Category Archives: hate speech

Rosary Crusade for Fred Phelps and Osama bin Ladin

People like to organize rosaries and novenas for the Pope, or Mother Angelica, or sick people, or for “causes,” but you never hear calls for prayer for the conversions of specific people.

When conversions happen, we’re happy (Mary’s currently reading Abby Johnson’s _UnPlanned_), but we seem to doubt God’s power to do it when it comes to the challenge of hoping for it.

I’ve said it since 9/11: wouldn’t it be great if Osama bin Ladin (assuming he’s still alive) suddenly announced his conversion to Catholicism?

Or Barack Obama?

Or Fred Phelps?

Or whomever is currently president of Planned Parenthood?

Fred Phelps certainly doesn’t have much time left–the guy’s 72ish. It would be an amazing triumph for God to have that bastion of Satanic hate and misguided Fundamentalism suddenly soften his hardened heart and cross the Tiber.

We really need to start unleashing the power of the Rosary on the world. It’s been 94 years since Fatima, folks, and we still haven’t done it.

This year will be the 440th Annivesary of Lepanto. Think about what would have happened if the Catholics of Europe had kept it up past Oct. 7, 1571! Imagine if the Pope had called for a Rosary every day from everyone, for a different cause.

Back when I was in high school, I read a book on the power of the Rosary and the role of Mary. I forget its title or who wrote it. It had a chapter each on Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, and other religions and how the Blessed Virgin could be used both in prayer and in apologetics to convert each of those groups. The book also talked of the power of the Rosary, and it pointed out how lax Catholics are about our obligation to bring others to the Church.

It pointed out how simple it would be to convert the whole world to Catholicism if each and every Catholic took his or her faith seriously.

I’ve said it before about elections, and even more about conversions: look at how many Catholics there are. If even a significant fraction of us took our faith seriously, we could change the world. Only 24 percent of people who claim to be Catholic go to Mass weekly. Only 10%–if that–of those who attend Mass weekly go to Confession regularly. Much less engage in any serious form of daily prayer such as the Rosary or the Office or daily Mass or reading the Bible.

I used to feel rather alone in the world. Now, I’m surrounded by all sorts of wonderful Catholics on the Internet, in my Carmelite group, etc., but then I stick my feet slightly out of my comfort zone, and am reminded how superficially most people treat their faith and how badly catechized most people are.

And that’s not just because of Vatican II. After all, like I say, we should have achieved this centuries ago.

Judas was an Apostle. The bulk of St. Paul’s letters address all the corruption that was already rampant in the early church. We don’t read the passages at Mass where Paul is denouncing Christians for engaging in incestuous relationships and stuff. . . . Yet, at the same time, those early Christians were amazing. Even if the early Saints were as rare among the Christians of their times as today’s saints, back then you had Christians who said, “Hey! Let’s get ourselves arrested so we can be martyred and get to Heaven quickly!” You had martyrs who actually guided their executioners’ hands, cracked jokes from the scaffold or sang hymns of praise while being eaten alive.

Today, it’s “We don’t want to be martyrs because we have responsibilities” or “Being a martyr means you’re causing someone else to commit murder, so that’s wrong.” Even worse, it’s “We need to preserve our lives in this world” and “We don’t want to cause people embarrassment” or “We don’t want to lose money.”

Yet if every Catholic made a serious effort at both prayer and study, and if every Catholic made a serious effort at helping other people to the faith, and if every Catholic brought at least one person into the Church per year. . . . Imagine.

The book I’m talking about took it further: 3 converts a year per Catholic, and the world would be converted in 3 years. It’s that simple.

So, why not start with prayer. We’re supposed to be fishers of men, and the more “big fish” we bring in, the more “small ones” will get caught in the net as well. So let’s make a serious effort to pray specifically for the conversions of Westboro Baptist Church and its “pastor” Fred Phelps, and for the conversion of Osama bin Ladin and his al Qaeda people.

Remember: Jesus said to St. Faustina that, if a person in a state of grace prayed the following prayer sincerely for a person, that person would make it to Heaven, even if only by a deathbed conversion:

“O Blood and Water, which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a Fount of Mercy for us, I trust in You!”

