14

Cause the Media Tells Me So

 

Strong advisory in regard to the above video which shows the Jihadi murderers of ISIS publically executing an accused adulteress as she begs to see her children one last time.  Why does not the West treat the Jihadists around the globe with the only argument that seems to make any impression upon them:  superior fire power?  A commenter at Father Z’s blog gives us an answer:

Because I stay informed through the modern media and keep up on political commentary, I recognize that Muslims killing people for religious reasons is an extreme rarity, committed by isolated individuals or small extremist cells. I refuse to let this single incident cloud my impression of Islam.

The man in the picture no doubt fired the shot and then fled, as those around him must have been planning to apprehend him. Since Islam is the religion of peace, I know they were not supporters of his. Or perhaps he was merely defending himself from western oil profiteering, and he’s being unfairly portrayed as a terrorist.

In contrast, Catholics are constantly bombing abortion clinics, assassinating doctor’s, and forcing themselves into private citizens’ bedrooms to sabotage their contraception. Then again, is this any surprise in an organization who’s charitable contributions are less than $200 billion in most years?

In fact, over the last 30 years alone, more Catholic priests have been credibly accused of child sexual abuse in a country of merely 300 million people than the number of Muslims who have killed people northern Iraq and southern Syria combined going all the way back to last Thursday.

Similar statistics help re-assure us not to apply the self-righteous generalizations we direct at Catholics at Boko Haram in Nigeria; Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hamas in Palestine; Al Shabaab in Somalia, Etheopia, and Kenya; Abu Sayyaf, MILF, and others in the Philippines; the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and others in India, the Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya, and all the other peaceful groups I’m forgetting at the moment.

I apologize that my digression does not respect the gravity of the picture. It’s just that when I see the contrast between how the media treats Islam in the face of Islamist terrorism on one hand, and acts like excerpting casual remarks by the Pope about how it’s unwise to provoke crazy people in a way that makes it sound like he made an official declaration that the recent attacks in France were justified on the other hand, I get a bit touchy.

May this woman rest in peace, and God provide for her family.

 

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the coming battle.  In the meantime, another way to deal with adulteresses:

 

 

 

 

 

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

14 Comments

  1. The commentator on Fr. Z’s blog and the practicing Islamist in the clip share a commonality. Barbarity.

    Each one professes truth however each one couldn’t be further from the truth.
    They, the commenter and the assassin, turn my stomach.

  2. Paul W Primavera asked, “For this woman accused of adultery, where is the man who laid with her and why is he too not executed?”
    I do not find it puzzling in the least.
    In a leading textbook, Lord Fraser’s Husband and Wife (vol. ii., pp. 1173-4), the learned author explains that “The confessions of the wife, defender, may warrant the Court in finding that adultery is proved against her, while, not being evidence against the co-defender, he escapes; and thus divorce may be granted against the wife for adultery committed by her with him, while he himself is assoilzied from the action.” After all, as against the co-defender, her confessions are mere hearsay.
    In Rutherford v Richardson [1923] AC 1, 5, Viscount Birkenhead defended the logical consistency of such findings: “Applying these considerations to the kind of difficulty which has often presented itself in the Divorce Court, we find that a case which has sometimes been ignorantly derided is in fact both logical and defensible: for instance A, a husband, brings against his wife, B, a petition for divorce on the ground of her adultery with a named co-respondent, C. There is some independent evidence against both B and C, but not sufficient to justify a positive adverse conclusion. B, however, makes a full confession. Here the court may very reasonably pronounce a decree against B, while concluding that the matter is not established as against C. Indeed, to hold otherwise would be to lay it down that the admission or confession of B – which may be quite untrue and which may be induced by hidden and private motives – is to be treated as good evidence against C. And so it happens that the court may quite reasonably conclude that it is proved that B has committed adultery with C, but not that C has committed adultery with B.”

  3. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “B, however, makes a full confession. Here the court may very reasonably pronounce a decree against B,”
    .
    Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.

  4. Mary de Voe wrote, “Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.”

    That is a totally different question. In Creasy v Creasy (1931 S.C. 9.) the wife’s admissions consisted of diary entries. In that case, the wife defender did not give evidence at all, but, of course, the diary entries were not evidence against the co-defender, who was duly assoilzied from the action, the only evidence against him being that of clandestine association, spoken to by a single witness and so uncorroborated.

  5. Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Mary de Voe wrote, “Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.”
    That is a totally different question. In Creasy v Creasy (1931 S.C. 9.) the wife’s admissions consisted of diary entries. In that case, the wife defender did not give evidence at all, but, of course, the diary entries were not evidence against the co-defender, who was duly assoilzied from the action, the only evidence against him being that of clandestine association, spoken to by a single witness and so uncorroborated.”
    .
    I thought that the Fifth Amendment, invoked, prevented the accused from testifying against himself. Evidently, this defendant was not properly represented. What I read is that you are saying that the diary was not considered evidence that was to have been given freely by the defendant, causing her to be turning state’s evidence and freeing her from penalty, or without her consent, not to be used in court at all.
    .
    Of course, the Fifth Amendment can only be invoked for criminal cases and not in civil court for purposes of divorce.but…but…
    This ought not happen in a society where the individual sovereign person is respected. Here, the woman’s right to privacy is compromised and without her assent, her own privacy is used as evidence against her. If the defendant brought the diary to court, willingly, she is turning state’s evidence. Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango. Now, alienation of affection may be charged against the other fellow, but without “corroboration”, what is there to charge the woman? The woman might have been having flights of fancy or writing a book. The woman would be well done to shake the dust off her feet against that nation.
    .
    Secular judges are the personification of divine Justice, notwithstanding unconstitutional atheism. Is there a human being on the face of the earth who wishes to have imperfect Justice imposed on him? (we got imperfect Justice with atheism. Let us be done with atheism)

  6. Then there’s Bill Clinton telling Gennifer Flowers, “If they don’t have pictures, it won’t stick.” I am paraphrasing here.

  7. Anzlyne, Thank you for your comment. The executed woman did not have the love and mercy of Jesus, at least in this world.

  8. Mary de Voe wrote, “Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango. Now, alienation of affection may be charged against the other fellow, but without “corroboration”, what is there to charge the woman? The woman might have been having flights of fancy or writing a book.”
    She might have been “having flights of fancy or writing a book,” but there was also the evidence of clandestine association, hence two independent sources of evidence against her, which is what we mean by corroboration.
    In the case of the co-defender, the defender’s diary entries were not evidence against him, for he had neither authorised nor adopted them. That left the evidence of clandestine association, which was (1) insufficient evidence, of itself, to infer adultery and (2) in any event, uncorroborated, for it was spoken to by a single witness.
    “Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango.” Indeed, but as often happens, there may be proof beyond reasonable doubt and on corroborated evidence sufficient to convict D of adultery with C, but insufficient evidence to convict C of adultery with D, for evidence admissible against one may be inadmissible against the other. That is precisely what happened in Creasy v Creasy.

Comments are closed.