Political Correctness Kills

Monday, June 13, AD 2016

 

Apparently Omar Mateen was questioned by the FBI three times, twice in 2009 and once in 2014.  The two times in 2009 were because Mateen liked to flaunt his jihadist sympathies to his co-workers.  In 2014 it was because Mateen had established contact with Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American born suicide bomber in Syria.  Go here to read all about it.  Matteen’s father, Seddique Mateen, is a nutcase who is a supporter of the Taliban and who claims to be the head of the provisional government of Afghanistan.  Go here to read about it.  Oh, and Mateen worked as a security guard for a company that supplies security to federal buildings.  If you are wondering why Mateen was not kept under surveillance, you simply do not understand that Islam is a religion of peace and we simply cannot keep under surveillance an American muslim, even when he gives every sign of not only being in sympathy with Jihadists but also makes verbal threats to kill various people.  This is official policy.  Since this is so, rather than deal with the root problem, that more than a few muslims in this country are in sympathy with the Jihadists, attention is instead now directed to non-issues like gun control.  The speech of President Obama yesterday is typical in that regard:

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Political Correctness Kills

  • Obama’s hands look as bloody as hell.
    P.C. = false mercy.

  • Based on those speeches, I would rather have a leader lie Trump than like Hillary or Obama.

  • “powerful assault weapon”
    .
    There’s that ignorance and hyberbole I was referring to in the other thread.

    .223 is fast (high-velocity) but not particularly powerful. In a lot of places you can’t even hunt deer with it.
    .
    Unless you’re a prairie dog, that is, then it’s devastatingly powerful.
    .
    And what Clinton and Obama are really saying is that they don’t think you should have the right to defend yourself.

  • “In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them…”

    Say a prayer for them?

    Statements like these show two things:

    1. People are inconsistent in their lives (like celebrating Christmas when they don’t actually believe in it).

    2. Deep down, people have a hunch that the Catholic Church is right about religious issues.

    I remember President Clinton making a similar statement years ago, telling people to pray for some deceased victims of a tragedy.

  • Another interesting development that connects the dots is that Judicial Watch forced the revelation about June 4th, a week ago, that the British-owned worldwide security firm, G4S, for whom Mateen worked, was identified as contracting for oxymoronically- named “Homeland Security” and transporting large numbers of “OTM’s”–“other-than-Mexicans”—from the Arizona border, where they were picked up en masse, and have been shuttling them in dozens of vans continuously to the Phoenix Metro area. There, they have been dumping them, without any legal documentation process at all:

    http://azborderdefenders.org/judicial-watch-dhs-quietly-shipping-illegals-away-from-the-border-and-releasing-them/

    Needless to say, there are radical “Islamic prayer centers” now in the Phoenix area—-one of which was frequented by Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi, the two shooters in the May 3rd, 2015 Garland,TX “Draw Muhammed” attack at the Curtis Culwell Center in that city. (Can you believe that was only about a year ago? The media does a good job in making us forget.)

    The other connection: reputedly, the brother of Omar Mir Mateen lists his work as “immigration worker”. No doubt, “helping out” where ever he can, with G4S, with all the vermin eating through our system, in the present state of simultaneous massive bureaucracy and governmental collapse.

  • Let’s have no further speculation on the sinfulness of the victims. Whatever their sins may have been, they did not deserve to be shot down like so many rabbits. Stay focused on their murderer and the cluelessness of the Obama administration in the face of murderous Islamic terrorism.

  • I’m a sinner too

  • So, President Obama is arguing that security guards who are permitted to carry firearms should be prohibited by buying firearms? Yes, one of the smartest people to ever sit in the Oval Office.

  • Actually, regarding what people (including and especially myself) deserve and do not deserve, we all – everyone of us – deserve to die, whether gunned down like rabbits or not. What is proscribed is another human assuming the authority to deliver such punishment. Saint Paul well describes our sinful state in Ephesians chapter 2 and the solution which we do NOT deserve but which God, not desiring the death of even the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32), provides to us anyways (John 3:16):
    .
    2 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins,
    2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief:
    3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:
    4 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,
    5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)
    6 And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus.

  • Slightly OT: Dover now has paper dolls for our genius candidates. See http://www.doverpublications.com/presidentialpaperdolls/

  • I so wish Trump transmutes to altruism plus martial severity around this event like Saul being blinded by God and becoming St. Paul. Yes…he ran three casinos against each other and shunted the revenue into Manhattan real estate while leaving bondholders and contractors out to dry in the desert wind. But Saul was persecuting the Body of Christ and became the main and deepest epistle writer and missionary over above Peter the Pope in the NT canon….very much like Aquinas, the simple priest, becoming the greatest clear theologian while Augustine was the deepest but not as clear mind. Trump won’t become any of them but if he becomes serious around this issue, God will have raised him above the shallow to the useful which would be quite an advance. In any event, Trumps war on political correctness at the mega level of all media is refreshing….and he is hitting the dems where the polite Ryan would not.
    Several days ago the media was saying Ryan was moving Trump away from the Muslim ban. Things change. Any Muslim who can’t document long association with liberal mosques….should stay in the Middle East. Imans here who are long term against our Constitution….should be deported to our friend…Saudi Arabia who should take them as a courtesy.

  • Not unrelated at all: But, meanwhile, perfect time for the Prevaricator-in-Chief, while everyone is rightly distracted by Orlando, to announce he will not force the closure of Gitmo by exec order:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-not-pursue-executive-order-close-guantanamo-bay/

    It must be an election year: methinks Hillary begged him to drop it for now…until she is inaugurated in Jan 2017.

  • bill bannon mentioned that Inmans “who are long term aginist our Constitution should be deported to our friend Saudi Arabia who should take them as a courtesy.”

    Absolutely!

    There is a war going on. The #1 Inman stationed in our County is non other than Barack Hussein Obama. He should lead the others in this mandatory deportation exercise.
    Impeachment and deportation.

  • Obama will not close Gitmo by executive order
    .
    Must mean he’s planning to use the Pardon Power then.

  • Not to belabor a point, but if Jesus were asked about the shooting in Orlando, then this is probably what would happen:
    .
    Luke 13
    .
    1 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? 3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo′am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

  • Yes Luke 13
    Also in these times we need to be very familiar with the good response of Judas “the hammer”. Maccabee.
    Our contained dithering enables those who come, like their father to kill, steal and destroy.
    It is further jeopardy to wait for what may be an indecisive and dragged out election. There must some strong leader In a position to force Obama out. Thinking people have had enough a strong moral someone in the media, the military, business could challenge and change now seems a good time to make a strong protest against the establishment- not waiting like guppies for all the walls fall.
    May God raise up a real and holy leader

  • It is amazing to me that the first thing out of Hillary’s and Obama’s mouths is the need for more gun control. This would be totally ineffective since anyone who is as radicalized as the San Bernardino and Orlando shooters (and Paris for that matter) were will find a way to get weapons and much more destructive ones that were used in Orlando.

    The real culprit here is the almost fanatical “inclusiveness” and political correctness practiced by Hillary and Obama. Hugging, “appreciating their differences”, and trying to make this kind of person love you will never work – it is just an opportunity for them to get past your defenses.

    Besides tolerance of those with such radical views there are at least two other major questions revolving around political correctness in the Orlando incident that will eventually have to be answered:
    1. Why did the police wait for three hours before breaching the building? Common sense is that if the shooter is actively killing there should be no delays.
    2. Was this nightclub like many other in prohibiting the patrons from carrying concealed weapons? If so they were just lambs to the slaughter.

  • Paul,
    Yes, in Hillary’s scenario, a terrorist can be totally demotivated by being turned down by a gunstore…as though he couldn’t visit a tough ghetto area and buy a tec 9 there which area Hillary would not search because profiling is way harsh in the new nutty world. Hillary conveniently hides her knowledge that the FBI ended their watch period on Mateen prior to his buying a gun. Watch her rap today. It’s like a lying match listening to both of them today with Trump saying he received tens of thousands of congradulations on twitter but NBC could only find four.
    The nightclub staff at least should have had guns and thirty people or more would have been saved. Years ago that guy would have been jumped by the patrons….knowing that some would die but others would reach him and take him down. Now in the new nutty world, the police decider in charge may be thinking about tomorrow’s press coverage and should he enter or not….which does NBC want.

  • I think it’s about damned time we put the correct in political correctness.

Pope Condemns “Blind Violence”

Tuesday, March 22, AD 2016

d7cd8eb175ed342fe2cd8b5cfe8e9c66

But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death.

Pope Urban II, Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095

 

The latest atrocity by ISIS brought a predictable response from the Pope:

 

 

 

Pope Francis, he said, “again condemns the blind violence which has caused so much suffering, and he implores God for the gift of peace, invoking upon the grieving families and on all Belgians the benefit of divine blessings.”

The Pope’s prayers come after at least 34 people were killed and 170 more injured in March 22 attacks at Brussels Zaventem international airport and a city metro station near buildings belonging to the E.U.

Twin blasts hit the airport around 8 a.m. local time, tearing through the departure section. The BBC reports that a Belgian prosecutor said the blasts were likely caused by “a suicide bomber.”

According to reports, shots and shouts in Arabic could be heard before the blasts, and an undetonated suicide belt was found after the attacks.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Pope Condemns “Blind Violence”

  • “… wars are almost always the product of basic conflicts between two or more
    groups over land, ideology, religion, etc.”

    .
    The only peaceful resolution to Europe’s increasing violence surrounding its
    recently imported islamist underclass is for most of those immigrants to become
    Christians and assimilate. Unfortunately, Europe’s elites, our current Pope
    included, take a dim view of proselytizing, and instead make an idol of
    “diversity”. I get the sneaking feeling that the elites of the EU fear a population
    of newly converted, committed Christians more than they fear the increasingly
    violent islamist underclass.

  • Pope Francis …EYES WIDE SHUT…that’s about the description of this Papacy

  • Note that “blind violence” reduces Mahommedans to the status of unreasoning beasts: like a rabid dog, they simply attack without knowing why.

    It’s often the little things with this pope. Could anyone possessing the Catholic faith really speak of “blind violence”, as if they’d never heard of sin? This is the way liberals speak. Lacking a theology of sin and rejecting the concepts of human nature and objective truth, they are intellectually disarmed before the brute fact of iniquity.

  • Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 253.

  • Murray-
    It just as easily is a continuation of the long-standing Church condemnation of indiscriminate violence, going all the way back to the attempt to ban crossbowmen and archers, supposedly because they were used in a rather scatter-shot way rather than the way it’s hard to accidentally hit a random person with a sword.
    Blind violence, as opposed to specific and targeted violence; ‘spray and pray’ vs a sniper.
    ****
    Part of why bombs are especially horrific is because they are so random, as opposed to someone with a handgun shooting specific people. The people setting these don’t care who dies, so long as death comes.

  • He threatened the mafia with hell and excommunicated them in June of 2014 during a speech. Ecumenism placed at the level of the ten commandments apparently prevented him and his predecessors from using the world media to threaten jihadists with hell. Popes may think they are local…but as vicar of Christ, they really can warn any non Catholic religionist about hell….not as to skipping Mass….but as to especially crimes against humanity….the obvious natural law things.

  • The full quote for the image at top:
    Fourth question, by an Egyptian boy. “Dear Pope, we are from countries that are poor and at war. The school cares for us. Why don’t powerful people help the school?”

