Daily Archives: March 26, 2010

Who are the real racists?

I was graciously given a link by this blog, and was struck by the first comment from an anonymous poster.  The blogger has a rather strict comments policy, banning any “bigoted” comments.  Of course, we all know that liberals define “bigoted” as “anything that disagrees with liberals,” so I’m posting a reply here, because it was apparently deleted there.  Here’s what the anonymous poster said:

<blockquote>”When Coulter said *all* Muslims were Terrorists and should fly back home on their magic carpets, and told one girl (who had asked the question that instigated this) who replied “I don’t have one” to “Get a camel”, she was promoting racial hate, which is against our laws here in Canada”</blockquote>

Now, I was linked, and ridiculed, in the post for calling Canada Stalinist, and yet here this person is showing just how Stalinist Canada is.  Or should I say Maoist, since political correctness is part of Maoism?

Anyway, I pointed out to this person that it is *racist* to accuse Coulter of Racism for saying “All Muslims are terrorists.”  To say that statement is racist is to presume that either a) all Muslims have the same race (which they do not) or b) all members of a particular race are Muslim (which they are not).  Indeed, it is racist to label all people from the Middle East as “Arabs,” as a friend of Lebanese descent pointed out to me recently (since Lebanese are not Arabs but Phoenicians).

It’s no secret I have a huge admiration for Middle Eastern Christians, particularly the Lebanese.

But what really irks me about the defense of Islam by liberals and neoconservatives–you know, the whole “Religion of Peace” garbage–is that they accuse those of us who actually know what Islam teaches of being “racists” or “bigots.”

OK, I know what Islam teaches.  I know what Christianity teaches.  I took the History of the Middle East in college.  I’m well versed in various religions.  I admit I’ve never read the Quran but I’ve read enough quotations from it.

The problem with liberals is that they care nothing for religion, so they care nothing for the teachings of religions.  They define all religions by the standards of freemasonry.  Years ago, I saw some liberal Muslim woman college professor on a news program.  She was dressed quite immodestly by Muslim or traditional Catholic standards, and she was talking about how “all religoins teach people to be good citizens.”  This is the basic teaching of freemasonry: subordinating religion to morality, and morality to citizenship; reducing all religions to a least common denominator form of Natural Law, which of course boils down to a very saccharine interpretation of the Golden Rule.  In other words, Chesterton’s famous dictum that “tolerance is the only virtue that remains when a man has lost all convictions.”

Liberals see the least important aspects of religion as the most important, and then use that as the basis for saying “All religions are essentially the same,” dismissing the most important aspects of religion as superfluous window dressing.

The fact that two religions have sincere theological differences makes no sense to secularists, just as it makes no sense to them that Catholics actually view the Darwin issue differently than Fundamentalists do.

This is tied into the fact that liberals think mere attendance or association with a religion is all that matters.  So Nancy Pelosi is, in their view, a “good Catholic” by simple fact she claims to be Catholic.  Her opinion is, in their view, equal to the opinion of the Pope because both are Catholic.  Similarly, the aforementioned Muslim feminist professor has as much a right to say what Islam teaches as Osama Bin Ladin.

This is not true.   A religion means unothing unless its teachings are clearly defined.  The teachings of the Catholic Church are defiend by the Magisterium.  The teachings of Islam are defined by the Quran and the traditional practices and interpretations Muslims have adhered to. 

Yet, as I always point out, Mohammed is the only founder of a major world religion who was a conquerer.  Christians have engaged in some horrible acts over the past 2000 years, but Jesus was not a military dictator–Mohammed was.  Whatever has happened at points in history since Constantine, the original spread of Christianity did not happen through warfare.  It happened through spreading the message of Christ and working miracles.  Christianity may have been closely associated with the Roman Empire, but Ethiopia’s king converted to Christianity in the mid first century, and sui iuris Churches were established from Persia through India in Apostolic times. 

Islam spread through conquest.  It teaches that infidels should be killed.   It is not bigoted to say that that is what Islam teaches.

Muslims who say “Islam is peace” are liberal muslims the way Catholics who use birth control are liberal Catholics.  They’re not actually following the teachings of their religion.  They may or may not be good people.  They may or may not be good citizens, but they are bad Muslims.

Everything I ever needed to know in life I learned from watching _Transformers the Movie_ (1986) [UPDATED]

(“The real one, not the 2007 Bayformers,” as any TF fan with taste must now qualify):

1. The Universal Greeting, “Bah-weep-grahna-weep-ninny-bong,” (spelling up for debate) works every time.
2. Appeasement doesn’t work: If you give a Sharkticon your energon rations, he’s just going to eat you anyway.
3. “Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost.”
4. “One shall stand; one shall fall.”


Found this looking for a screen cap of the actual scene and couldn’t resist.