I hate it when I lose thoughts

There was some big story earlier this week that I wanted to comment on, and didn’t, and of course forgot which story and what I was going to say. Hate it when that happens.

And there have been a lot of big stories, so I thought I’d just give a run down of opinions:

1. The Arizona shooting:
a. the whole thing is a huge win for Obama.
b. If Giffords was so concerned about safety, why didn’t she use better security? She didn’t use basic security protocols at these events, and she put people’s lives in danger.
c. Everyone keeps trying to claim the shooter for the other side, but he really just exemplifies what I’ve been warning about since 2006: a generation of people who’ve been raised on MTV and Comedy Central, Michael Moore and Glenn Beck, who don’t necessarily have a coherent political philosophy other than anger at “the establishment.”
d. Sarah Palin is evil because she used a “targeting” metaphor (and I agree the way she did it was in bad taste, especially for a pro-lifer, and especially someone who has been a victim of some equally vicious rhetoric). But let’s not forget 8 years of “kill Bush”, Alec Baldwin’s tirade about Henry Hyde, and all the hateful things that the liberals have said and are saying about Palin. They are such hypocrites.

2. The arrest of Abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania. Yet another example of the kind of depraved monsters who engage in this “medical practice.”

3. Rick Santorum says it’s hypocritical for Barack Obama, an African American, to suggest we can define who is and isn’t human, and the liberals say that Santorum should apologize for making such an “offensive” comment. HUH?

4. EWTN is acquiring the National Catholic Register. Good to get the Register out of the hands of the Legion of Christ, but is it a wise move for EWTN, which is in perpetual financial trouble, to buy a newspaper, when print news is a rapidly dying medium? And, as one of my Facebook friends pointed out, they should have bought the National Catholic Reporter and then fired everyone who works for it.

5. John Paul II’s speedy canonization will proceed with a beatification on May 1. So much for the photos showing JPII standing with Maciel and Maciel’s illegitimate family. So much for concerns that too many of JPII’s “friends” were speaking out of turn. They won’t beatify Pius XII because of calumnies that are spread against him which have no basis in fact and scandalize non-believers, yet John Paul II, who did so much to scandalize faithful Catholics, is getting fast-tracked. I don’t even necessarily question his sainthood, but I get tired of the attitude that we are supposed to just ignore the Koran Kissing, the pagan sacrifices at the Assisi Conference, his association with Maciel, and other damaging facts. These need to be *explained*. The explanations are there. I often use some them myself. Some things I’m still waiting for better clarity on. But if they’re going to beatify him, and they’re *not* going to beatify Pius XII, then they need to do some explaining.

6. Monday our country honored the life and death of Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who said we should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. King was himself an adulterer, and one of his closest associates, Bayard Rustin, was a Communist and a homosexual. Forty years after his death, Americans elected Barack Obama, a man of no discernible character, due to the color of his skin.

7. A secular news story has tried to make a stink about the disappearance of Fr. Thomas Euteneuer from public eye. Most notably, Euteneuer’s book on exorcism which came out last summer is out of print and is selling for hundreds of dollars online. HLI says that the book merely sold out, and they opted not to reprint it, since Fr. Euteneuer left HLI.

When Fr. Euteneuer announced his resignation from HLI, I said at the time I didn’t think this was any conspiracy or “smack down.” There are ways things are phrased. When the Jesuits tried to use obedience to silence Fr. Fessio a while back, his public statements honored obedience while making it clear he didn’t agree with their decision. When Cardinal Egan recalled Fr. Pavone from Priests for Life, Fr. Pavone said he was complying but looking for options (and did).

Fr. Euteneuer’s statement expressed full compliance. I think he requested to be recalled by his bishop. Exorcists are supposed to be generally out of the spotlight, for a variety of reasons (avoiding sensationalism, maintaining personal humility, etc.) I think that he has chosen this change in direction of his life, and we should honor that.