    Why don’t powerful people help the school? We can also broaden the question a bit: why is it that so many powerful people don’t want peace? Because they live on war! The arms industry: this is grave! The powerful, some of the powerful, profit from the production of arms and they sell arms to this country which is against that one, and then they sell them to the one that goes against this one. It is the industry of death! And they profit. You know, greed does us so much harm: the desire to have more, more and more money. When we see that everything revolves around money — the economic system revolves around money and not around the person, around man, around woman, but around money — so much is sacrificed and war is made to protect the money. And because of this, many people don’t want peace. There is more profit with war! Money is earned, but lives are lost, culture is lost, education is lost, so many things are lost. This is why they don’t want it. An elderly priest that I met years ago used to say this: the devil enters through the pocketbook, through greed. This is why they don’t want peace!
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/may/documents/papa-francesco_20150511_bambini-la-fabbrica-della-pace.html

  • Except that this is specific and targeted violence; that is, targeted specifically at ordinary Europeans innocently going about their business, in order to convey the message that no public area is safe. They are specific and targeted in exactly the same way as the 9/11 attacks were, albeit of two lower orders of magnitude. So far.
    .
    Following your logic, we should apparently regard terrorist attacks carried out with handguns (or scimitars, etc.) as being of a lower order of evil. Take the Bataclan, for instance, where the Mahommedan savages got to execute their victims up close and personal, man to man. We might even say, paraphrasing Pope Benedict XVI, that those terrorists who use hand weapons may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of [terrorism] remains in all its gravity.

  • ..and I really don’t see how the full quote mitigates things; if anything, it’s even more obtuse and ignorant than the excerpt.
    .
    Keep in mind that the pope neglects to answer the child’s question, preferring instead to launch into a completely unrelated (and entirely loopy) disquisition on arms merchants. After all, we all know how the Australian Aborigines, lacking arms merchants, lived in an almost Edenic paradise of peace and harmony with each other.

  • Murray –
    before you try to follow someone’s logic, you should check that you actually understand it.
    The equivocation with the word “specific and targeted” would be a clever segue to a point of your own; unfortunately you treated it as a point in itself and neglected to make any sort of argument against what I said.
    ****
    ..and I really don’t see how the full quote mitigates things; if anything, it’s even more obtuse and ignorant than the excerpt.
    Then perhaps you should go find out something about the situation in Egypt, specifically how their military works. I’d suggest Bryan Suits of KFI, if you have decent tolerance for an Army guy’s radio-edited phrasing.
    America isn’t the whole world, and the whole world isn’t Christian. The Middle East and China especially do not share most of our assumptions, yet people insist on reading everything the Pope says as if he’s talking about American conservatives, the USA and Europe. *sigh*

  • By the by, the full quote was provided because I like facts, not to “mitigate” something.
    Gasp, someone on line is giving links to sources– start making assumptions about their motivation! Rather than, y’know, considering that it may be a long-standing habit because I don’t like unsourced graphics.

  • Foxfier,
    .
    To the contrary, I understood you and answered you. You imposed your own preferred Catholic meaning onto the pope’s words, choosing to believe that by “blind violence” he really meant to invoke a specific point of Church teaching against indiscriminate violence as opposed to specific and targeted violence. The only trouble with your interpretation is that it makes no logical sense, it is invoked in the wrong context, and it has monstrous implications. Look again at what he is reported to have said:
    .
    [Pope Francis] again condemns the blind violence which has caused so much suffering, and he implores God for the gift of peace, invoking upon the grieving families and on all Belgians the benefit of divine blessings.
    .
    According to your interpretation, the Holy Father is merely condemning the indiscriminacy of the murders; to follow your logic to its conclusion, he is deploring the fact that the barbarians did not individually walk up to their victims and shoot them. This is actually a far less charitable reading of his remarks than mine. I believe he was merely mouthing the required liberal pieties about evil being mystifying, or “hard to understand“. Do you think he would have preferred them to use “specific and targeted” violence instead?
    .
    Furthermore, we know that the pope condemned terrorism in similarly befuddled terms after the Paris attacks, which did involve specific and targeted violence; that is, individual attackers selecting specific individuals and shooting them. How likely is it that he is merely condemning the indiscriminate nature of the means in this case, rather than the violence itself?
    .
    Finally, on this point, the teaching you cite applies primarily to lawful combatants operating in a theater of war; combatants, moreover, whom it assumes are susceptible to moral suasion on the moral means that may be used in warfare. And it worked, to a large extent: most nations formally agree to abide by certain laws of warfare in order to place limits on the suffering of non-combatants. But it simply does not apply to unlawful combatants whose entire aim is to maximize the suffering of innocents by any and all means available.

  • Murray –
    To the contrary, I understood you and answered you.
    You’re welcome to your own views, but not your own facts. Other than noting that your next sentence is some weapons grade projection, I can see no reason to spend any more time trying to communicate with you.

  • I’m going to take that as an implicit concession, Foxfier. Otherwise,
    .
    Then perhaps you should go find out something about the situation in Egypt, specifically how their military works. I’d suggest Bryan Suits of KFI, if you have decent tolerance for an Army guy’s radio-edited phrasing.
    America isn’t the whole world, and the whole world isn’t Christian. The Middle East and China especially do not share most of our assumptions, yet people insist on reading everything the Pope says as if he’s talking about American conservatives, the USA and Europe. *sigh*

    I’m actually not a conservative, and really couldn’t care less about the pope attacking conservatives, as he is wont to do. But who here claimed he was talking about conservatives? I expect a great many arms manufacturers are good liberals, operating as they do in the highest reaches of the liberal state.
    .
    Otherwise, I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. The pope made a broad factual claim about the causes of war. The question therefore is, Is this claim true? Its truth value is entirely independent of the situation in Egypt, America, China, or the Middle East, whether anyone is Christian, or what assumptions you start from.
    .
    I contend that not only is his claim not true, but that it betrays a mindset that is dangerously ignorant of human nature and our propensity to sin. For instance, World War I started when Germany backed Austria-Hungary’s rejection of the Serbian response to the Franz Ferdinand assassination, Russia backed Serbia, France backed Russia, Germany invaded Belgium to defeat the French before the Russians could mobilize, Britain intervened on behalf of Belgium and France, and the rest is history. Where were the arms manufacturers? Did greedy capitalists persuade Genghis Khan to attempt to conquer Europe and the Middle East? Did Saul wipe out the Amalekites because of the enticements of avaricious spear manufacturers? Was there an arms dealer whispering in Cain’s ear?
    .
    We could certainly inquire into the role of weapons manufacturers and bankers in prolonging or intensifying wars, and I’m certain we’d find tons of fascinating material, but the pope made a far more sweeping claim than that. And once again, the only important question is, Is it true? No.

  • May the souls of the murdered victims rest in peace, may the injured and the loved ones of those murdered be consoled and healed, may the terrorists who did this be brought to eternal justice, may Islam be cast into hell to burn forever, and may the Pope repent of his ludicrous idiocy or failing that, be deposed and anathematized.

  • “He has faith in dialogue and a strong instinct that if the West only ramps up economic assistance to the Middle East and takes in an unlimited amount of Middle Eastern “refugees”, all will be well. ”
    .
    I’m not so sure I totally believe he believes that. It isn’t as if the Vatican or diocesan offices and the like are taking in a multitude of these “refugees,” nor offering massive amounts of their “own” monies from the Church coffers.

  • I’d like to know the size of the homemade bomb industry and its market capitalization. And who are these arms merchants supplying rice cooker bombs?

    Bishops should stick to speaking about matters of which they have a charism and proven expertise. Otherwise they cast doubt on their authority to speak competently about anything.

  • It isn’t as if the Vatican or diocesan offices and the like are taking in a multitude of these “refugees,”
    DJH

    Perhaps you fail to realize that when Vatican City State with its population of less than 1,000 citizens takes in one refugee family that is proportional to the USA with its population of 300 million citizens taking in 300,000 refugee families. There’s your multitude.

  • Interesting that pope Francis offers specific recommendations to fight climate change along with a list of condemned culprits while, in the case of Islamic terror, talks in meaningless generalities.

    Here’s Ann Barnhardt’s recommendation:
    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/03/22/furthermore-i-consider-that-islam-must-be-destroyed/

    If only the spirit of Pope Pius V would inhabit our dear pontiff.

  • “Bishops should stick to speaking about matters of which they have a charism and proven expertise.”

    That would exclude some of them speaking about Christ.

  • The spiritually blind pope condemning blind violence is a perfect irony. For those of us who have family members in the line of advance of the coming Caliphate, history will be severe in judging his, and our episcopal leaders’, smiling accomodationist approval of the mass invasion..

    To wit, my daughter who lives with her husband and my granddaughter about 40 miles s. of Brussels, fortunately in the countryside which is still Catholic, fairly traditional, and opposed to the dimwits running the country, checked in with this report by e-mail:

    ” It’s been a rough day today. There’s this sort of surreal atmosphere. I guess people really thought it would never happen here (despite the Paris attacks). They’re not sure if its in retaliation for capturing Abdesalam, or if they were afraid Abdesalam would talk and expose their plans so they bumped them up to today, but intel has recently released that their investigation suggests he was supposed to take part in today’s attacks.

    The media here isn’t censored, and I watched it since very soon after the first bombings in Zaventem, around 9am, and caught it in time to see Maalbeek happen.. In all, I’d say Belgian authorities were (suspiciously?) well prepared for the attack. and that idiot Jambon [Jan Jambon, deputy minister for “security”) (pm. French word for “Ham”, which is what he is…) said, “What we had feared has happened.” Sigh.

    Makes me wonder if intel knew something was up but wanted to try to catch the perps before the attacks. Who knows. The hall where we last saw each other is gutted. People died in front of the check-in counter where we’ve stood many, many times.. The ceiling panels fell and injured many. Almost all the front windows have been blown out, from the nail bombs and force of the blast. The authorities had said from the beginning the bombs were different from regular explosives because of the blast damage.. We always thought it dangerous that one could just walk up into the airport hall from the street. If you know your way around, it’s easy to get in without much fuss, as you probably remember. And now London is on high alert, as they expect a similar multi-phased attack imminently. Needless to say, we’ll have to change our Brussels/Heathrow/LA flight plans ha.

    So that’s the quick recap of today.. It’s been a long, sad day here…”

    I also saw the photos of the check-in counter on Drudgereport, and what she is referring to is that we have stood at the counter very near by where British Airways is located, many, many times. People had their legs blown off (at least 5) and bled to death instantly. Witnesses said the floors ran with blood.
    ….

    Thank you, P Francis, Card Kasper, and many others, for your perfectly useless leadership.

  • Oh the pity! God bless your daughter Steve and all who are caught in this maelstrom.
    The human suffering while ideologues blinded by ideology do what blind guides do. May God send us help from heaven.

  • Dale Price- your quote Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 253 is a bullseye, –
    what mularkey, and from a supreme pontiff no less

  • Micha- It is also no doubt easier to carefully vet one refugee family than 300,000.

  • ” I believe he was merely mouthing the required liberal pieties about evil being mystifying, or “hard to understand“. Do you think he would have preferred them to use “specific and targeted” violence instead?
    .
    Furthermore, we know that the pope condemned terrorism in similarly befuddled terms after the Paris attacks, which did involve specific and targeted violence; that is, individual attackers selecting specific individuals and shooting them. How likely is it that he is merely condemning the indiscriminate nature of the means in this case, rather than the violence itself?”

