I’m atheist” without someone reacting, a vague form of Christianity is still mainstream) whilst a believer is never checked about how deep is his knowledge.  Or can you tell me when it was last time that someone has said “I am a Christian” and someone else has challenged this belief. I mean, I do it at times with some people (particularly with the “but people”; “I am a Christian, but…”), but you are not likely to meet me very often. Also note that other religions do not fare much better.

This is rather normal: few people – when left to themselves – spend time in deepening what they already believe. I can’t give you a scientific demonstration that the earth rotates around the sun; I believe it and that’s all I need to know, end of story. On the other hand, if I were of the opinion that the sun rotates around the earth I’d have all the Ptolemaic knowledge at my immediate disposal.

Secondly, this is not a survey about the militant Christians, or the informed Christians.  This is a survey about the generic Christians, those with a lick of Christian varnish, often several decades old and sometimes never applied at all; those who think that Jesus was a chap who came on earth to bring peace, or to tell us that we “shouldn’t judge”, or who believe that Jesus wouldn’t have had any disagreement whatsoever with Gandhi or with the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the conclusion of the LA Times that it would be better to ask an atheist than a Christian if you want to “know more about God” is not really intelligent. If you want to know about God, you ask someone who knows the Truth, because the truth is nothing to do with statistics.

Thirdly and as far as we Catholics are concerned, this ignorance is nothing else than the product of fifty years of terrifying catechesis. Considering this, it is in my eyes encouraging that 60% of the surveyed Catholics still get the transubstantiation right. I can imagine many Catholic priests and bishops saddened at the fact that there are still so many. This is the situation on the ground and this problem has been denounced for decades now by conservative Catholics. This is also what is permanently shouted from Catholic blogs all over the planet, so nothing new here.

What therefore the LA times achieves is to show how right conservative Catholics are. This newspaper article should be pinned at the door of every parish disgraced by a trendy priest who has fed his sheep with convenient bollocks all these years, letting many of them go away and keeping the others in abysmal ignorance of even the basics.

A last point I’d like to highlight is the issue of the “education”. The LA Times seems to consider an acquired truth (and I would like to read more data about that anyway) that better educated people tend to be more atheists than less educated people. Even if this were true, though, it would certainly not show that religion is a fantasy for the less educated, but purely that the wrong type of education lets people become haughty and endangers their souls.

I would vastly prefer to be an uneducated peasant living and dying with a simple but solid faith than a faithless sophisticated urban professional living a life of privilege and dying without Christ, because The former has the knowledge that really counts whilst the latter has a fake knowledge that blinds him and leads him to perdition. As Father Corapi would say the peasant knows much more than the educated professional, because he knows the Truth.

This is one reason more to insist that one’s offspring is educated in the proper way.

Mundabor

The Pope and the Parliament: Some Highlights

Accept no substitutes

This was rather good:

“There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere,”

This was even better:

“There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none”.

But the best was probably this one:

“And there are those who argue – paradoxically, with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience.”

This being a diplomatic visit with a Head of State visiting a sovereign Parliament, I assume this obvious reference to the adoption agencies scandal has been instantly understood by anyone present.

On a different note, it was very nice to see the Pontiff honouring St. Thomas More, in the same Westminster Hall where he was tried and sentenced to a glorious death as a Martyr.

The most notable development, though, continues to be the absence of loud protest and the popular participation way above expectations. Weather continues to be fine, the Pope continues to be in form and, it seems to me, rather in high spirits.

Will be interesting to know more about the people arrested in the next hours.

Mundabor

When Christians Fought Together: The Second Siege of Vienna, 1683

Battle of Kahlenberg, 12 September 1683. The King of Poland's cavalry descends from the Kahlenberg and attacks the Ottoman troops.

In the last days another, less-remembered anniversary occurred: on the 11 and 12 September 1683 a decisive battle was won to protect Vienna from a second Ottoman assault (a first siege had been attempted in 1529).