8. As if Ellen Degenerate wasn’t bad enough, that strange looking creature they hired to replace Simon on American Idol is just too disturbing to look at, even on advertisements.
That brings up the point that one of the effects of my dissection is that I’ve narrowed down a lot of my viewing even more. I’m trying to avoid anything that will unnecessarily raise my blood pressure, and trying to avoid anything that might possibly be an occasion of sin.

Still feel like there’s another big news story of the week I wanted to comment on, but that covers most of ’em.

Ray Bradbury on Political Correctness

Near the end of Part 1 of Ray Bradbury’s _Fahrenheit 451_, Capt. Beatty begins his history of how censorship happened by talking about the rise of technology as the means to entertainment. Then he talks about the need to not offend minorities:

Now let’s take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don’t step on teh toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.

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.

Catholic Blogger arrested for agreeing with Thomas Jefferson

A blogger from New Jersey, Harold “Hal” Turner, wrote on his blog, regarding the Connecticut legislature’s recent attacks on the Church, that, if such methods were successful, Catholics should “take up arms” against this blatant violation of the First Amendment.  He’s been arrested for “inciting voilence,” even though no such violence has occurred.

Spiritually speaking, I’d agree (if the arms in question are rosaries, religious medals, holy water, blessed salt, personal prayer and virtue, etc.).  Literally speaking, I wouldn’t agree that’s the best response.  And he was being literal, or at least poorly humorous, as he went in in more specific detail.  But what strikes me is that, in the  United States of America, founded by a bunch of guys who took up arms against tyranny, who said that you’re *not* supposed to arrest people for expressing such views, this is now happening, and has really happened for quite some time. 

Is someone going to posthumously charge Thomas Jefferson with “inciting violence” by his proclamation that there should be a bloody revolution every 20 years or so?

Headline: "Baltimore archbishop joins other faith leaders to battle urban violence"

If one sees a headline saying, “Archbishop wants to battle urban violence,” does anyone seriously think that said archbishop intends to “battle urban violence” by shooting gang leaders?

Gasp! Holy Father calls on us to "fight" "spiritual pollution"! Apparently, he’s inciting violence!

Liberals define so called “hate speech” as “speech that incites violence.” This is the whole centerpiece of their master plan for social engineering and totalitarianism: outlaw free speech by labeling certain speech as unacceptable because it “incites violence.”

Of course, that is part and parcel with their fundamental assumption that people are good and get manipulated into doing bad. Scott Roeder is not responsible for his actions, they say. “The Devil made him do it”: in this case, “The Religious Right” (to Liberals, it’s not Lucifer, Mephistopheles, Beelzebub, Lilith, Moloch, Ba’al and other demons, but Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and The Religious Right. You can substitute “Bill Donohue”, “Deal Hudson”, “Jerry Falwell” or “James Dobson” for any of the above names).

They tell us not to blame the Qu’ran when Muslim extremists go out and obey the Qu’ran’s command (not to mention the example set by Mohammed himself) to kill infidels. They tell us that “jihad” is only metaphor for the interior struggle.

Ironically, there is no real command in the New Testament to kill infidels, but any Christian understands that “spiritual warfare” means “fight sin”, it means to pursue one’s own virtue, like a soldier pursuing strength and combat skill. It means to pray and fast to fight off the demons that impede those, like George Tiller and Osama bin Ladin, whom we pray will convert to Christianity and repent of their deeds.

In his Pentecost homily, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI took the way the Holy Spirit expresses Himself as wind, and used air pollution as a metaphor for the things that keep us from God.

“And just as there exists atmospheric pollution, which poisons the environment and living beings, so there exists a pollution of the heart and of the spirit, which mortifies and poisons spiritual existence,” he said.

Pope Benedict said it is right that protecting the environment has become a priority today, but it is equally important that people begin combating “the many products polluting the mind and heart” today, including “images that make a spectacle of pleasure, violence and contempt for men and women.”

Does anyone except the loons at The Huffington Post believe that, by this statement, our Holy Father is calling on Catholics to “literally” fight this pollution by bombing “gentleman’s clubs” and assassinating Ron Howard?