5.  Leadership isn’t based upon worthiness but being in the right place at the right time.

6.  When faced with a choice between two crises, just say, “I can’t deal with that now.”


His name is literally “Really Great”

7.  “Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.”  Or, any problem in life can be addressed by a metaphorical anecdote.
8.  “I wasn’t worried for a microsecond.” “Then you probably didn’t understand the situation.”
9.  “I’ve got better things to do tonight than die.”
10.  Even when you’re innocent, they’ll still feed you to the Sharkticons.  Thus,

11.  “I have nothing but contempt for this court.”
12.  The key to social reform is a giant T-Rex to scare the military into turning on its leaders.
13.  Sometimes you have to “Act now, destroy Unicron.  Kill the grand Pooh-Bah.  Eliminate even the toughest stains.”
14.  Life is more fun when “We talk TV.  You talk some TV?”
15.  When it comes time to “jettison some weight,” the sick and disabled are the first to go.
16.  Before you think that nobody will follow an uncharismatic bore like Soundwave, consider these words:  “Nobody calls Soundwave uncrasimatic!  Let’s tick tailgate!”
17.  Much of Galvatron’s dialogue is very helpful when dealing with chronic chest pain: “Unicron!  Why have you tortured me?”

18.  “One day, an Autobot shall rise from our ranks and use the power of the Matrix to light our darkest hour.  Till that day. . . . Till all are one!”
19.  In 20 minutes or so, you can have your entire toybox wiped out.

20.  If you take power by throwing the previous leader out an airlock, there”s a good chance someone else will come along and kill you.
21.  Never underestimate a giant talking planet that eats other planets.


Bart Stupak: Just another Americanist.

Sometimes, when there’s a lot of buzz about a topic I normally might cover, I don’t cover it because I figure it’s well-discussed. Other times, I accumulate a lot of articles, and get overwhelmed. This time, I’ve accumulated the links, but rather than try to juggle fifty windows, reading articlse for exact quotes and precise hyperlinks as I go, I’m going to just link them all at the bottom and run through.

The usual suspects have been making much hay of the Bart Stupak situation. He’s the real pro-lifer, they’re telling us. This health care thing has exposed Republican hypocrisy (and, to some extent, I agree with that). They’re reiterating the Obama Catholic mantra that it’s OK to fund abortions if the net result is to “reduce abortions.”

It would be one thing if only the “political pro-lifers” were upset by Stupaks’ compromise, but the USCCB has expressed dismay as well (of course, the Usual Suspects are claiming the USCCB is nothing more than a politicla arm of the Republican Party, that is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard). 

Interestingly enough, as you may have heard, the House and Senate have already rammed through some “revisions” of Sunday’s health care bill.  Already?  So, when everyone’s distracted reeling from the *first* Bill, they introduce *another* one.  Also, when they tell us we’re nuts for thinking they’ll just pass another bill to overturn Obama’s executive order, they’ve demonstrated what a real possibility that is.

Some Republicans tried to put some riders iin to see how much the Demonocrats were willing to compromise.  For example: a measure to deny Viagra coverage to anyone who’s a convicted sex offender was laughed off the Senate floor.

Most notably, though, apropos to Bart Stupak, Sen. Ben Nelson, the alleged pro-life Democrat from Nebraska, sold out unborn babies for increased Medicaid money to Nebraska.   Guess what?  He had his thirty pieces of silver taken away from him in this second health bill.

We still don’t know what Stupak got, but appearenttly he’s gotten death threats from both sides.  Now, obviously, I don’t support death threats, and I don’t see how anyone claiming to be pro-life can make them.  Yet Stupak had talked previously of getting death threats from pro-aborts and never quoted them.  Now he’s saying he’s getting pro-life death threats but actually quoting them.  Then there’s the whole question of what consitutes a “death threat” versus a conditinoal statement.  For example, when P.Z. Myers threatened to steal a Host and desecrate It, various Catholics sent him messages saying how they’d defend the Host if he came into their churcches and tried it, and he tried to say these were “death threats.”  There was also the case a long time ago of a Christian girl in a public school who told her principal he was going to Hell because he was a sinner, and this was taken as a “death threat.”

Anyway, I’m not justifying their behavior; just pointing out that when we’re dealing with words, things are open to interpretation.  Actual acts of viiolence are *not* open to interpretation.  And despite what we keep hearing from the MSM about the dangers of the “Tea Party” movement (referred to disparagingly by the Left, including many Catholics, as “teabaggers”), the only act of violence so far in this potential catalyst for a new Civil War has been done by a Liberal, reaffirming what I said the other day: some peace-loving gun control supporting Obama supporter shot up the offices of Republican Representative Eric Cantor from Virginia.  Go figure.  And, as I always point out, the media and FBI told us the DC Sniper was going to be an “Angry White Male” Christian Conservative Racist NRA member.  . . . . .

Oh, and this bill that is actually pro-life and is not going to pay for abortions, according to Catholic Progressives (TM), has been praised by Planned Parenthood.  Last I checked, Planned Parenthood declares it a horrible loss any time there’s a law passed that requires abortuaries follow basic safety standards.  And this bill that Progressive Catholics, and the USCCB, have assured us is not socialist has been praised by none other than Fidel Castro (I thought he was dead).

So, back to Stupak, who will go down in history with Quisling, and Spooner, and wooden shoes called sabots for a new word based upon his name.  The newest verb in the English language is to “Stupak”–to claim to support a cause and then turn around at the very last minute.