The Ottomans had arrived to Vienna (well protected, but badly manned) on the 14th July with an army 150,000 strong (butthey might have been up to double as much) and had asked for surrender. But this being the religion of peace, surrender was never a very safe matter: just some days before, the little fortified city of Perchtolsdorf had been destroyed after surrender, with many of his inhabitants killed or enslaved. The commander of the Austrian defenders, Count von Starhemberg, was not what you’d call a wimp. He refused to surrender and led the strenuous defence of the city for the following almost two months, a time marked by great deprivations and many a casualty and by a constant struggle against the tunneling attempt of the Ottomans and their attacks to single fortified towers; all this whilst the walls (modern ones, we must imagine, with inside earth walls to prevent their destruction through cannon fire) slowly crumbled under the explosions.
At the beginning of September, the heroic inhabitants of the city were preparing for a last desperate fight on the streets of Vienna, as it was generally acknowledged that the defences (already broken in places) wouldn’t prevent a massive attack for long.

But the Habsburg diplomacy had done a fine job during the preceding winter, in preparation of the military operations sure to begin in the coming months. A solid alliance was created, with Bavaria, Swabia, Saxony and – most importantly – the mighty Polish army ready to fight at their side. The Pope Innocent XI had encouraged the initiative and this became an alliance held together by religious, besides political, motives, called the Holy League. This cohesion was to prove decisive.

A massive relief army, more than 80,000 strong, arrived near Vienna on the 5th September, with the defenders now in a desperate situation.
Even being so varied and with so much potential for quarrel and discord, the leaders of the various armies, all united by their Christian faith, quickly took all necessary decisions and were ready for battle in just a few days under the command of the King of Poland, Jan III Sobielski.

A different picture presented itself on the opposite camp: the alliance of Ottomans and several (largely Protestant, as I understand) local potentates (the principality of Transylvania, Valachia and Moldavia) was not so united and actually the Christians among them not even so willing. Among the Ottoman warlords rivalries and jealousies were ripe and the Christian principalities already began to mistrust the Ottoman “liberator” and to resent the tributes it imposed and the interference in their internal affair it tried to exercise. How reliable the Ottomans were with their promises (one of them, to leave the conquered Vienna to their Christian allies) we have already seen in Perchtolsdorf. As so often in military history, a 150,000 strong army was not sure of victory against a much smaller but more motivated and qualitatively strong army (and with the Holy League disposing of the excellent cavalry of the Poles).

It began on the early hours of the 12th September, with the Ottomans attacking first to prevent the Christian army from orderly deploying their troops. The disciplined infantry of the Holy League bravely fought an entire day against a much stronger enemy, whilst overt or covert refusals to obey the orders of the Ottoman commander-in-chief, Mustafa Pasha, on the other side made the conduct of the Ottoman operations more difficult. The infantry battle raged for about twelve hours whilst the Holy League cavalry watched from a nearby hill, waiting for the right time. This hill was called Kahlenberg, and was to give its name to the battle.
At 5pm, with the Ottoman army now worn and dispirited by more than twelve hours of fighting, the probably greatest cavalry charge of all times was launched with four groups (one Austro-German, the other three exclusively Polish) simultaneously attacking the Ottomans. This proved decisive: the Ottomans lines were broken and they were dispersed. At dusk the battle was clearly won with the Ottomans in a rout.

The blow was a harsh one for the Ottomans. The human losses heavy (10% of the soldiers), but also with all cannons lost in the precipitous retreat. The Holy League losses were  limited to around 5% of their own soldiers. The loot was unprecedented.

This was the battle that saved Europe from having the Ottomans right at the heart of Mitteleuropa and the one that marked the beginning of their decline. They never came anywhere near Vienna again, the ascent of the Habsburgs in the following decades put them more and more in the defensive whilst their corruption and decadence undermined their strenght from the inside; two hundred years later they survived courtesy of the European powers, weary of the wars that would erupt to divide the spoils of a giant now evidently so easy to slain.

