Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.
The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.
Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.
In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and one’s nation) survival. I wonder how many of the above mentioned liberals and perverts would favour such measures if the risk of being raped and killed by an invading army was a concrete possibility. As things stand, the army is something liberals and feminist only notice when they criticise it, or when they criticise the government of the day for using it.
But the most important element to be noticed is in my eyes a different one: the de-Christianisation of the West that makes such abominations (and such utterly ridiculous measures) thinkable in the first place. What until not many years ago (with remembrances of war a concrete experience for most, a more solid Christian thinking and a keen perception of what an army is there for) would have been the subject of low-grade comedies is now supposed to become not only the norm, but be celebrated as an achievement to boot.
Mala tempora currunt. I do hope that the new composition of the Congress and Senate in the US will make it possible to repeal this abomination in the years to come but I do not doubt that, should not be the case, the problems will be enough as to force the US Army to backpedaling in just a few decades, as the Church did.
Browsing around the net I already in the past found this theologian, Ronald L. Conte, to be one of the very good ones.
Besides strict orthodoxy, the man has the rare gift of expressing himself in an extremely clear and concise way; never becoming boring or convoluted but always sticking to the point and bringing it to his readers with great clarity. He is a bit like the GAU-8 Avenger of Catholic doctrine, aiming straight at error and secular folly.
I stumbled upon an article of him about homosexuality which – as it seems to me – goes straight to the heart of the problem without sweetening of the pill, but also without apocalyptic visions of collective destruction.
His approach is – again, as it seems to me – highly sensible. He looks at the most frequent questions arising in these disturbing times and gives to all of them a straight, but never uncharitable answer. His words are far more pungent than the more subtle, but still extremely clear Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons; he goes beyond the Vatican document by addressing the problem of homosexual clergy (in those very months addressed by the new Pope Benedict in the sense expressed by him) and he clearly addresses the issue of the different degrees of sexual sins (something actually clear to every Southern European from the cradle, but apparently less clearly perceived in colder climates). His radical words seem to me to echo St. Pius X’s very clear stance (though in a slightly different context) in Horrendum Illud Scelus.
At the same time, Conte’s approach is – again, following that mercifully supple approach so typical of traditional Southern European Catholic understanding – not such that he leaves the homosexual – even the one still struggling with his problem – without hope. Only final impenitence is what will lead him to Hell. Prayer, and hope, and a serious struggle are the way. This should be repeated to every rebellious homo, perhaps hiding under the excuse that he “cannot change”. Firstly he can, and secondly he is supposed to try anyway.
We want to hope and pray that many of those who today claim a right to abomination as if it were a “human right” will end up, in time, seeing the light. Unfortunately, they are not helped much by a society which condones abominations as if it were something normal or even just. In the end, full awareness of the extent of the problem is the key to an approach which, to be crowned with success, must be so radical as to be, literally, life changing.
If I had been asked as an adolescent which one among homosexuality, bestiality, child rape, incest or euthanasia would one day have been considered normal by an awful lot of people, I’d have laughed out loud. The absurdity of that!
Thirty years later, homosexuality has been delivered to secular mainstream consciousness as a “choice”. Euthanasia might well be on its way. Bestiality and incest might well follow (just wait that the perverts discover their “human rights”, how “oppressed” they are and that they are denied the “freedom” to marry their brother, or sister) and probably only child rape will (if the child is very small; otherwise Tatchell & Co. are already waiting to get their hands at them) have to remain in the realm of the abominations. In the new world, abomination will probably be saying the truth out loud; or not driving a Prius.
It is therefore always refreshing when someone writes in a way which lets your humble correspondent ask himself: “this is what has always been considered common sense and common knowledge in the past; how on earth have we come to the point that one has to expressly point out to this?”.
Please join me in a prayer for the unrepentant homosexual of the world (that they may see the truth) and for those who begin to understand the scale of the problem but are still too weak to either see the truth in all its tragic reality or to radically change (that they may find the strenght to win their battle, or at least persevere until the end in fighting it).
Here you’ll find Michael Voris’ take on the recent Mid-term elections. Apart from the very likeable, more directly political observations about Americans and Liberalism, I’d like to point out to some messages which I find extremely pertinent.
1) Voris maintains that Catholic churchgoers are, in their majority, Republicans. This is a very interesting assertion. I’d love to hear from US blog readers whether they agree with Voris’ take.