    It has been my experience that since Leftists don’t believe in absolutes that they are generally unable to define evil, accept that people as individuals are evil and/or individually accountable for it. One cannot take effective action against something one cannot accurately define or even correctly name.

    If there is a definition of evil to the Leftist, it seems to be the free expression and/or action taken upon ideas with which the Leftists does not agree, politically.

Jihad Among Us

Friday, July 17, AD 2015

If the Nation can take a moment from the task of banning all things Confederate one hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, it might wish to pay attention to a slightly more pressing matter among us:

 

 

The gunman who shot and killed four Marines Thursday during two attacks at military facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn., has been identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a law enforcement source confirmed to Fox News.

Abdulazeez, 24, was born in Kuwait, a U.S. official told Fox. It was not immediately clear if he was a U.S. or Kuwaiti citizen. He was reported to be from Hixson, Tenn., just across the Tennessee River from Chattanooga.

The law enforcement source said preliminary reports indicate Abdulazeez, who also died, was not on the FBI’s radar leading up to Thursday’s attacks. A defense official told Fox he was killed by law enforcement officers and did not commit suicide.

The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center said it has seen nothing so far to connect Abdulazeez to any terrorist organization. But it noted that the Islamic State group (ISIS) has been encouraging extremists to carry out attacks in the U.S.

“We are treating this as an act of domestic terrorism,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. At a news conference late Thursday, FBI agent Ed Reinhold said there was “no indication at this point that anybody else was involved.”

“Obviously, we’re still at the beginning of this investigation,” Reinhold said. “We will explore any possibility and that includes whether or not anyone else was involved.”

U.S. Attorney Killian added that investigators do not believe that there are any more threats to the general public.

President Obama, speaking from the Oval Office shortly after returning from a trip to Oklahoma, vowed a thorough and prompt investigation.

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion,” Obama said.

The gunman first shot up a recruiting center before driving seven miles to the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center and killing four Marines before he was shot, authorities said. Sources told Fox News police chased the gunman from the recruiting center to the Center. The entire attack last about half-an-hour.

A well-placed source in Chattanooga told Fox News that one of the Marines who was killed was a “decorated war hero with two Purple Hearts.” The youngest was 19 years old, the source said. Defense officials also said late Thursday a female sailor was in surgery after being shot.

Within hours of the bloodshed, law officers with guns drawn swarmed what was believed to be Abdulazeez’s house, and two females were led away in handcuffs.

A dozen law enforcement vehicles, including a bomb-squad truck and an open-sided Army green truck carrying armed men, rolled into the Hixson neighborhood, and police closed off streets and turned away people trying to reach their homes.

Details of Abdulazeez’s life were just beginning to emerge late Thursday. The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported that he graduated from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga with a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering in 2012. Before that, he graduated from Red Bank High School with a yearbook photo featuring the quote, “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?”

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Jihad Among Us

  • The Marines receive a punishment due a wicked Administration. Lord have mercy!

  • The families loss of their loved ones is horrifying and tragic. Prayers first for them and the murdered.

    Let’s see. The commander and chief Muslim pretending to be a “Christian” and acting as a President of these United States sympathize with the families for the camera, however his appointments within his administration speaks louder than his words.

    He was so right in correcting us when he told us we are not a Christian nation.

    A nation of many faiths!

    Equally important! Equally protected!

    As we witness the Gay Gestapo starting to bring law suits against Catholic priests that refuse to “officiant” same sex weddings, let us recall the Chief Muslim and his brotherhood, one of which just murdered these Marine’s.

    Obama’s hands are bloody red. He cares not.
    A liar from the beginning, his arrogance and denial blind any humility and truth that smoulder’s in a cooling blackened heart.
    To him life is cheap.

    A rainbow Whitehouse. A crack pipe President.

  • Seen on Facebook:
    Photo of bearded, turbaned ayatollah screaming, “Death to America!”
    Immediately, photo of beaming Barrack Hussein Obama, “We have a deal!”
    .
    Those people are deliberating planning to kill you. The filthy pagans will slaughter you like sheep.
    .

    From Herodotus Book IX, “”Phocians” said he, “’tis plain that these men have resolved beforehand to take our lives, because of the accusations of the Thessalians, as I imagine. Now, then, is the time for you all to show yourselves brave men. ‘Tis better to die fighting and defending our lives, than tamely to allow them to slay us in this shameful fashion. Let them learn that they are barbarians, and that the men whose death they have plotted are Greeks!”

  • Expect more of this in years to come, as the US government allows ever more people into this country who are in complete sympathy with our enemies.

    What the disreputable Mr. Sailer calls ‘leapfrogging loyalties’. The elites and the professional-managerial types favor importing a large mass of foreigners so to preen in front of each other and displace the domestic working class they despise (“bitter clingers”). Our odious President has a different take on this than Jeb Bush (and different objects: Bush takes no interest in working the Democratic Party vote farm), but the result’s the same. Sometimes it backfires in peculiarly graphic ways and the PBS / CNN / New York Times spinmeisters have their work cut out for them.

  • Isis tweeted Chattanooga, Fox news is reporting.

    Open boarders?

    Lock n load.
    Rosaries and .223 ammo.

    The flushing of the two Isis sympathizers two months ago was extremely risky to all who went to the evening meeting, the one which toyed with Mohammed. Many people could of died, but the two assassin’s paid the price, and justice was carried out.

    Flush the vermin out of our Country.
    Flush ’em out!

  • http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/07/give-me-your-tired-your-poorbut-not.html#disqus_thread
    .
    Iraqi Christians – tired and poor, too. So, this link goes to support the title of this post as well as how tolerance is limited.

  • Thanks a bunch Patricia…. Just when I thought I couldn’t despise the administration more than I already do, you have to pass this link along.

    Sickening.

    The Nazis paved the way for Obamasexuals.
    The festering flea ridden dirtbags that are currently making policy in D.C.

    Excuse me for my attitude. I’m just fed up beyond words.

  • Why is there jihad among us?

  • Because we have allowed into our country individuals who follow the radical jihadist movements now convulsing the Islamic world.

  • Rumor has it that Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and the present Iraq War III along with all the sanctions in between might have made extremists mad. At least it would have made me fighting mad and I am only a mild mannered veteran who was concerned that killing in the line of duty was a mortal sin.

  • Absolutely nothing to do with it. The Jihadis are fighting for power in their own countries. Anger at the West is good for attracting recruits but at its heart Jihadism is all about who will rule in Islam. Think about it. What anger at the West is motivating the fighting in Syria, Iraq and Yemen?

  • Why must we intervene and fight their battles for them? We can’t even police our own country and it is going to get worse when the young people are faced with the bills we have ran up on our joy ride.

  • Excuse me.

    Ask the relative’s that watched their loved ones gunned down in the
    street. They believed differently than Isis.
    They worship the “wrong God.”

    The video’s are hellish, yet your a veteran.
    You know first hand, I’m assuming.
    And BTW…thank you for your service.

    FDR to W.Churchill could of been; Not our war mate. We have our children’s welfare to think of. We will pass.

    The gains Isis is making is because of indifference. My humble opinion.

  • How soon they forget: 2015 – 24 =1991 the year Kuwaiti Adulazeez was born and the year the US armed forces and Allies liberated Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Who extinguished 700 oil well fires set by retreating Iraqis? Experts from the US and other western countries. Sadam’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait was brutal.

  • Is the misquided banning of all things Confederate the Obama version of bombing an aspirin factory?
    R.I. P., Marines.
    Please, Lord, send us an El Cid for a 2016 nominee.

  • “Rumor has it that Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and the present Iraq War III along with all the sanctions in between might have made extremists mad.”
    Since so many are not Iraqis that rumor must be false.
    Rumor has it something about 1,400 years old might have made extremists mad – mad in the clinical sense.

    ” At least it would have made me fighting mad and I am only a mild mannered veteran who was concerned that killing in the line of duty was a mortal sin.”
    I can assure you they are not the least bit worried about mortal sin, nor are they mild-mannered. Killing in the line of duty is a religious obligation.

  • Islam has not changed much since Mohammed walked the earth. Islam is at war with itself and everyone else. Turks, Persians, Afghans, Arabs and elsewhere – it’s the same old story.

    They should not be here, but they are. In case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, the Federal Government serves itself and sees us as its serfs. Washington has become a Latin American capital – where the rest of the country suffers in order to feed the monster.

  • Wait a minute, let’s not let “killing in the line of duty a mortal sin” go. Ernest, are you implying that every serviceman who died unshriven in combat (land, sea, undersea or air) is going to hell? It’s been a long time since I had a morality in war class. Is there a priest, military chaplain or theology prof out there who can set Ernest straight in unambiguous language?

  • I believe that ultimately I answer to God and not the welfare/warfare state. When I was young I had no idea what I was doing. That has to be one reason the young are recruited . They may be at their physical peak but a long way yet to wisdom. Still there seem to be many possessing immunity to learning. No fool like an old fool.

  • Ernest Martinson on Friday, July 17, A.D. 2015 at 9:02pm (Edit)
    Why must we intervene and fight their battles for them? We can’t even police our own country and it is going to get worse when the young people are faced with the bills we have ran up on our joy ride.

    You really need to have some familiarity with where the bills I, and my kids, are paying before you try to lecture folks on it.
    Our military costs– including in battles against those who repeatedly violated their agreement to cease hostilities with us, and were openly funding attacks on us and our allies– are noting compared to the joyride of bad spending at home.
    Military spending– and yes, ours is higher than most of Europe’s, because our military subsidizes their even more wasteful joyriding— is part of a country’s government’s job. Statues along a bike path, on the other hand…. (For a hundreds of thousands of dollars spent example that I know of because it was in my area.)
    ****
    Policing in our country would work a lot better if the Federal Government would do another of its jobs and secure the border; criminals should not have an easier time getting in and out than our military members traveling to and from allied countries. (Which I did, several times; it took longer than it takes for undocumented Mexicans to get to Washington from the Mexican border– and that’s not even the ones with known drug gang connections and thus without as much money and power to burn.)
    ***
    You know why tiny, unspeakable male did this?
    Because he grew up being told that it was cool. That stupid year book comment? If he were actually being discriminated against, he would never put such a thing in such a public, long-lasting place.
    But he was told he’s a victim, that it’s expected, that it gave him a sort of power.
    And now those Marines are dead.
    It’s entirely possible he knew where this location was because they did outreach to his high school– that 19 year old Marine was just out of boot camp, on RAP duty.
    That’s where you get free leave to go help a recruiter– talk to potential recruits, answer questions.
    If the pathetic shooter was a real man, he could have joined an honorable military; instead, the coward murdered good men, and harmed at least lady sailor.

  • Earnest Ernest. You certainly know that inaction is also an action. We are not only judged ultimately for what we have done, BUT ALSO for what we have failed to do. We are to resist the devil.
    Why do we have jihad among us? Besides donald’s more practical answer, my answer is that we opened the door to this evil by our failure to keep covenant with God, and our failure to educate our children in that necessity. Similarly we have opened the door to the attack of marriage and family, by our failure as a society to keep and honor our marriages and families.