Stupak has wasted no time in doing this.  While he supposedly has a 30 year pro-life voting record, recent events have caused that record to be brought under scrutiny.  For example, Jill Stanek reports that Stupak has actually voted in support of Planned Parenthood funding.  He justified that support by saying that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do abortions . . . in his district.  This wonderful pro-life Catholic also said Planned Parenthood provides many good services.  You mean like contraception, Mr. Stupak?  Or how about inappropriate forms of “sex education”?

Then he took it up a notch by declaring himself a firm advocate of the Kennedy Doctrine:

<blockquote>”The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation’s. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.”</blockquote>

So, in other words, Stupak has openly proclaimed the heresy of Americanism. 





















Darned if we do, darned if we don’t

One of my frustrations with “the Scandal” has been the world’s hypocrisy in condemning the Church. One day, it’s how horrible Catholics are because of the Inquisition. We hear about Draconian penances. People talk about “Catholic guilt.” We’re told by Protestants that “Jesus forgives,” and that we have too many “works” involved in our theology of forgiveness.
We’re told our theology is “behind the times,” that we don’t understand mental illness, etc.

So, after Vatican II, the clergy start kowtowing to those demands. Behaviors that used to be roundly condemned as sin were now taught to be “mental health issues”. Instead of a balanced approach–the kind advocated for example by Frs. Groeschel and Corapi–between the psychological and spiritual aspects of sin, priests turned to saying, even in the confessional, “That’s not a sin anymore. That’s a mental health question. You need to see a psychologist.”

In the 19th century, there was a Carmelite priest who’s in some stage of canonization. He ran a mental hospital. He exorcised every patient. If the problems went away after exorcism, he sent ’em home. If they still had issues after exorcism, he passed them on to the doctors. Today, as Fr. Amorth laments, exorcism is an absolute last resort, saved until people are horribly in the grip of evil, saved for after the psychologists have had a stab at the person.

Penances have gone from “push your armor up the mountain and drop it down again” to “say three Hail Mary’s and come back next month.”

So, all that kowtowing to secularists and Protestants led to a situation where the bishops listened to psychologists about “curing” priests accused of sexual molestation, and they trusted in “Christ’s forgiveness,” and generally applied to sinful priests the same kind of extreme tolerance they’ve been giving us laity for 40 years–the kind that allows Nancy Pelosi to call herself a “Catholic.”

Meanwhile, there is another factor weighing on the hierarchy within the Church. St. John of the Cross was falsely accused of sexual sins. St. Gerard Majella was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. St. John Bosco was accused of all sorts of things (but never sexual misconduct so far as I know). St. Pio was accused of both embezzlement and sexual misconduct (and still is).

There is a long history of false accusations against good priests. And in each of those cases, we look back on the officials who investigated them, suspendd them, etc., and say, “how could they have allowed those false accusations against a Saint?” “What horrible corrupt bishops/religious superiors they must have been to listen to such false accusations!”

So, those were all factors weighing on the minds of many bishops. It doesn’t help that you had the infiltrators like Weakland and Gumbleton and Mahony manipulating things as well (love how some of the recent media stories are even trying to paint Weakland as a noble hero in this!!)

If the Church were following basic Catholic moral principles to a “T”, such as “avoidance of the occasion of sin,” a lot of this might never have happened. In other words, even if you want to say they’re “cured’ psycohlogically, or they’ve been forgiven by Jesus, fine. If you want to say it’s a matter for internal jurisdiction and not involving civil authorities, I’d accept that, *if the Church were enforcing internal disciplines*. But don’t put the sinner back in the occasion of sin. Priests aren’t supposed to be alone with women. Well, homosexual priests shouldn’t be permitted to be alone with men, and priests attracted to minors shouldn’t be permitted to be alone with minors.

And if they hadn’t gone to these awful face-to-face “reconciliation rooms,” how much abuse could have been avoided??? It’s kind of hard to sexually molest someone with a wall and a small metal grid between you.

I’ve quoted many times the teaching of Pope St. Pius V, of “Quo Primum” fame, that priests who commit sodomy should be defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities.

Certainly before Vatican II, we had the problem of clericalism, but much of what’s come since Vatican II has made this situation a lot worse.

Now, the Holy Father’s enemies are salivating over the chance to “get him” for his alleged mishandling of cases in Germany, or cases brought to his desk at the CDF.

And, yes, I personally take some offense at the workings of the CDF when we’ve learned from the recent Times report that thousands of valid cases against abuser priests never get canonical trials, while Fr. James Haley was given a rather swift trial–with no follow-up by the CDF–for his “offense” of being a whistleblower.

But all the accusations against Cardinal Ratzinger, whether as bishop of Munich or prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, smack of “Witch Hunt,” and history will see them as such. Much like the attacks on Pius XII, they’re the attacks of a jealous secular world eager to damn the Catholic Church when history will judge that the Church has done far more on this issue–even before the scandals–than anyone else.

Indeed, at least they *tried* to get these guys rehabilitated. How many public school teachers are fired for sexual misconduct, much less sent to jail? How many public school teachers lose their teaching certificates for it?