2) There is a link between the change that has occurred with the election and what is happening within the Church: liberals are kicked out whilst the conservative element irresistibly marches toward the restoration of sanity. I fully agree with this statement; it seems to me that the undercurrent is the same here, and that it does not limit itself to the Catholic world.
3) An additional bold statement is that Catholics in the pews get to vote about the restoration of orthodoxy. Not in the traditional, ballot-like way of course but in the more subtle, slower but rather effective way of choosing where to worship (and whose collection plate to frequent) or where to send the children to school. Such a practice would not be very successful in countries like Italy and Germany – where fund distribution is organised differently – but I can see it having much more bite in countries like the US, relying on private contributions for the upkeep of their religious personnel and structures.
4) Last important point to my eyes: the warning that the US hierarchy, still largely dominated by convenient cowardice about the Church teaching and the conversion of souls, must now choose whether to change course and embrace orthodoxy or be “swept away”. I fail to see where the sweeping would come from if the Pope continues to appoint half-liberal bishops to appease the local clerical communities; but there can be no doubt that what sweeping the Pope will not do, the demographics will in time do for him.
Enjoy the video!
I tend not to have too many hopes in the collective future, as years and experiences have made me rather disillusioned. I also tend not to salute a “new era” every time that a new face (or a new skin colour) is elected in some important office, persuaded as I am that democracies can’t work in a radically different way than they do now, otherwise they’d just be doing it now. Thirdly and lastly, I always thought that it was not in order to end an expression with a preposition; but hey, people get elected to President of the United States with that, and who am I to object.
Having said all that I can’t avoid the delicious impression that yesterday’s mid-term elections represent a turning of the tide; that a great offensive in defence of Christian values has now officially started to make itself heard in the ballot box and in the next decades will spread all over the Western world.
I am trying to digest some facts, and present them to you in no particular order.
1) The marijuana proposition in California has been defeated; so soundly in fact, that it will be fun to see in what other states it will be defeated in 2012. I see in this a clear signal that the electorate has boundaries. Even – would you believe it – in California, the State who gave humanity Nancy Pelosi and Judge Walker.
2) Catholic activism starts to bite. Catholic Vote Action has endorsed nine candidates; seven were elected, some of them with rather spectacular victories (check out the boot for the founder of “Catholic in Alliance for the Common Good”, kicked out by a candidate supported by… real Catholics). Many other Catholics entered the House and Thomas Peters maintains that they are now, incredibile dictu, the majority in the Congress. This is, if not a legislative – abortion legislation is state matter, AFAIK – a cultural shift of great importance; may it still be that many of them are cafeteria Catholics, the number of really pro-life Representatives is most certainly on the rise. Ten or twenty years of this, and an awful lot can be achieved.
3) It would appear that six US States now have both houses with a Pro-Life majority. This can have truly major consequences. Let us hope that the walk follows the talk.
4) The fight against judicial activism trying to demolish the very basis of Christian society takes a rather aggressive form. In Iowa, three judges of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in favour of homo couples have been unceremoniously kicked out. I do not think many States have laws similar to those in Iowa, but the message is loud and clear anyway.
5) The soon-to-be speaker of the House, Boehner, is a Catholic and the first Republican Catholic to such an office. This is another sign of the times: when a mickey mouse Catholic a’ la Pelosi is replaced by a person unable to refrain his emotions at a pro-life rally – and second of twelve sons – you know something’s happening…
This is, of course, only the beginning. The way is very long and many other battles will have to be fought, and some of them lost.
But today, I sense that something is changing. That the American voters have said “enough”, and the echo will not fail to resound in the benches of the judiciary besides among the rank of the elected politicians.
Today, we might be at the beginning of real change not only the other side of the Pond but, in time, all over the Western civilisation.
The American Papist has an interesting article about the NYT’s prediction of the Catholic vote in the coming Mid-Term elections. It would appear that – among the electorate generically defining itself as “Catholic” – the swing from the Democrats to the Republican is a barely believable 34 percent.
Beside reading such forecasts cum grano salis (it’s only a forecast; Obama was an oh so fashionable candidate two years ago; Catholics have already rather liked Republicans in the past, with George W Bush being the most recent example), we must consider that such a swing is unprecedented. Might it well be that the decline in popularity of Obama has few precedents, too, the fact still remain that when it has become clear and it has been insistently repeated that this President is nothing to do with Christian values, Christians have begun abandoning him in drove. Which drives me nicely to my point.