Mustafa Pasha was executed fifteen months after the battle in Belgrade (he was strangled with a silk rope pulled by several men on each side, as was the custom of those people). King Jan III Sobielski reached legendary popularity. The Pope Innocent XI extended the feast of the Holy Name of Mary – until then celebrated only locally – to the rest of Christianity. The feast is celebrated on the 12th september.

Together with the battle of Lepanto and a few others (the First Crusade comes to mind), this is considered one of the greatest military achievements in the history of Christianity.
It is something worth remembering, because the rhetoric of peace must not induce us to easy complacency or, worse, wet pacifism.

Christianity still has enemies, and always will. But it also has brave soldiers of Christ, the Mother of God, St. Michael the Archangel and the promises of Christ.

Mundabor

Cardinal McCarrick Openly Embraces Heresy.

Anathema sit!

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
email: clero@cclergy.va
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.

Mundabor

Inflammable Muslims and Recyclable Korans

Enjoy!

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.

Mundabor

Cardinal speaks out against BBC

Cardinal Keith O'Brien

The Daily Telegraph has interviewed Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the Archbishop of St. Andrew and Edinburgh, for their “Sunday Telegraph” edition, though I could only find the link to a “Telegraph” blog.

The Cardinal (who makes a beautiful contrast to the usual appeasement practised by our Craven-in-Chief, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols) finds clear words to describe what is happening. This must be given great attention because it does not happen often. Try this:

“Our detailed research into BBC news coverage of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, together with a systematic analysis of output by the Catholic church, has revealed a consistent anti-Christian institutional bias.”

Please mind the words “consistent” and “institutional”. What he is saying is that the BBC is rotten to the core.

One is surprised that “detailed research” be necessary to become aware of such a self-evident reality, but I think he refers to the fact that they have gathered data in a statistically meaningful and provable manner.

The Cardinal again:

“Senior news managers have admitted to the Catholic Church that a radically secular and socially liberal mindset pervades their newsrooms.
“This sadly taints BBC news and current affairs coverage of religious issues, particularly matters of Christian beliefs.”

Also note here: radically secular and socially liberal mindset. This is not a problem of this or that journalist not taking his job seriously. This is the entire institution devoted to propaganda work. It is at least consoling to see that BBC senior managers have the candor to admit what everyone in the Land can see, but make no mistakes: BBC managers “admit” anti-religious bias to improve their chance of advancement within the organisation.

Also (not so) surprising is that the BBC wastes tons of our money but does not think it necessary to hire a religious editor. This explains to an extent the appalling ignorance of everything concerning Catholicism and Christianity in general.

Basically it would appear that these people talk of religion without specific knowledge and without a serious instance able to ensure basic standards of information and that this is official and approved policy. Which is what they do anyway, so my assumption must be right.

Dulcis in fundo, we are informed that the BBC will air on September 15 a documentary about the Pope, care of…. a homosexual former Dominican Friar. This is not a joke, you can read it with your own eyes if you follow the link. I wonder where do they take such people from. It appears nowadays noone can make a documentary about the Pope who is: 1) a career journalist and/or 2) not homosexual.

BBC has long ago become the parody of information. It has created a system of dominant secularist, “minority-ist” and homosexual-ist culture within the organisation which takes care that only people with a certain agenda get to the key positions. The good news is that such a massive bias is evidently nothing more than a nuisance for those the BBC obviously considers its enemies; cue the packed churches during Easter after particularly virulent attacks against the Church and the Pope.

Kudos to the Cardinal for speaking out loud and for doing it in a timely fashion before the arrival of the Pope and before the airing of the “documentaries” made from politically correct deviants like Tatchell and the dominican friar turned pope expert and tv journalist. What he should now do is to continue to stay on the issue after the Pope’s departure. In time, this will undoubtedly cause some changes. But it must be a continuous campaign to increase people’s awareness of the problem, not the occasional outburst before days of particularly fanatical attacks against the Pope.

Mundabor