  • The devil is an opportunist.
    We must fight back. We owe it to ourselves; and we have a social obligation.

Je Suis Charles Martel

Wednesday, January 21, AD 2015

“A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar in Spain to the banks of the Loire in France; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian Fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the River Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur’an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed.”

Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

The slogan Je Suis Charles Martel is beginning to make its way around Saint Blogs.  Here is some information on the grandfather of Charlemagne who stopped the advance of Islam into what became France in 732 at the battle of Tours.

 

Charles Martel, “The Hammer”, led a life of conflict.  An illegitimate son of Pepin of Herstal, Mayor of the Palace and the true power behind the Merovingian puppet kings, after the death of his father he had to fight his father’s legitimate offspring who sought to deprive him of any share in his father’s inheritance.  Fortunately for Charles a streak of military genius ran through him, and he won battles against the odds, using force multiplying stratagems, including feigned retreats, and attacking in the middle of the day when armies of his time normally took a siesta.  By 717 he was in control of Neustria, showing mercy unusual for his day in letting his defeated adversaries live and treating them with kindness.

The 28 year old ruler now entered a round of endless wars with neighboring kingdoms, gradually extending his power, and building up a professional force of infantry to supplement the peasant levies that made up the vast bulk of most Frankish armies.

A friend and patron of Saint Boniface, he also began the alliance between the rulers of the Franks and the Popes.  He contributed much land to the Church, but roused ecclesiastical ire when he took some back to support his troops.  He might have been excommunicated if both Church and State had not suddenly confronted a common foe.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Je Suis Charles Martel

  • Is there a reason that the destruction and slaughter is unmentionable (as in religious leaders calling/begging universally for prayer for help and more for the victims) and unmentioned (as in media outcry) on the info superhighway where all is ‘known’ but the reporting sifted? There must be some inhumane, corrupt thing in the allowing of continued behaviors. Ignorance isn’t really bliss in the end. Charles Martel was a friend of Saint Boniface! May history repeat itself.

  • “Thanks to God”, yes! No thanks to our current pope who famously stated that “violence never conquers violence”. Then again, Islam isn’t on his doorstep.

  • Patricia, history will not repeat itself; at least not as you think.
    The end is already nigh. The armies of the Lord Jesus are on the horizon. Look.

  • “Je suis Charlie” is gas: the clucking of chickens.

    What are you prepared to do?

    When Christ comes in glory he will forsake those that brawl against His religion.

  • We got Spain, the Arabs got Constantinople, and the Jews got Jerusalem. Spain is nice and all, but…redo?

  • …redo?

    We’re in the middle of one right now. You probably noticed, even though it’s not polite to talk about it.

  • Good post. Thank you.

  • Father of seven: ““Thanks to God”, yes! No thanks to our current pope who famously stated that “violence never conquers violence”. Then again, Islam isn’t on his doorstep.”

    .
    Pope Francis does not know the difference between violence and force. “Who am I to judge?”
    Jesus went to hell to free the patriarchs. Who is for Jesus?

  • Pinky, the Turks, not the Arabs, took Constantinople in 1453, 39 years before Queen Isabel the Catholic completed the Reconquest and subsequently spread the Catholic Faith to the New World.

    One evening, not long ago, I was wasting time watching a TV program called Who Do You Think You Are? It always features a celebrity, in who I have no interest. This episode was about the former model Cindy Crawford. Her ancestry was traced to Charlemagne, the grandson of Charles Martel. In the same series, Brooke Shields found out that she was a first cousin many times removed of King St. Louis IX. I admit that finding out one is related to a famous historical Catholic is fascinating.

  • Pingback: “Je Suis Charles Martel” | Fr. Z's Blog
  • Pingback: Je Suis Charles Martel | The Catholic Legate
  • We have yet to see the impact of eccumenism, tolerance,and the “who am I to judge” mentality that has been totally misunderstood. Christians are contributing to their own persecution and destruction, Kyrie Eleison!

  • Msgr Anthony Spinosa: “We have yet to see the impact of eccumenism, tolerance,and the “who am I to judge” mentality that has been totally misunderstood. Christians are contributing to their own persecution and destruction, Kyrie Eleison!”.
    .
    It is Pope Francis’ job to give us, the laity, “understanding”, wisdom and understanding. Failing this, what has anyone to do with ecumentsm if it only brings chaos and conflict and division?

  • Pingback: Islam vs. Secularism vs. Christianity - BigPulpit.com

Jihad, U. S. Branch

Tuesday, September 2, AD 2014

Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, suggests that if you are not nervous about Jihad, you probably should be:

You might want to look into the idea:

Columbus [Indiana] Police said they’ve never had anything like it – three churches vandalized in the same night.

Someone spray painted them on the outside. It’s the words used, though, that have some people asking if this was more than a prank.

“It was just one word. It said ‘Infidels!’” Father Doug Marcotte said of what was spray painted on Saint Bartholomew’s Catholic Church in Columbus overnight Saturday.

Parishioners saw that, along with the word “Qur’an 3:151″ on their way into mass Sunday morning.

“It’s certainly not a warm and fuzzy verse. It talks about the infidels, their refuge being the fire,” explained Father Marcotte.

Specifically, that passage of the Qur’an reads: “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.”

Saint Bartholomew’s wasn’t the only Columbus church vandalized.

“It’s really bizarre and the fact that they hit two other Christian Churches. It’s not like we’re all in a line. So why did they pick the three of us?” asked Father Marcotte.

Outside East Columbus Christian Church and Lakeview Church of Christ, members there found the same kind of graffiti Sunday morning.

Continue reading...

48 Responses to Jihad, U. S. Branch

  • Good to see the response of the Islamic Society of Columbus. It wouldn’t shock me at all to learn that the perpetrators were not Muslim, but simply agitators looking to stir up controversy and trouble. And with no more care, than a delinquent pulling a fire alarm.

  • “but simply agitators looking to stir up controversy and trouble.”

    Yes, no doubt simply the fault of outside agitators rather than the adherents of a faith that view Christians and Jews as enemies and infidels.

  • – Or maybe it was a unruly group of cloistered nuns out of their cells for a bit of mischief.

    Wake up and smell the Koran.

    Please thank your President for the warm welcome of this ideology into a once God fearing Nation. Remember…”we are not a Christian Nation.”

  • I’m in Peoria, Il., and there’s a mosque only 3.5 miles from where I live. I didn’t even know it was there until an old friend of my family told me about it. Heck, they even had the street it’s on renamed Salaam Dr.! I wonder how soon will I see Quran verses sprayed on the walls of local churches?

  • “Our community condemns such actions and believes that Columbus is not a place for such a behavior.” Does that imply there is a place for such behavior? Mosul? Damascus? London? New York? St. Lawrence of Brindisi, pray for us.

  • “Specifically, that passage of the Qur’an reads: “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.” “Qur’an 3:151″
    .
    Allah will not be pleased to be used by those inflicting their own will as the will of Allah. The passage applies directly and correctly to those individuals who use Allah as an excuse to do what they will outside the law. How do these people know what is in the heart and mind of any other person? Calling another person “infidel” means that one knows what is in the heart and mind of that person. This is only possible for God.

  • If your members of Catholic Daughters and Knights of Columbus aren’t packing heat in the parish’s parking lot during masses and have a phone to call 911 ready-to-hand…

  • I’ll be impressed when The Islamic Society of Columbus, Indiana pays to clean away the vandalism. Until then, meh.

  • Everyone is so amazed that I express skepticism that Muslims were behind this. Don et. al. did you read the article linked to in the column and in particular the words of Fr. Marcotte? Remember him? The one whose parish was defaced? He wasn’t quite as sure as all of you, or evidently “Defender of the Faith” Johnson. From Fr. Marcotte: “…is this someone that’s trying to incite people against Muslims? I mean I DON’T KNOW.” (emphasis mine). No he doesn’t. And until an arrest is made neither do you. Until then I’ll suspend my outrage. Like Fr. Marcotte.

  • Of course until the culprits are apprehended no one does know who they are. However, to immediately assume that muslims are not behind this and that instead mysterious outside agitators are, strikes me as ludicrous, no matter who makes that particular leap in illogic. If someone vandalizes a Church and cites the Koran, I will assume that muslims are behind it, unless other evidence arises to prove the contrary.

    Such vandalism of churches is an every day occurrence in lands where muslims are in a majority. It helps remind Christians luckless enough to live there of their dhimmi status. This is not unusual conduct at all for radical muslims to engage in.

  • It is certainly possible that this was a “false flag” sort of thing to raise resentment (not that much help is needed with co-religionists like ISIS around). But a reflexive “no true Muslim could this” approach isn’t all that plausible either.

  • I do agree with c matt that a reflexive “no true Muslim could do this” approach isn’t called for, but the whole point is that the police are investigating and the parish priest is withholding judgment. Would it kill us to do likewise until an arrest is made? And Don is certainly right about the plight of Christians in Muslim nations, but I want to be careful not to fit an incident in a mid-size Indiana city having what is likely a small Islamic population, into that horrific broader narrative without more facts. I have learned over the years not to react viscerally just because a story or column in the media suggests that I should. There will be a time and manner to deal with the perpetrators if and when they are caught. In the meantime justice demands that we not rush to judgment. I think our Faith demands no less of us.

  • Outside agitators like who? Reminds me of that term “plausible deniability”.. a kind of semantic and false game sometimes played.
    Yes the evidence is so far just circumstantial. Some are hesitant to call a spade a spade even when their common sense tells them the truth.
    That lofty position of non -judgment is not always good! Realize that even if and when arrests are made and people are officially accused, it will still be technically possible to be in willful denial about blaming jihadist muslims.

  • Who could our hypothetical agitator be? Got me. Do an internet search of “graffiti hoaxes” and see what you come up with. Maybe it’ll be one of them. Or better yet don’t bother. Wait until the crime is solved and then we won’t have to guess. Nor will we have to be in denial, willful or otherwise, about the identity of the perpetrator and what their likely motivation was.

  • I share your concern w/our inane immigration policy; however, the presence of a Muslim center is not so much an indictment of our suicidal immigration policy as it is an indictment of our prison policy. Consider that a large number of Muslims in this country are a product of prison conversions, and in fact these new members are often blessed w/the zeal of the new convert, so i i’m laying odds, that’s who i’m laying odds on.

  • Yes, it could certainly have been done by actual jihadist Muslims, but I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that ordinary non-Muslim troublemakers are “not literate enough” to quote the Quran. Copies of the Quran aren’t that hard to find. And if conversions to Islam among prison inmates are as common as indicated above, who’s to say that a friend or relative of an ex-con, who is still hanging around with unsavory companions, didn’t get the idea from reading said friend/relatives copy of the Quran?

    All I’m saying is that we can’t rule out any possibility, including the possibility that it was done simply by some jerk who wanted to see people freak out and NOT necessarily by a serious jihadist bent on warning the people of Indiana that it was time to convert or die.

  • Occam’s Razor doesn’t always arrive at the right answer Elaine, but it usually does. If some vandal cites the Koran I am going to assume he was a Muslim until evidence to the contrary is discovered. Prison conversions to Islam are rare, unless one is talking about the Nation of Islam which is to actual Islam as Roscicrucianism is to Catholicism.