It is undeniable that the American Bishops, as a body, do not do enough to protect Catholic values among their sheep. Still, there are a handful of courageous Bishops who are never afraid of an “unpopular” headline and the general climate is much, much more Catholic than in the UK.
Take Archbishop Chaput for example, or the future Cardinal Burke before he moved to Rome, or the sadly soon-to-retire Bruskewitz. They are/were all people who can make national headlines; people willing to stir the placid waters of political correctness and rampant secularism by throwing the one or other Catholic stone in the stinking pond of secularist anti-Christian values.
I cannot imagine that this hasn’t made a difference. Not a 34-point difference for sure, but a difference in the cultural climate in which Catholic are called to operate and, importantly, vote. In two words, people are starting to open their eyes and in time, even a handful of brave Bishops will not fail to awaken a growing number of up to now not properly informed or soundly asleep Catholics.
This is, clearly, not what is happening in England and Wales, where the Bishops are the best allies of the secular leftist society and they either actively helped Labour to push its secular agenda (say: “sex education” for children; so-called “homo marriages”; neglect of proper Catholic teaching in Catholic schools; nice jobs given to Labour MPs in need of a perk) or gave an opposition which was not strong enough and determined not to offend anyone (say: adoption agencies). All this whilst Summorum Pontificum is eagerly boycotted, and Anglicanorum Coetibus at best ignored.
The situation in the US shows us that when good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them. It must be so, then once the Catholic message is insistently repeated, there is no way Catholics can – giving them sufficient space to come to term with uneasy truths never told to them before – avoid being affected by it. The beauty of Catholicism is that by its very nature every sustained, repeated call to orthodoxy will always fall on attentive ears, then in Catholicism’s case there is no need to define what “orthodoxy” is, merely to know that it exists and that it demands observance. This is a much easier exercise than to, say, define “Tea Party ideals” or “Republican values”.
If our Bishops started doing their job instead of limiting themselves to be automatic distributors of platitudes and convenient soundbites, things would start changing in Blighty too. Not today and not tomorrow of course; but in time, the effect would be felt.
Today, Cameron is scared senseless from a couple of hundred thousand homosexuals who don’t even vote for him. Let him confront, say, one million angry Catholics and see how he’ll react. Methinks, he’ll become a fan of the Tridentine Mass and tell us that he has always felt that way.
The Hierarchy of E&W betrays his sheep every day. None of them, not one, is worthy of his office. What is happening in the US exposes once more all their inadequacy, incompetence, corruption or very simply loss of faith.
Let us hope that this disgraceful generation of bad shepherds will soon be reformed or, rather less unrealistically, removed. Up to that point, we can only look at the US and sigh.
This is a very interesting Michael Voris video about the way Catholic shepherds lead their sheep when there are important decisions to be made.
As in the United States it is now election time (and a particularly important election this one is, whose repercussions could be felt for decades to come) it is very important that the message is given very clearly that in a democracy to be a Catholic is to vote as a Catholic should.
This would seem utterly redundant if we lived in a sane world, mindful of Christian values; but we live in a mad world where socialism and anti-Christian values are allowed to be smuggled as Christianity; therefore, there is a word or two to be said.
A society which allows abortion is a society which legalises genocide. The public opinion of every Western Country thought exactly the same until not many decades ago and abortions were only performed in Nazi Germany or in Communist countries. Only when Christian values started to be confused with “social” issues – and the clergy started to compromise with the growing anti-Christian values in order not to become unpopular – we witnessed abortion creeping within Western legislation as an exceptional remedy and – once the Trojan Horse that abortion is justified in certain cases had entered the walls – rapidly became de facto abortion on demand pretty much everywhere.
Similarly, a society which accept homosexuality as a lifestyle is a society that rebels to God and decides that new golden calves (nowadays called “diversity”, or with other very stupid names) should take the place of the old religion; all the while continuing to abuse of Christ by masking the worst abominations and exterminations behind a veil of Christ seen as “social man”; an expression which means pretty much nothing and can be used to justify pretty much everything.
You’d think that Catholic Bishops in the US would take the sword and finally start to tell Catholics to wake up, smell the coffee and vote with the first priorities of Catholicism in mind. You’d be wrong. Whilst there are a number of excellent bishops doing their job admirably (Chaput and Bruskewitz to mention just two), many others continue with the old inane, vague rhetoric of the “do not kick the cat and be friendly to everyone”-type.
