Cause the Media Tells Me So

Saturday, January 17, AD 2015

 

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.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Cause the Media Tells Me So

  • 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.

  • The commenter was being ironic Philip.

  • I needed a list of recognizable Islamists. God is love and mercy.

  • Different lighting….thanks Mr. McClarey.

  • For this woman accused of adultery, where is the man who laid with her and why is he too not executed?

  • Possibly because she was innocent, and there was no man who laid with her. That would be my first guess.

  • 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.”

  • Thank you so much for the second clip. The alternative solution. Love.
    Jesus is all the difference

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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)

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

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

  • 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.

Sinners in the Hands of a Non-Judgmental God

Tuesday, April 9, AD 2013

Pal Jesus

 

 

We live in a time of cheap grace where forgiveness is not requested but demanded by miscreants.  Exhibit A is Mark Sanford who disgraced himself as governor of South Carolina and destroyed his family by his lust for his Argentinian mistress.  Now Sanford is the Republican candidate for Tim Scott’s, newly appointed Senator from South Carolina, old House seat for South Carolina 1.  He is opposed by Democrat Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, Stephen Colbert’s sister.  (No fiction writer could make this up.)  Sanford is touting that he has been forgiven by God and the people of South Carolina should also forgive him.  In a very good column in the New York Post NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY looks at the American impulse to embrace an endlessly forgiving God.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe in what the two call “an authoritative God,” a deity who is both engaged in the world (caring about human affairs, no pun intended) and judgmental. The rest believe that God is either disengaged or simply benevolent. Or they’re atheists.

Listening to these politicians rattle on as if they’ve had a sit-down with God and come to some kind of mutual understanding makes one long for some old-fashioned God-fearing.

Our European brethren think of us as puritanical; if only. These men — whose sin begins with infidelity and then travels through public humiliation of their wives and children and then ends with an inability to remove themselves from public life — might benefit from the recitation of that great sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”:

“The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow.”

Maybe Mark Sanford should try thinking about that next time he’s on the “Appalachian Trail.”

And not just him. A recent study in the academic journal Theoretical Criminology found that criminals often use religion — and even God’s forgiveness — as a way of rationalizing their behavior. “God has to forgive everyone, even if they don’t believe in him,” one 33-year-old enforcer for a drug gang told the interviewers.

In the first few centuries of the Church, penances would go on for many years in regard to serious sins before absolution was granted.  The penances would be public in nature, and would make clear that the penitent had committed grave sins.  Now, most people assume that God forgives any sin automatically, that penance is unnecessary and that the forgiveness of God absolves them from the consequences of their sins.  I recall one child molester stating at a conference that God had forgiven him, so why couldn’t everyone else?

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Sinners in the Hands of a Non-Judgmental God

  • Forgiveness doesn’t necessarily mean people ought to vote for him. If Sanford is really sorry for what he did, he should be willing to stay out of elective politics for the rest of his life as a fitting penance.

    But if he is elected, that’s the fault of the electorate and the GOP as well.

  • The rest of his life, as Greg says, may be appropriate. But there use to be a ten-year rule. A person didn’t try to rehabilitate his name for at least ten years after his fall. The last person I saw who lived up to it was Gingrich, who accepted that if he was going to do anything in politics following his scandal, it had to be behind the scenes until a sufficient amount of time passed. The end of the rule, in my estimation, was when Spitzer lined up his new career as a pundit seemingly within hours of his resignation.

  • Pingback: Ordinations at Cistercian Abbey of Heiligenkreuz, Austria - Big Pulpit
  • This is in contrast to British government Minister John Profumo who in the early 60s was “found out” to have had an affair with a prostitute who was also involved with a Russian Diplomat. He lied to the house, but later confessed, resigned and spent the rest of his life in restitution, in charity work in the East End of London.

    His lovely wife, the actress Valerie Hobson, stood by him.

    Those were different days!!

  • Interesting point about how the Europeans view us. They really do believe we are puritanical and radically right-wing both in morals and politics. I’m wondering why they think that.

  • “This is in contrast to British government Minister John Profumo who in the early 60s was “found out” to have had an affair with a prostitute who was also involved with a Russian Diplomat. ”

    Didn’t JFK have trist with an East German spy?

  • If God can forgive and forget when we receive absolution after confessing our sins why must we put ourselves in the seat of judgment of others? This issue of Sanford’s fall is between Sanford and God. None of us have any idea what is going on in Sanford’s mind or heart. Let’s leave the punishment in God’s hands. By the way, the caricature of Jesus that you use to bring home your point is very offensive.

  • It is supposed to be offensive Mary as it represents a false conception of Jesus as ever forgiving pal that is very much in vogue today. Sanford is the one who chose to put himself back into the public lime light after disgracing himself. If the voters in his district wish to be represented by a man of no character that is their choice, and it is my choice to comment upon it. Turning a blind eye to manifest evil behavior merely allows that evil behavior to flourish and become normal, something that no one should object to. We have been down this slippery slope now for some five decades, and it is time, past time, to stop.

  • Meanwhile, Anthony Weiner is considering a run for NYC mayor.

    Sigh.

  • A follow-up (that no one will ever notice unless they see it on the “recent comments” list):

    Sanford has been accused of trespassing on his ex-wife’s property, and is scheduled for a court appearance on May 9th, two days after the special election. If he has done something wrong, this should help to remind us that sometimes “private” sins indicate character problems. If he hasn’t done anything wrong, it should serve as a reminder that political baggage doesn’t come and go on your schedule. Either way the Republicans are looking at a loss or a handicapped office-holder.