  • We in the U.S. have had the airline jihad on 9/11/2001, the IED jihad at Times Square and the Boston Marathon, multiple examples of parking lot and college campus SUV jihad, the Washington DC Beltway sniper jihad, and many examples of stillborn jihad thanks to the FBI. There will be more. Does anyone really think that it matters if this graffiti was put there by some smart-aleck kids, or not?

  • What matters most?

    TomD points to recent incidents here in the land of the free. It’s a war that’s been waged on Christianity for centuries and it’s now in our backyard.

    Q: Do we become desensitized to any form of hatred toward Christianity?

    Q: Do we prepare by steadfast faith in the possibility of red martyrdom to come?

    Will the most popular newborn male name be Mohamed in these United States? If so, is it because it invokes a message of peace, or rather a message of world conquest and domination.

    Only time will tell.

  • While the certainty of facts and the identity of the culprits are being developed in this matter, Chris C’s mock-shock at the likelihood of a Catholic Church being vandalized by Muslim youth, esp. given the facts so far, is hard to sustain.

    For what it is worth, in Belgium (particularly around Genk and the urban areas of Brussels) where one of my daughters lives, it is so common for Muslim youth to spray paint the Catholic Churches with Quran citations and threats that most of the churches now have locked cyclone fences surrounding them during the week or after morning services (in particular you can see this at the main parish church in Genk). So many youth that are Muslims have been apprehended that to believe otherwise as to whom is behind the matter is a practiced blindness that must take a lot of energy to maintain.
    So now it has come to America—as has been promised by the imams. So now open your eyes.

  • Steve, do you think you know more about the situation than the folks in Columbus, Indiana? Fr. Marcotte of St. Bartholomew, and a minister at one of the other of the vandalized churches probably know their community, including their Islamic neighbors a lot better than you do. They are withholding judgment and giving their neighbors the benefit of the doubt. Why can’t you?
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/indiana-churches-hit-vandals-quoting-koran-article-1.1924890

  • chris c., haven’t you learned anything about Islam since 9/11/2001?

  • Stephen, I guess I have learned about as much as Fr. Marcotte. Enough to continue to act like a Christian, by the grace of God, “in season and out.” In this case it means withholding judgment and being careful not to condemn until all the facts are known. Perhaps you and others have been busy learning something else.

  • Mr Dalton, you don’t understand: it isnt sufficient for one to choose to be blind, but you too must share his blindness.

    “To believe otherwise as to whom is behind the matter is a practiced blindness that must take a lot of energy to maintain.
    As in Genk, as in Brussels, as in Paris, So now it has come to America—as has been promised by the imams. So now open your eyes.”

  • chris c.

    Cool heads in this case is good advice.

    Losing your head from the sword of a coward is a reality. No question about it. This early determination on the culprit (s) is speculative and if your false flag idea proves true then shame on me.

    Beheadings are evil. The emotions are running high. No excuse to rush though.

  • chris c., Christians are told to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents. Please stop dropping the wisdom part from your homiletics. Christians cannot, must not, turn a blind eye to the evils perpetrated for Islam, and so cannot turn a blind eye to the potential for Islamic violence in many Muslims who until now have never committed such acts. I refuse to prejudge any Muslim as a potential jihadist, but I refuse to prejudge a Muslim to not be a jihadist either. All the evidence in the world shows that there are many shades of gray in Islam.

  • Tom, as it pertains to this case, I’ll do my best to maintain the same level of Christ-informed wisdom as exhibited by Fr. Marcotte in his comments. No more and no less. My interest in this discussion is about the specific matter in Columbus Indiana. A broader discussion about Jihad or Islam is for another day as far as I am concerned. My comments relate to 3 churches in Columbus Indiana, and the distinct possibility, as noted by Fr. Marcotte and the pastor of another defaced church, that indeed this MAY not be as it appears. Or maybe it is. Who knows until an arrest is made. But it sounds as if you and a few others maybe the ones who are too innocent. Graffiti+Defaced Church+Koran verse = Jihad. Maybe. Maybe a “false flag” provocation. There have been enough hoaxes, some involving graffiti, some not; to make it wise to withhold judgment.

  • TomD, Gnostics have wisdom that you and I do not. Also, a lack of curiosity as to the fact that 3 Christian churches were vandalized but no mosques. However, Columbus, IN, unlike most rural Indiana towns, does have a putative mosque, the Islamic Society, right in downtown, at 23rd & Chestnut. Oh, by the way, it is about 8 blocks from St. Bartholomew’s Church (.6 mi). Oh, by the way the other two churches are about 5-8 min. short drive, all within about 3 mi. of the Islamic Society site. Just a coincidence.)
    .
    Oh, by the way,since I am familiar with this part of Indiana,it should be noted that there are no synagogues in Columbus, IN (nearest ones are in Bloomington and Indianapolis), so please note, that is why they werent nailed. In case you non-Gnostics were wondering.

  • chris c., jihad is the central tenant of Islam. All other requirements of Islam, including the Five Pillars, may be excused if excusing them brings victory in jihad. Fatwa after fatwa makes this clear, and any fatwa to the contrary can be viewed as an expression of shirk, which is the greatest sin a Muslim can make (and the reason so many are killed by their co-religious). The deck is simply stacked against decent Muslims who want to live their lives out in any other way. I have no problem seeing a Muslim teen spraying Quranic references on Christian churches in Indiana as fulfilling a minor and relatively harmless jihad. Who knows, he may go to college and make a fortune on Wall Street or do kidney transplants, and never do another act of jihad, but deep down he would know exactly why he did what he did.
    As to the local Indiana clergy, I just have to assume they are like nearly everyone else and prefer not to face unpleasant realities.

  • Pingback: Anti-Christian Hate Crime by Muslims - BigPulpit.com
  • How does anyone know that it was not done by non Muslim warmongers? Could this have been done by those who want war in the M. East but those who are not anything to do with ISLAM. Could this have been done by JEWS?
    I ask all Catholics to remember how our bible and our faith is viewed differently by others who call themselves Christians and how it can be twisted into something unpleasant by those with twisted minds and evil hearts.

  • “How does anyone know that it was not done by non Muslim warmongers?”

    Yes, I can see why you suspect others considering the pacifism rampant among followers of the prophet. Who could possibly think that the adherents of such a peace loving faith could possibly do this? (The obligatory blame the Joos portion of your comment was a nice touch.)

  • UR:

    My money is on teenaged mutant ninja sasquatches with nothing more productive in their minds.

  • Ursula, how many Jews are going around loping off heads, let alone spray painting Quran verses on churches? Until you or someone else can actually prove such alleged claims, sthu!

  • I have to laugh at Ursula R’s comment about the vandalism likely being done by “THE JOOS”, er, “JEWS, as she puts it”: I have a little familiarity with this part of Indiana and I believe she would be hard-pressed to find a resident Jewish person in much of the heartland here/there. But then again, to satisfy her, perhaps those devilishly clever children of Abraham are at it again, and maybe the Mossad has covered well their tracks— yet again.

  • Amazing that there always has to be someone who must blame the Jews, but the Muslims whose Koran commands them to lie to Jews and Christians, whose Koran tells them to subject Jews and Christians to dhimmitude, whose Koran tells them to slay Jews and Christians by the sword are blameless.
    .
    Yeah. Right.

  • STHU yourself you rude arrogant LP Stephen. Steve, you have to laugh, really intellectual comment or arrogant put down?
    If Jews hate Muslims, as they clearly do with great intensity, leading to loss of life and liberty and loss of land for the Muslims, then surely it would be a really hateful thing to dress up as a Muslim and do something nasty to others so that others hate them too? Now if I were a Muslim and I really hated Jews which really one could hardly wonder at, then it would make sense for me to dress up like one and paint stars with six points onto churches in order to make everyone else hate them too. If someone who had upset me had a big falling out with someone else, if I was evil, I would target that person in order to stitch up the person I was getting revenge on. If I was a black American and I wanted action taken against the Klu klux klan, I could put KKK graffitti everywhere to get them into trouble, If I put on a white gown with hood and I was seen but not caught, they would get into trouble. Evildoing is sneaky and is sneakily done, it is not straightforward and getting others into trouble is more evil than targeting them in an outright way.
    I heard about a Jewish person putting up swastikas near her student living quarters, she was caught on camera.
    Some verses of the Koran were put onto churches, this is more likely to have been done by those who hate Muslims than by Muslims themselves.
    Who is Elliott Shimon?

  • Now if I were a Muslim and I really hated Jews which really one could hardly wonder at, then it would make sense for me to dress up like one and paint stars with six points onto churches in order to make everyone else hate them too.
    Yep, hate of Jews is soooo understandable.

  • Goodbye Ursula. I have zero tolerance for anti-semites. You are banned from this blog.

  • A million surplus Mussies are willing to bear the yoke;
    And, a man is only a man, but a good Mussie is a joke.

    With apologies to Kipling.

  • Don, deleting UR’s posts would be like photoshopping the Quran quotes off of the church photo. Please leave the evidence for all to see.

  • Jesus was a Jew.
    .
    Er, I mean Jesus IS a Jew. After all, He rose from the dead and will never die again and His Mother is certainly Jewish and She is in Heaven with Him.

  • Re. TomD’s cogent comment on “shirk” —i.e.,”… shirk, which is the greatest sin a Muslim can make (and the reason so many are killed by their co-religious).” as a violation to true faith in the oneness of Islam—

    I didnt connect the Qu’ran/Islamic definition to the Merriam-Webster defined definition/origin of the word til reading his post., and our common usage (i.e., “to shirk one’s responsibilities..”)

    Merriam-Webster :
    “In Islam, idolatry and polytheism, both of which are regarded as heretical. The Qu’ran stresses that God does not share his powers with any partner (sharik) and warns that those who believe in idols will be harshly dealt with on the Day of Judgment.

    The concept of shirk has broadened considerably throughout the dogmatic development of Islam, and it has come to be used as the opposite of tawhid (the oneness of God). Different grades of shirk have been distinguished by Islamic law; they include the belief in superstition, belief in the power of created things (e.g., reverencing saints), and belief in those who profess to know the future—all of which pale beside polytheism in seriousness.”

  • Steve: “The concept of shirk has broadened considerably throughout the dogmatic development of Islam”. Exactly right.

    Shirk can now include anything that would constitute what we would term ecumenical outreach. A Muslim who in any way gives any small credence to any other faith can be accused of it. For example, Islam has a version of the Golden Rule, but it is carefully worded to apply only to Muslims. A Muslim who states that the Islamic Golden Rule applies to all of humanity is open to a charge of shirk – unless he proves to his inquisitors that he is engaged in deceit for the sake of jihad. If you are a decent fellow it’s just better to keep quiet and not run the risk.

  • “…all of which pale beside polytheism in seriousness”
    And let us not forget that in Islamic theology the Trinity is a form of polytheism.

  • By the way, TomD, “The concept of shirk has broadened considerably throughout the dogmatic development of Islam”—that is Merriam-Webster “speaking”—note it fast before they are forced to change it!

  • Steve, I think that sentence is already PC. The fact is it “broadened considerably” in the first years of Islam. The broadening was not a linear progression.

Ghanîmah Comes to Rotherham

Sunday, August 31, AD 2014

 

Rotherham, a city of about 257,000 in Yorkshire, England, is a battleground in a war that has been waged for 13 centuries:
More than 1,400 children were sexually abused over a 16 year period by gangs of paedophiles after police and council bosses turned a blind eye for fear of being labeled racist, a damning report has concluded.