Let us examine this nonsense:
“Go to the polls on election day and, through your choices at the ballot, act on your vision of a better society”
This pearl of wisdom comes from the bishop of Massachusetts, Cardinal Sean O’Malley. I think that Michael Voris is far too generous in saying that the message is inane. It is worse than that. It confuses Catholics and is totally heterodox.
Cardinal O’Malley thinks and speaks like a secularist liberal of the first water. There are no absolute truths he feels he must defend. There is no binding guidance, directly derived from the Catholic teaching, that he feels he must impart to the faithful. Not even the most obvious Christian values, like the defence of life, are strongly called to the attention of the voters.
We have, instead, a typical example of moral relativism exalted and taken as a worthy guide of the individual’s choice. “Act on your vision of a better society”, says the Cardinal. Good Lord, Che Guevara did it too, when executing prisoners by the dozen! Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot all did exactly the same! The statement is entirely a-Christian in its absence of Christian values, and entirely Anti-Christian in its clear implication that whatever “vision of a better society” one has, it’s fine.
Cardinal O’Malley is confused. He should be told the difference between Catholic values and man-made systems of values. He should be reminded why he is a Cardinal. He should be asked why he became a cleric in the first place. Every Stalin or Pol-Pot could have subscribed to the statement above, without any problem.
This is not what a Catholic needs to hear, let alone what a Catholic shepherd has the duty to say. Catholics need to be reminded of their values, and encouraged to give them the proper rank. They must be constantly reminded of their duties toward their faith and of the fact that there will always be a price to pay for them. They must be constantly warned from the danger of moral relativism, of easy pick and choose mentality, of being seduced by the Law of Man. This message must be sent clear and loud. Vague defences of human life interspersed with phrases like the one above will have only one consequence: that the misinformed or utterly deluded Catholics will continue to think that they can pick and choose with the consent of their shepherd. I will not insult the intelligence of the Cardinal by saying that this result is not foreseen and positively intended.
Messages like the Cardinal’s one positively encourage Catholics to go the wrong way and feel justified in doing it. A Catholic abortionist (an oxymoron I know, but he will probably not want to see it that way) will feel encouraged to think that he can vote for a clown like Nancy Pelosi and say that he is fully in line with the exhortations of the Cardinal! I wonder who would deny the validity of his assumption……
I so much hope that this is the last major election in the US by which Catholic shepherds are allowed to confuse the faithful and lure them in the false sense that they are right to have ideals and convictions, no matter what they are. They are right if their convictions are the right ones, and if they’re Catholics they can’t choose which convictions to have.
The Church is in a very sad state if even Cardinals do not live these simple fundamentals of the faith and haven’t the guts to act accordingly.
I must always cringe at those american films with a Protestant marriage. You know what I’m talking about. The last one I saw was in the last movie with Catherine Heigl. Movie’s name already forgotten, but you know what I mean anyway.
Generally, the ceremony happens in a prosaic place (like a garden; what if it rains; oh well…); the ladies are dressed in the same way as if they were at the stadion, or as if they found the event such a great fun; the individualised marriage formulae are so unbearably sugary that I am reminded of the “dickus biggus” scene in “Life of Brian”; and then the hopeless kitsch of the entire apparatus; the prepared speeches; the meetings to rehearse the prepared speeches, and the tired jokes. How embarrassing.
I look at those movies and hope that in real life, people over there marry in a different way. Solemn, dignified, spiritual. Fitting to the sacrament they are celebrating. And, hopefully, in a church, which is where sacraments are supposed to be administered: in God’s house, not in your garden.
But then I stop and wonder. Is it really that way that the see a marriage? Do they really see it as a sacrament? I mean literally, do Protestant consider marriage a sacrament? I don’t know but if yes, why divorce and why are people free to choose the formulas? They aren’t free to choose the formulas for baptism, surely?
If, on the other hand, they don’t, then I begin to understand a couple of things. If it’s not sacred, then it’s better be fun. If it’s not a solemn promise made in front of God, then why should it be made in a church. You don’t buy cars in churches after all. Even if they often last longer than a marriage.