Now, the problem with liberals is that they always want to make into a metaphor that which is not.

A “culture war” is not a metaphor. It is a type of war. A “culture war” may be accompanied by a physical war between two groups of people, but a “culture war” does not have to be, and really should not be, a physical fight. It is a battle of ideas. All war is a reflection or type of the greater conflict that rages unseen around us. We use physical war as a metaphor for the war between the angels.

But angels do not have bodies, and they are not mortal. They do not fight with swords or guns or bombs. They fight with ideas.

The war in heaven is a gigantic philosophical debate. It is the mother of all blogs.

In many ways, what we have today with the Internet perhaps brings us closer to realizing what things are like for the angels, communicating at the level of pure thought, not having bodies and body language and such to interfere. Angels even seem to have something like to emotion.

And when we speak of “culture wars,” that’s what we mean: a gigantic exchange of diametrically opposed ideas, ideas that are battling for control of our society. Now, certain government structuers that culture wars have to also be physical wars. But in a society with freedom of speech and honest elections (can we have an honest election now that the Democrats have installed this unaccountable electronic voting?), culture wars can truly be intellectual.

Meanwhile, spiritual warfare means trying to engage, as humans, in the battle of the angels that happens around us.

There comes a time in the most heated combox discussion when one of three things happens: 1) very rarely, one person relents usually going off in a huff like Thrasymachus in The Republic, 2) both people grow weary of the debate, or 3) a moderator terminates the discussion.

But at some point there reaches a point where dialogue is impossible. This is what the term “irreconcilable differences” means. It’s why pro-lifers see an inherent self-contradiction in Barack Obama’s Notre Dame speech, when he acknowledged irreconcilable differences yet called for dialogue. And that point, the debate can only be continued at the level of rage.

That is where the Demons are at. They are filled with absolute rage and contempt for God and us. They may seem charming when they seduce us to sin, but it doesn’t take long for that true fury to come out (C. S. Lewis is excellent at illustrating this in characters like Jadis the White Witch, or Dr. Westin/The Un-Man in Perelandra). Spiritual Warfare means battling the demons at the level of their rage.

Again, it means praying and doing spiritual works intensely for the conversion of another person, particularly for the removal of obstacles that those enraged demons are putting in the other perosn’s way. Of course, it is going to elicit great anger from the demons, and it elicits anger from the persons who are totally under demonic control (as many of the posters at DailyKos and Huffington Post surely are).

But true spiritual warfare, and true cultural warfare *must* be spiritual and intellectual, first and foremost. If the goal is to defeat the devil, then the last thing to do is to adopt his tactics.

Because that’s what he wants. He wants us to take ourselves down to his level. Again, it’s like Batman confronting Darkseid with a gun: it doesn’t work. When you meet the Devil at his level, all you’ve done is given him the victory, since his goal is to bring down your soul.

That “once in a lifetime exception” when you think it might be justified to do evil that good may come of it, or even compromise your higher personal standards by opting for a justifiable act when you would have always chosen heroic virtue, could very well be “once in a lifetime” if that moment of compromise also happens to be your moment of death.

So “spiritual warfare” and “cultural warfare” are not metaphors, but they do not mean warfare with guns: they mean warfare with prayers and ideas. To bring guns into such a conflict is only to defeat the efficacy of the prayers and ideology.

And this is precisely shown in how Scott Roeder’s act has provided the abortion lobby with a prime example of their claim that we are not “pro-life” but merely “anti-abortion.” It has provided them with an excuse to challenge our ideas at the core.

They’re criticizing Bill O’Reilly for calling George Tiller “Tiller the Killer,” for saying that Tiller had blood on his hands . Tiller was a killer. Tiller did have blood on his hands.

They’re saying that we’re wrong to say abortion is murder, or that it’s slaughter, or that it’s “baby killing.” But that’s what abortion is. Those are not just metaphors. Those are not just emotive statements designed to rally a crowd. It’s not just rhetoric. It’s our fundamental position.

Were abolitionists engaging in “hate speech” and volatile rhetoric when they decried slavery as involving the subjugation of human beings?