Senior officials were responsible for “blatant” failures that saw victims, some as young as 11, being treated with contempt and categorised as being “out of control” or simply ignored when they asked for help.
In some cases, parents who tried to rescue their children from abusers were themselves arrested. Police officers even dismissed the rape of children by saying that sex had been consensual.
Downing Street on Tuesday night described the failure to halt the abuse in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, as “appalling”.
Following the publication of the report, the leader of Rotherham council, Roger Stone, resigned, but no other council employees will face disciplinary proceedings after it was claimed that there was not enough evidence to take action.

There were calls for Shaun Wright, the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire (pictured above, left), to step down after it emerged that he was the councilor with responsibility for children’s services in Rotherham for part of the period covered by the report.

Details of the appalling depravity in the town and the systemic failures that allowed it to continue were laid out in a report published by Professor Alexis Jay, the former chief inspector of social work in Scotland. Victims were gang raped, while others were groomed and trafficked across northern England by groups of mainly Asian men.

When children attempted to expose the abuse, they were threatened with guns, warned that their loved ones would be raped and, in one case, doused in petrol and told they would be burnt alive.

Prof Jay wrote: “No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Ghanîmah Comes to Rotherham

  • “A society that can not protect its kids is a society on its way to extinction.” And remember, right now the most popular boy’s name in England is Mohammed.

  • Yasmin Alibhai Brown (a Ugandan-born British journalist and author, who describes herself as a “leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim, part-Pakistani) had this to say:-
    “The perpetrators are not paedophiles in the normal sense of the word. Racial and cultural odium as much as ugly lust and power drives them to abuse. Most of them are also irreversibly misogynist. It is a lethal mix, this sexist psychopathy.
    I partly blame their families and communities. Too many Asian mothers spoil their boys, undervalue their girls, and demean their daughters-in-law. Within some British Asian circles, the West is considered degenerate and immoral. So it’s OK to take their girls and ruin them further. Some of the most fierce rows I have ever had have been with Asian women who hold these disgusting views.”
    Of the authorities, she says, “White experts and officers have for too long been reluctant to confront serious offences committed by black and Asian people. Such extreme tolerance is the result of specious morality, that credo that says investigating such crimes would encourage racism or enrage community activists and leaders, or, worse, make the professionals appear racist. So, instead of saving children who were being gang raped, drugged, assaulted, threatened and terrorised, they chose to protect rapists, abusers, traffickers and drug dealers. And themselves.”
    http://tinyurl.com/q3jlqlm

  • In a week or two, this horror will be swept under the magic (PC) carpet . . . Some Lower Slobovian, teenage blogger (with 17 readers) will insult Muhammed – paroxysm be on him!
    .
    England doesn’t have the Second Amendment. But, there are large swaths of America where the filthy animals couldn’t get away it.

  • This is the latest in a number of cases to come to light. One of them was in Oxford (what was Inspector Morse doing?) The ever-PC BBC managed to find in Rotherham an Asian woman who claimed (without evidence) that Asian girls were also being abused, so it was not a racial issue. Many of the victims were in local authority ‘care’ after family breakdown, but social services have a culture of treading on eggshells when it comes to dealing with racial minorities. These girls had no parental discipline and the professional care-mongers are incapable and unwilling to exert any control. Occasionally some minion might be held to account, but their grossly overpaid bosses usually walk away with clean hands and are promoted or transferred.

    The Welfare State in the UK has produced a massive army of incompetent and unaccountable public servants. You only have to hear them interviewed to realize that they are not very clever and speak and think in platitudes. A lot of them end up in Parliament and the culture of not accepting blame for anything goes with them. God help us.

  • The Labour Party and the Democrat Party are cut form the same cloth.

  • A crime wave was totally ignored, and soft-on-crime policies allowed vicious violent crime to destroy an urban area, because the political Left wanted to use racial politics to insure its continued position – isn’t that just standard practice in America?

  • Clay,

    Yes it is. Repub Rudy Giuliani beat incumbent Mayor (Obama prototype) David Dinkins and reversed the demise of NYC. After 20 years (Rudy: 8, Midget Mike 12) of policing, (Red Dawn) Bill DiBlazio and blood-thirsty Rev. Al will get killed a couple thousand (more than otherwise) minority, NYC youths.

  • I read the Law and Freedom Foundation’s report on Rotherham. Lots of references to “men who regularly collected [girls] from residential care homes.”

    And so, the tragedy of the commons.

    And people wonder why Catholics insist on preserving the sanctity of the family ideal toward which we can all strive: one man, one woman, caring for their children.

    An interesting subplot from the LFF report is that the Sikh community fought back, bravely, without any help from the government.

  • Pingback: Patriarch Calls for Eradication of Islamic State - BigPulpit.com
  • Political correctness has a cost in human suffering. It’s just a shame that
    only some of the people responsible will see justice. Most of the apparatchiks
    who demanded the institutionalized blindness and outright dereliction of
    duty this scandal required– well, those people will still be writing policy
    for their bureaucracies years from now.
    .
    Britain has a similar institutionalized blindness/ PC insanity when it comes
    to female genital mutilation as practiced by the nation’s “Asian” population.
    In 1985 Her Majesty’s government passed a law criminalizing FGM. In the
    30-or-so years since then, it has been estimated that 6,500 girls each year
    are at risk for FGM. It is widely known that “cutting parties” will be held
    where families will pool funds and have a ‘doctor’ flown in from the old
    country to mutilate the families’ girls. Such “cutting parties” are known to
    be most often held during school holidays, to give the girls a chance to
    heal before going back to school. Amazingly, details like this are widely
    known, and there have been numerous government studies of the practice
    as it occurs in the UK– yet in the 30 years since FGM was criminalized, it
    wasn’t until a couple of months ago that anyone has ever been
    prosecuted under the law. That’s right– as far as the police and the
    courts have been concerned, FGM has never once happened in the UK in the
    past 30 years. Not because of lack of evidence, since it’s so widely known
    how and when and where it happens– but because prosecution is
    politically inconvenient.
    .
    For thirty years the PC pharisees have insisted that a blind eye be turned to
    FGM as practiced by Her Majesty’s “Asian” subjects. It’s ironic that many if
    not most of those PC enforcers would describe themselves as ‘feminists’,
    yet they’ve perpetuated the suffering of these women all in the name of their
    ideology. Rotherham is but the tip of the iceberg– the institutionalized
    disconnect from reality demanded by the PC culture has caused untold
    suffering in Britain.

  • Penguins Fan wrote, “The Labour Party and the Democrat Party are cut form [sic] the same cloth.”
    The Labour Party lost its soul, when at Tony Blair’s behest it abandoned Clause Four of it constitution: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

  • Clinton

    FGM is not practised by the Asian community and is unknown on the Indian sub-continent.

    In the UK, it is most widely practiced in the large Somali community, but also by members of the Eritrean, Sudanese and Yemini communities and by some Egyptians and Iraqui Kurds.

    The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 first created a specific offence, although, in 1976 the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland had found the indictment for the common law offence of Demembration of the Lieges of a grandmother, who had mutilated her granddaughter relevant to infer the pains of law.

    The Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 covers arranging the FGM of UK citizens or permanent residents anywhere in the world. This means that prosecutors may now take a wide latitude in averring the locus – “or elsewhere to the prosecutor unknown.”

  • Mr. Paterson-Seymour, FGM is indeed practiced in the Indian sub-continent,
    certainly in Pakistan. There, especially in the southern province of Sindh, it
    is widely practiced among the various minorities who were brought to the
    region as slaves back in the 19th century. The WHO has also documented an
    increasing occurrence of FGM in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. However, you
    are absolutely correct that the vast majority of those who practice FGM in the
    UK are African in national origin.
    .
    MPS, I am sure you would know better than I whether or not the PC term “Asian”
    as used in the UK is used exclusively as a euphemism for Pakistani and Indian
    Muslims or if its use extends to Muslims in general. I am not British.
    .
    In the end, I think my point stands– it seems that the ideology of the PC class
    in Britain would have been threatened by folks speaking frankly about what was
    happening in Rotherham just as it would have been by looking into FGM as it is
    practiced in the UK. And if an untold number of women and children were to
    suffer because the PC mandarins preferred to disconnect from the reality of
    what was going on in order to keep their precious fictions, then the PC mandarins
    appear to have been fine with that.

  • Clinton

    In the UK, “Asian” is used exclusively to describe people from the Sub-Continent, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nor is it confined to Muslims; Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs are included. It is never e used to refer to the Chinese community, for example, nor people from the Arabian peninsula.

    In France, where there have been 100s of prosecutions for FGM, Muslim women’s groups have been particularly vocal in their attacks on “Multiculturalism.” Thus, Sihem Habchi, former President of « Ni Putes Ni Soumises » [Neither Sluts nor Door-mats] has demanded, “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those men who force us to bow our heads”

    She has been echoed by Muslim politicians, notably Rachida Dati, a former Minister of Justice (garde des Sceaux) in the Sarkozy government and by Fadela Amara, a former Secretary of State for Urban Policies. Nor are these lonely or isolated voices. Anyone who knows France and the French press will know that there is great concern about « communautarisme »,by which they mean ethnic and religious solidarities and allegiances that threaten to override Republican unity, whilst politicians, of the Left and Right, berate the perceived racism of “Anglo-Saxon” multiculturalism.

  • It wasn’t all racism on the part of the government. Some of the council bosses were themselves of Pakistani decent. The motives of these particular bosses may have been complex, but ultimately they were siding with their co-religious who were arguably following Quranic verses.

  • An interesting subplot from the LFF report is that the Sikh community fought back, bravely, without any help from the government.

    Well, they knew they couldn’t be accused of racism, unlike the English aborigines.

  • “the Sikh community fought back, bravely, without any help from the government.”

    The Sikhs are traditionally warriors and used to governments that are, at best, useless.

  • The Labour Party lost its soul, when at Tony Blair’s behest it abandoned Clause Four of it constitution:

    The Labour Party lost its soul when it elected to fight political battles by packing the meeting with foreigners. The Democratic Party does the same here. Peter Hitchens has offered a brief memoir of his time as a student pinko and the disposition toward immigration amongst his fellows: they wanted immigration because they did not like Britain, and more foreigners dilutes the influence of native British.

    Compare the biographies of Harry Truman and James Callaghan to those of Barack Obama and the Milliband brothers. That’s what’s happened to the Democratic Party and the Labour Party alike.

  • You might also look at the treatment of Iain Duncan Smith and Sarah Palin in the newspapers. In this country, the public discourse is ostentatiously snobbish in ways you could not imagine in 1975.

  • Supposedly, the department head who looked the other way during this disaster is the same individual who stripped a local couple of their franchise to have foster children and removed the children in their care because that couple were UKIP supporters.

    You cannot reduce the influence and discretion of social workers too much.

  • I think the brave, honorable Sikhs stood by the English during the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny when the East India Company’s mercenary Hindu (new cartridges oiled with beef fat) and Muslim (greased with pork fat),savages based on a butcher’s list of excuses (same same as al Qaeda and ISIS fling about) similarly exhibited their courage toward English women and children.
    .