If this is how things are, then one understands how marriage becomes something which must be fun and rather practical. To this effect, may I suggest McDonald’s. You can have the reception together with the ceremony. Catering & Co. all very sensibly arranged. No hassle of choosing menues, either. Your friends don’t feel obliged to abandon their usual shorts and flip flops; hey, it’s supposed to be fun!
Apparently, it all works very well in Hong Kong. As the company spokeswoman(1) noticed, many couples had their first dates, fell in love and even had their marriage proposals take place at McDonald’s, so “it makes it particularly meaningful and memorable to hold a wedding party there”. A proposal at McDonald’s. How romantic. Yes, I understand that in such circumstances a marriage elsewhere would be unconceivable. Burger King is, clearly, out of the question.
I am not peeved at McDonald’s. Laugh at me as much as you please, but I do like the Big Tasty and their fries are, I must say, always excellent. I merely wonder what has become of a world once built on important choices, made after very careful reflection; of commitments that could resist the strain of disagreements and the unavoidable difficult times; of the idea of solemnity, and of the idea of sacredness.
Sacredness, this is the word. Sacralità.
Not much en vogue now, is it?
The flip flop generation marries at McDonald’s.
Or if you’re lucky, in a garden.
(1) Thank God they still don’t have the “spokesperson” over there.
The excellent blog of Deacon For Life has a beautiful statement of Peter La Barbera, the president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.
This statement has the merit of being short but rather complete and is truthful and charitable at the same time (let us remember that truth is very often charitable, whilst niceness often isn’t). It clearly exposes the usual trick of the homo lobby of trying to manipulate the wrong of physical assaults to homos to obtain acceptance for the abomination of sodomy.
As in these last days homo self-martyrdom has been present on both sides of the pond (with the homosexual man committing suicide after having being filmed on the one side and the recent events in Belgrade on the other) it is very appropriate, I think, to have some clear words said on the matter.
We must condemn evil, never use evil as a pretext to condone another.
Kudos to Deacon For Life for the beautiful entry.
This is what we have waited to see for almost a year.
As you can read here, in Maryland an entire community of Episcopalians (“Mount Calvary Episcopal Church”) has decided to enter the Ordinariate. This will happen already in October after their sister community of Episcopalian religious sisters (the “All Saints sister of the poor”) have been received into the Only Church last year.
One is reminded of that scene of the “Lord Of The Ring” movie, when the battle of Helm’s Deep approaches and at the first volley King Theoden says …… ” So it begins”….
The warmest welcome to our brothers and sisters now united to the Only Church.
Beautiful post on Ann Coulter’s site comparing Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was launched on the national political scene during Goldwater’s presidential campaign, with the “time for choosing” speech, but Coulter makes a good job of explaining why Reagan surpassed Goldwater and went to triumphal victories not only as Governor but as President, too.
Ann Coulter is witty, vitriolic and highly entertaining. She is also spot on in remembering Ronald Reagan in a time of abortionist Presidents of very dubious Christian beliefs, picking lesbian activists as Supreme Court judge candidates.
Once again, we see the difference ideals make.
Seton Hall, a Catholic University, has scheduled a course on so-called “gay marriage” (let us repeat it once again: homosexuals are not gay, happy people are gay; and they cannot marry, because they are of the same sex).
The unusual event (as the times are) is that this time the local Archbishop has reacted promptly and has asked the University to change its mind. The affirmation of the Archbishop (that the course be “out of synch”with Catholic teaching) is a rather big understatement but it gives the idea of what is happening anyway.
It turns out that the (Catholic, or so they say) University of Seton Hall is not impressed. Not only have they not done anything to backpedal, but the University has openly mocked the Archbishop by stating that they never had a problem with the course, though “it’s been a problem for, it seems, some people outside of it.” It seems. Some people. Congratulations.
The person chosen for this work of enlightenment of Catholic young minds is a Mr. W. King Mott. Predictably, Mr. Mott is an openly practising sodomite. He states that the aim of his course is to help the students to “gain an appreciation and respect for disinterested analysis that can be used to formulate an informed opinion”. Leaving aside the attempt at being intellectual, the implication here is that to share the Catholic opinion about the matter is to be 1) not informed, 2) biased and 3) disrespectful.
The “disinterested analysis” should come, instead, from a person already demoted in the past for defining the Church “prima facie homophobic” and an aged member of “homosexualist” groups. He is most certainly the man for a disinterested analysis, isn’t he?