    Some contemporary Hindu Indians try to deny any good work the Brits may have accomplished, e.g., suppressing thousands of Ma Cali cult murderers and keeping at bay savage Pathans and bestial Russians.
    .

    “Wha’ saw the 42nd . . . “

  • T Shaw

    You are right.

    During the Mutiny, the Sikhs of the garrison at Lucknow remained faithful and the city was relieved by the 93rd Highlanders and the 4th Punjab Infantry. Hope Grant’s cavalry division also included the 2nd and 5th Punjab cavalry and Wale’s Sikh Horse and Campbell’s brigade included the 1st Sikh cavalry, all Sikh regiments.

    It was at this time that the Punjab infantry adopted the pibroch of the Highlanders and their regimental lament is still the heart-rendingly beautiful “flowers of the Forest.”
    http://tinyurl.com/kc5ayh9

  • Violating the sexual integrity of innocent minor children calls to heaven for rectitude. When Allah learns what crimes his followers are committing, Allah will reject them and their deeds.
    Religion is acknowledging the truth and goodness Who is God; loving God and our neighbor as ourselves. Calling our neighbor “infidel” and claiming to know how he loves and thinks, claiming to live his life in his body for him and usurping power of attorney from him is not the way of religion or of Allah.
    .
    Peace at any price is a fancy way of saying cowardice. Throwing our innocent children to Molloch has no decent word to express the supreme idiocy of allowing crime to save oneself. This is nothing but stupidity. Britain has lost its mind and is no long Great.
    .
    n a couple of months this will get blamed on the Catholic Church just like the burning of Rome by Nero and the 800 bodies who never were.
    .
    The American Catholic goes a long way to informing the people of the truth of the matter. Viva Freedom of the press.

  • I suppose these misguided misfits would say regarding Ghanimah and FMG, “It is our custom”. To which the proper reply would be that of the Nineteenth Century British Officer regarding the practice in India of Suttee. To wit, if you erect a pyre to burn a man’s widow at his funeral, I will erect a gallows and hang you. For that is our custom.

  • William P. Walsh: “I suppose these misguided misfits would say regarding Ghanimah and FMG, “It is our custom”. To which the proper reply would be that of the Nineteenth Century British Officer regarding the practice in India of Suttee. To wit, if you erect a pyre to burn a man’s widow at his funeral, I will erect a gallows and hang you. For that is our custom.”
    .
    bears repeating

  • Pingback: A Tale of Conquest? | The American Catholic

MSNBC Talking Heads: Koran Holier Than the Bible, or Something

Tuesday, April 5, AD 2011

Warner Todd Huston reports on an exchange between MSNBC fill-in host Chuck Todd and Time Magazine’s World Editor Bobby Ghosh.

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that’s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not, it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It’s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you’re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it’s hard to understand if you’re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more, potentially much, much more inflammatory than…

TODD: Directly attacking… directly attacking God.

GHOSH:…than if you were to burn a, burn a Bible.

TODD: … Directly attacking God.

The stupid, it hurts.

This is a nonsensical distinction.  Jews and Christians may acknowledge that the Bible was physically written by men, but we also believe that it is the inerrant word of God.  No, the biblical authors did not act as mindless stenographers transcribing for the Almighty, but they were truly inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.  This makes it no less sacred or less holy to us than the Koran is to Muslims.  After all, there must be some reason that we place our hands on the Bible when we make public oaths, right?  If it was just a bunch of words written by men, then why would we swear by it?

No, the different reactions to the desecration of our holy books has nothing to do with how we respectively view them.  What they tell us is not that Muslims revere the Koran more than we revere the Bible, but rather that a certain portion of the Muslim population will violently react to any mere insult, and that violent extremists within Islam are looking for any excuse to kill infidels.  But that’s a lot less politically correct of an explanation than the vapidness offered by these two goofs.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to MSNBC Talking Heads: Koran Holier Than the Bible, or Something

  • Hard to tell who is the bigger idiot here, Ghosh or Todd. Let’s call it a tie.

  • Joe,

    As noted, let’s throw Reid into the race.

  • Also, the Bible is correct while the Koran is wrong. So regardless of what the Muslims believe the Bible is infinitely more sacred than the Koran.

  • If those fools attempted to run a blog and post their opinions, they would be completely ignored. No wonder that MSNBC has ratings that would need to grow by 25% in order to reach pathetic status.

  • It is accurate to say that Muslims revere the Koran more than Christians revere the Bible (which is obviously not to say that Christians do not revere the Bible). The way many Muslims view the Koran might be more analogous to the way many Catholics view the Blessed Virgin or even the eucharist.

    Obviously none of this serves to justify the Muslim reaction here.

  • What BA said. (The Eucharist is really the analogy.) And as BA said, it still doesn’t justify the reaction.

  • I would concede that there is slightly more reverence for the Koran on the part of the Muslims than for the Bible for Christians – without getting into distinctions about various denominations and what have you. But from the talking heads one would be left to believe that the Bible is held to be just another book among many and not a source of reverence in and of itself.

  • The Muslim’s hard base reaction to burning the Koran so mirrors the typical NEA war lords on hearing even the threat of negotiating their collective bargaining or a liberal politician at the mention of cutting government spending or fixing Medicare and Social Security, less the beheadings for now of course. But, as the top union boss said on camera recently, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” God help us if our own amundantly blessed citizens compare themselves to the poor dimented souls using their religion as an excuse for violence and plunder.

  • I think the eucharist analogy is correct. Some Jews and evangelicals may hold the Bible to be divine in the same way that Muslims hold the Koran.

    If I heard about someone disgracing (wrong word) the Blessed Sacrament, I wouldn’t attack UN workers. I’d pray for him. The difference is that I believe in a God who suffered indignities and death, largely because of me.

  • Here is an actual letter published in the WSJ:

    “I say to the Western scholars: Do not interpret the Quran for Muslims. We Muslims are capable of interpreting the Quran for ourselves. No other people have shown the level of hostility to another faith as Westerners have shown to Muhammad, the Quran and Islam. It continues to this day. Islam doesn’t need reformation; the Western mind needs reformation about Muhammad, the Quran and Islam.

    “It will be better for both of us.”

    Tahir A. Qureshi; Silver Spring, Md.

    You see the formula. Massacres are regretable. Mass murder is not Islam. But, you richly deserve it. If you fail to “straighten up”, you will get more death and destruction.

    Bill Sr.: The liberals/progressives are working their way up to beheadings.

    “DEATH THREATS AGAINST REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN LEE TERRY lead to extra security.”

    Reportedly, 17 death threats were received by WI state legislators.

    Tea party members are routinely assaulted by union goons.

    Black congressmen fabricate racist slurs and spitting incidents.

    The idiot Jesse Jackson blasphemed Our Lord comparing necessary union curbs to the Crucifixion. At least, the libtard didn’t commit the travesty on Good Friday.

    Ban the Q’ran. Deport terrorist sympathizers.

  • [This is Paul’s thread, but please rein it in T Shaw.]

  • Vatican II is strongly convinced as to the Bible’s being written by God.

    Chapter 3 of Dei Verbum

    11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

    Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EVENING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I think the Pope made pretty much the same point a few years ago. The Bible is revelation filtered through human agency–the word of the Lord in the mouth of the prophet; the Gospel according to Matthew…Each book is a product both of divine inspiration and particular historical circumstances and also, perhaps, individual human personalities. This allows for a difference in emphasis and temperament. It was not the product of a mechanical dictation and should not be received in a mechanical way. . .

    The Koran, on the other hand, is the unadorned word of God, literally transcribed by the prophet. The text is this, and there is no arguing with it. This is an obstacle to rational discussion of religious truths, not only between Islam and other religions but within Islam itself.

  • What Blackadder said @ 12:35pm, and the comparison of Muslim reverence for the Koran to Christian’s reverence for the Eucharist is accurate.

    Robert Spencer is correct in this regard:

    The Qur’an is, according to classic Islamic thought, a perfect copy of a book that has existed eternally with Allah, the one true God, in Heaven: “it is a transcript of the eternal book [in Arabic, “mother of the book”] in Our keeping, sublime, and full of wisdom” (43:4). The angel Gabriel revealed it in sections to Muhammad (570-632), an Arabian merchant. Like Jesus, Muhammad left the written recording of his messages to others. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad did not originate his message, but only served as its conduit. The Qur’an is for Muslims the pure Word of Allah. They point to its poetic character as proof that it did not originate with Muhammad, whom they say was illiterate, but with the Almighty, who dictated every word. The average Muslim believes that everything in the book is absolutely true and that its message is applicable in all times and places.

    This is a stronger claim than Christians make for the Bible. When Christians of whatever tradition say that the Bible is God’s Word, they don’t mean that God spoke it word-for-word and that it’s free of all human agency — instead, there is the idea of “inspiration,” that God breathed through human authors, working through their human knowledge to communicate what he wished to. But for Muslims, the Qur’an is more than inspired. There is not and could not be a passage in the Qur’an like I Corinthians 1:14-17 in the New Testament, where Paul says: “I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)” Paul’s faulty memory demonstrates the human element of the New Testament, which for Christians does not negate, but exists alongside the texts’ inspired character. But in the Qur’an, Allah is the only speaker throughout (with a few notable exceptions). There is no human element. The book is the pure and unadulterated divine word.

    It is why, for example, Muslims will only refer to books as “translations of” the Koran — copies of the divine.

    NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading, but understood from this perspective, you can see why any Muslim might get a tad upset witnessing somebody burning a copy or posts a Youtube video ripping one to pieces.

    Would that all Christians regard the Eucharist with such reverence.

  • Christopher;

    I am of the opinion that beheading and killing innocent people is a tab bit more than being a “tad bit upset”. Please do not diminish muslims evil acts and the loss of life because of their actions by calling muslim behavior a “tad upset”.

    My mother always taught me that “but” erases everything that came before it.

    I can never understand from any perspective why muslims can kill innocent people.

    Would you regard human life with such reverence.

    Please keep carrying the water for muslims. When they come for you do not cry that you did not know. Read about Dhimmi.

  • Catholic Lawyer, you are off base here. Christopher has a brother with the US Army who has fought in the Middle East and who he is very proud of. Christopher fully understands the threat posed by radical jihadists.

    He has also been supportive of Israel in her struggle for survival in the Middle East.

    Here is one of his posts on the subject:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2008/12/30/thoughts-on-israels-war-with-hamas/

    Here is another post on the Catholic Friends of Israel:

    http://catholicfriendsofisrael.blogspot.com/2010/06/israel-confronts-gaza-freedom-flotilla.html

  • If we were to grant that Muslims revere the koran to the same as extent as Catholics are to revere the Eucharist, then it follows that no koran or queeran should be on display in any public library, bookshop, dawa centres etc., for heaven forbid that such an exalted object should fall into the hands of infidels who might trash it like the homosexuals and atheists did to the Eucharist. I’ll be happy with that, but I suspect that almost everyone who has thought about this knows, that the manufactured outrage by muslims is a clear attempt at intimidation of non-muslims. I frankly do not care what Jones does, and the I won’t p*** on a koran if it was on fire, as I see that the main issue here is the special treatment that muslims seek to gain whether passively by their unctious bathos a la Karzai (which is a replay of the drama put on earlier by Imran Khan during the Motoon riots) , or as now increasingly by terrorising and butchering christians.