Seton Hall lets it be known that there is “nothing” the Archbishop can do to prevent the course from taking place. They are probably right. Still, it would be nice if the Archbishop would obtain that this university is deprived of the right to call itself “Catholic”. One can be secular and homosexualist and will not be burned at the stake for that (not the times anymore, they say). But we should at least be spared the hypocrisy of such institutions pretending to be Catholic.
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.
As every one of us, I remember that day as if it were yesterday. I thought life as we know it would change. No safe flying anymore, periodic announcements of the next aeroplane gone down, things like that. It may seem stupid to say it now, but it wasn’t so much at the time.
I remembered the terrorist years in Italy: they had started slow and then had become a truly dramatic phase in the life of the Republic. I really thought it would get worse before it gets better.
Nine years later I pray, like everyone else, for the victims of this heinous act.
But I would also like to share some reflections:
1) Huge, huge kudos to the security services and information agencies of all Western countries. It is now nine years and Nine Eleven never repeated. This is a stunning success. Perhaps this was achieved at the price of some rendition flights, some harsh prison conditions and some waterboarding to boot. Fine with me. We’ll never know how many lives have been saved.
2) The declared aim of the terrorists was to change the way we live. To make us feel afraid of living our free way of life. The mission is, emphatically, not accomplished.
3) That terrible day has brought on the Arab world a series of humiliations. Two countries invaded as a result of the attack, several others (like Syria and Jordan) told to choose the right side, sharpish, or face war. The Arab/Mulsim history is full of humiliations from the West (from the First Crusade to the Reconquista, from Lepanto to the European colonisation), but this was a sudden awakening to their utter military and social inferiority, (the religious one goes without saying) on their own ground.
Every Arab now knows that a strike to the West brings back humiliations on a multiple scale of the offence caused. Not a good investment. I wonder how many of them admire those idiots. A very tiny minority, I think.
4) From 9/11, paradoxically, hope also sprang. In Afghanistan, things might become less savage in the next years and in Iraq a most cruel and dangerous dictatorship has been replaced by an uncertain democracy now trying to walk unassisted. If it works in Iraq, democracy might spread to other countries. It will depend on the locals of course, but even from the humiliation of a foreign invasion a new dawn and a new hope has arisen.
As an Italian, I see in this what has happened in my own Country.
5) Bin Laden is just ignored. Forgotten. More dead than Disco for the media, probably truly dead since 2001 or 2002 anyway. Nine years later, he doesn’t even help to sell newspapers anymore. In the meantime, his people continue to die like flies, hunted down all over the planet.
6) Nine years later, the West discovers that it is stronger than ever. Iraq is on the way to trying to become a half-decent country; Afghanistan trying not to become a Taliban state; people in the West are flying, holidaying, living as they did before.
Nine years later, Ronald Reagan’s slogan remains more valid than ever: we win, they lose.
Curious after the astonishingly fanatical – but in no way surprising – reaction of Muslim extremists, I did what I am sure many others have done: look on youtube and see what I can find there. It would seem that the idea has been very public for a while.
Here are just three among the many examples:
1) This is a young man playing apprentice Christian. Rather confused, poor chap, and with a strange mixture of political resentment and youthful aggression. He is very cost-conscious and goes for the economical solution: cheap paperback, in English. One assumes he did it whilst his parents were away. The fixed camera shows that he couldn’t even find a friend to handle the camera, but I do not think the offence to the Child Rapist will be considered less grave for that. And there you are, Koran unmistakably burning in technicolor…. Do yourself a favour, though, and switch off the audio…..
This has been put on youtube almost one year ago, when the world thought Terry Jones was the Monty Phyton actor. One wonders where the Muslim fanatics were?
2) This here is a rather more refined chap. He first covers his back making clear that the burning is covered by the First Amendment. In addition, his Koran shows a certain aesthetic discernment, but it is still paperback and it is still in English. This will, I am afraid, not qualify the exercise as sacrilegious by many a Muslim fanatic. They insist on Arabic, if you please.
This has been online, unless I am mistaken, since 2008. In the meantime, no world revolutions that I know of.
3) This here is the artist. One sees that he has put time, effort and money in the endeavour. He is also better educated, as his choice of material shows.
Impressive musical background (a real and well-chosen soundtrack, not Eminem). Nice book. Hardcover. Finely illustrated. In colour. In Arabic. This chap has all the bases covered.
This is from December 2007, no less. It wins the “burn a Koran day” hands down. To my knowledge, no mass killing because of this video.
There are many others, of course. On youtube. Publicly displayed. That have been there for years.
Now one wonders: if the burning of a Koran is such a desecration deserving of a harsh punishment, why have all these video never unchained a revolution? No broadband? How can it be that such an allegedly scandalous desecration causes so much scandal if an unknown pastor leading a micro-community announces it, but no reaction when dozens of people have been doing the same publicly, for the entire planet to see, for years?
Another question: if the avoiding of the burning is so important, wouldn’t it be better to play it down? Don’t they think that if these controversies go on, these videos will rapidly multiply and become an “artistic genre” of its own? It is not difficult to burn a Koran anonymously in the privacy of your fireplace or garden, and you can put it on the internet for the entire world to see without fearing anything. First amendment, and all that….
Could it be that dear fanatic Islamists don’t give a dime for the burning Korans, but don’t lose an occasion to score some cheap self-victimhood point?
And please let us stop with the idea of the world revolution: the Arab world has been humiliated repeatedly in the last years, two of their countries invaded, others forced to choose between acquiescence and war. Nothing happened.
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.
The Christian Post has an interesting article about the 5th Circuit of the Court of Appeal (evidently rather different from the notorious 9th circuit), who has negated to a homosexual “couple” (quotation marks, because there’s nothing like that) the right to divorce because… Texas does not recognise any “marriage” (see above) allegedly contracted between them.
The ruling is interesting because whilst the two oh so “gay” people maintained that they only wanted to put an end to a “marriage” contracted in Massachusetts only four years ago; but if the 5th circuit had allowed them to “divorce” this would have been tantamount to a recognition of the legal validity of their marriage, which Texas doesn’t. One can therefore imagine that some sly tricks might have been at play here.
The ruling points out to the other interesting fact that the marriage recognised as a fundamental right is…. the marriage, that is: the union between a man and a woman (for the more visual among you, see photo above).
“Unions” with people of the same-sex (and we may add: with cats, dogs, sheep, own close relatives, and with one’s favourite car) are not fundamental rights because they are “not deeply rooted in this country’s history and tradition”. Basically is nothing to do with Christianity , nothing to do with sound thinking and a lot to do with sexual perversion.
Kudos to the judge of the 5th Court, Kerry P. Fitzgerald, who decided on this case. It is beautiful to see that sanity is, in some place, still well present in the American judiciary.
From the Creative Minority Report, the link to a shocking (though not graphic at all) video at the Coming Home blog, in which a former abortionist doctor explains in rather impressive details how an abortion is executed in real life. Not for the faint of heart but once seen, not to be forgotten. Around six minutes.
The doctor explaining the procedure has now seen the error of her ways and is actively helping to put an end to abortion on demand in South Dakota, her state. Kudos to her.
Those who have been reading yours truly for some time are probably aware of his clear, willingly politically incorrect, very Southern-European call to real masculinity and to the end of the effeminate “look at how feminist I am”-metrosexual attitude of our time.
Today I stumbled upon this Michael Voris Video and I thought – as I do rather often – that the chap has actually already said everything I wanted to express.
The only reflection I’d like to add is that, seen from a European/Italian perspective, it would appear that cars and role of the husband have gone in opposite directions. In the Fifties and Sixties – when “the world was still in order” and the roles within the family well-defined – cars had a gentle appearance and, generally speaking, delicate colours. The pastel blues, greens and beiges dominated the automotive landscape and the cars themselves were rather gentle in their appearance (think of the autos of the Fifties, with their rounded and almost feminine forms and theirs, as stated, always delicate colours).
Nowadays we have an abundance of aggressive-looking, huge, “metallic black” metal monsters (up there to the extreme cases, like the Hummer in its various incarnations) which are driven by men who were never able to take the leading role in their family. This is a reflection I have had for some years now (cue the frequent office discussions where there is always the colleague who considers cars like a Mercedes SLK something “for girlies” and obviously nothing less than a BMW M will do, but you perfectly well know he’d never be able to stand up to his girlfriend) and has been awakened by the Hummer in Michael Voris’ video.
“The bigger the car, the weaker the man”? Certainly not, as big cars do have their beauty and their rationale. But “the weaker the man, the bigger the need to compensate with an aggressive-looking car” might get nearer to the truth.
Enjoy the video.