  • Catholic Lawyer,

    Cool your jets. If you bothered to read my post, you would understand we’re on the same page as far as the killing of innocent people in protest — no matter how great the sacrilege.

  • It is probably accurate to say that the reverence Muslims have for the Quran is somewhat equivalent to that of Catholics for the Virgin Mary or for the Eucharist. Then again, when was the last time you heard of Catholics rioting in the streets over a desecrated Host, or a portrait of Mary plastered with elephant dung? When was the last time you heard the pope or any bishop call upon the faithful to rise up and kill anyone who receives the Eucharist in an apparent state of “manifest grave sin”?

  • There are Muslims who do the beheading, and there are Muslims who condemn them in turn. Lest we forget: Sunni Muslims in Anbar province got fed up with “Al Qaeda in Iraq” and joined General Petreus in rooting them out. Or we can talk about Ahmad Shah Massoud, “Lion of Panjshir” — a Sunni Muslim who fought against the Soviets and stood up for the Taliban, forming the Northern Alliance. It was believed that he had caught wind of and attempted to warn the West about 9/11 and was assassinated.

    Good Muslims? — you bet.

    “Are you happy to meet Allah with this heavy burden on your shoulders? It is a weighty burden indeed – at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people, if not millions [displaced and killed]. And it is all because of the ‘crimes’ perpetrated against civilians by bin Laden’s Al Qaeda on 9/11.”

    Who said this in an open letter to Bin Laden? — a Muslim. Moreover, Salman al Ouda, cited by and influence on Bin Laden.

    I recommend to everybody a reading of Fawaz A. Gerges’ The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global

    Fawaz Gerges’ book on al Qaeda and the jihadist movement has become a classic in the field since it was published in 2005. Here he argued that far from being an Islamist front united in armed struggle, or jihad against the Christian West, as many misguided political commentators and politicians opined, al Qaeda represented a small faction within the jihadist movement, criticized by other groups who preferred to concentrate on changing the Muslim world, rather than attacking the Far Enemy and making the fight global. In the intervening years, with the advance of the ‘War on Terror’ and the invasion of Iraq, much has changed and, just as Gerges showed, al Qaeda’s fortunes have taken a significant downturn. Revisiting The Far Enemy in this new edition, Gerges demonstrates that not only have the jihadists split ranks, but that voices from within the ultra-religious right, those that previously supported al Qaeda, are condemning its tactics as violent, unethical, and out of accord with the true meaning of jihad. In fact, millions of Muslims worldwide have rejected al-Qaeda’s ideology and strategies and blame Osama bin Laden and his cohorts for the havoc the organisation has wrecked on their communities. Al-Qaeda is now in the wilderness suffering massive erosion of authority and legitimacy in Muslim eyes and facing a fierce revolt from within. As Gerges warns, the next US administration would do well to use political and socio-economic strategies rather than military means to ensure that it stays there.

    Gerges makes a convincing case that the “identity crisis” within Islam extends even to the ranks of the Islamists themselves.

    Rage on against “the Muslim horde”, but I think it is to our benefit that we pay attention to the nuances, the distinctions, the complexities of Muslims and within Islam itself.

  • “Then again, when was the last time you heard of Catholics rioting in the streets over a desecrated Host, or a portrait of Mary plastered with elephant dung? When was the last time you heard the pope or any bishop call upon the faithful to rise up and kill anyone who receives the Eucharist in an apparent state of “manifest grave sin”?”

    Elaine — I couldn’t agree more, and precisely the point of my own post on the topic.

  • Donald;

    Thank you for your perspective. You are normally a very reasonable but in this instance I think you are mistaken.

    Please re-read Christopher post. He is rationalizing why Muslims are killing innocent people. He is asking us to look at it from their perspective – which is to kill innocent people who had nothing to do with burning a book, be it holy or not. With all due respect to Christopher as a fellow human being, he uses the word “but” in his argument hence my comment on the affect of that word. Lets look at what rationalize means:

    ra•tion•al•ize is to ascribe (one’s acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization)

    He is asking us to look at killing innocent life from the Muslim perspective. That “NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading”, BUT if we could only be enlightened enough to see it from the Muslim perspective their action would make sense. I am sorry but it does not make sense to me – maybe I am just slow and not as enlightened as some but God made me how I am.

    Christopher;

    Thank you for your concern about my jets but they were not in need of cooling. Just as I cannot understand why a baby can be killed (aborted) so to do I fail to understand why Muslims can kill innocent people. Again, I cannot understand from any perspective that it is justifiable or understandable to kill innocent people no matter what someone else did. Just because some fool in Florida burned the Koran does not make it okay for some one else thousands of miles away to kill innocent people. Muslims must take ownership of their actions – not claim it is the will of God (Inshalla). I hope you will not next tell me that I need to understand from a rapist’s perspective why they raped a person no matter what type of clothes the victim was wearing.

  • To explain why Muslim A would be upset over the burning of the Koran is in no way to rationalize why Muslim B would *kill* innocent people.

  • Thank you Chris (Burgwald).

    I said as much in the prefix to the sentence Catholic Lawyer is citing:

    NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading, but understood from this perspective, you can see why any Muslim might get a tad upset witnessing somebody burning a copy or posts a Youtube video ripping one to pieces.

    I’d also refer Catholic Lawer to this post:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/04/05/on-the-muslim-response-to-terry-jones-quran-burning-a-reply-to-rich-sanchez-huffington-post/

    Where I am making the same point: protesting sacrilege cannot be taken as grounds for murdering the innocent.

  • What Chris Burgwald said.

    I would also ask the Catholic Lawyer to take note of my disclaimer …

    NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading, but understood from this perspective, you can see why any Muslim might get a tad upset witnessing somebody burning a copy or posts a Youtube video ripping one to pieces.

    — and to please read the prior post as well: On the Muslim Response to Terry Jones where I specifically dispute the notion that protesting sacrilege is legitimate grounds for murdering the innocent.

  • Christopher;

    Words have meaning. Look at what you really said “NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading, BUT understood from this perspective, you can see why any Muslim might get a tad upset witnessing somebody burning a copy or posts a Youtube video ripping one to pieces.” (Emphasis added).

    But defined:

    CONJUNCTION:
    1. On the contrary: the plan caused not prosperity but ruin.
    2. Contrary to expectation; yet: She organized her work but accomplished very little. He is tired but happy.
    3. Usage Problem Used to indicate an exception: No one but she saw the prowler.
    4. With the exception that; except that. Often used with that: would have joined the band but he couldn’t spare the time; would have resisted but that they lacked courage.

    So lets write what you really said “NOT that this is grounds for the behavior of those doing the beheading, EXCEPT THAT understood from this perspective, you can see why any Muslim might [kill] witnessing somebody burning a copy or posts a Youtube video ripping one to pieces.” If this is not your intended meaning then you should be more careful in what you are writing.

    Men of good will can disagree and still treat each other with common courtesy and respect.

  • Sorry “definition” not defination – my bad

  • Good grief, do you have a vendetta or something?

    What Chris Burgwald said @ 3:25pm.

    And did you bother at all to read my post? – http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/04/05/on-the-muslim-response-to-terry-jones-quran-burning-a-reply-to-rich-sanchez-huffington-post/

  • Chris, isn’t it fun to be accused, on one thread, of being an apologist for Islam, while on another thread someone tweaks you for making a religious issue out of supposedly political and tribal slayings?

  • The Internet: A place where people who want to misunderstand you, will.

  • Christopher;

    I may have misunderstood your post but I am not alone. I come to this conclusion because
    1. Other people on this site have; and
    2. I asked others to read your posts and they came to the same conclusion that I did. Admittedly, the people I asked are of similiar temperment and mind set as I. In thier defense, they are highly intelligent and highly educated (not that these two are necessarily related).

    If your position is to compliment or remind other of those Muslims that have not reacted violently even when provoked then you should make this point more clearly. I know you have in other places but, I know this will come as a shock to some, not everyone reads all the posts here

    I did not intentionally misunderstand your post but took it at face value. It says what it say. If what it says is not how it should be interperated then please speak more clearly.

    I am sorry that you feel that having a discussion about the use of words amounts to a vendetta or something. I cannot prevent you from feeling this way. I would hope you understand that it was and is not my intent. Christopher, we are both brothers in Christ and I hold no ill will towards you. I would hope that if we ever met we could be friends.

  • “Christopher, we are both brothers in Christ and I hold no ill will towards you. I would hope that if we ever met we could be friends.”

    Thank you, the feeling is mutual.

  • Good on you, CL.

    Let me explain *my* reaction–I’ve long thought that Chris Blosser was one of the five sanest men on the internet (honest–it’s not a backhanded compliment). The idea that he-of all people-would be thought of as apologizing for religious terror…astounds.

  • I’ve long thought that Chris Blosser was one of the five sanest men on the internet…

    Hear, hear.

63 Responses to The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy

  • My understanding is that the mosque wouldn’t be built on Ground Zero but several blocks away. Why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so is not quite clear to me.

  • Legally, they have every right to do so (build a mosque).

    As to the distance from Ground Zero, my impression was that it was only a block away if that.

    Not really sure to the distance.

  • Why we fight: We need to see that video every day until the war is won.

    BA: Clearly, you do not know the gang behind this travesty is called “The Cordova Initiative.”

    Where do you suppose they are going to get the $100,000,000 to build the blasphemy?

    Do you know what Cordova means to the jihadi?

    It recalls the Mohammedan conquest and rape of Spain for seven centuries from circa 700 to 1492.

    They don’t have a right to rub their murderous paganism in our faces. I was there both in 1993 qnd 2001. And, I knew men and women who were massacred.

    It must be nice to view 9/11 as a boring History Channel mini-series they re-run once a year in September.

    It must be to be at peace.

  • I don’t see that this is necessarily a problem — and more to the point, while I would agree with the Muslims quoted in the article Don links to that this is probably a bad idea, it would strike me as intensely un-American to deny a specific religious group permission to build a place of worship on a piece of land that they’ve bought simply because we feel sensitive about the locale.

    Also, while I think it’s important that we not deceive ourselves about the extent to which military jihad and theocracy are native to Islam, it would also be a serious mistake to consider the US to be at war with Islam as a whole or with all Muslims. To the extent to which Muslims are prepared to exist peacefully with or in the US (and most are), we should welcome that.

  • Clearly, you do not know the gang behind this travesty is called “The Cordova Initiative.”

    I’ve never heard of the Cordova Initiative. Were they somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks? Cause the video says that “they” attacked us on 9/11, and now “they” want to “celebrate” by building the mosque.

    Do you think (can any reasonable person think) that the purpose of building this mosque is to celebrate 9/11?

  • “I don’t see that this is necessarily a problem — and more to the point, while I would agree with the Muslims quoted in the article Don links to that this is probably a bad idea, it would strike me as intensely un-American to deny a specific religious group permission to build a place of worship on a piece of land that they’ve bought simply because we feel sensitive about the locale.”

    A very reasonable point, DC. Thank you!

  • Blackadder,

    No reasonable person would think this is to celebrate the 9/11 attacks. The problem is that committed Muslims aren’t reasonable, so, yes, they are erecting this to celebrate their greatest salvo in the war against the West. Religious freedom in the United State of America, is freedom to practice religions that are compatible with Judeo-Christian tradition, not necessarily of the same theology, but the same cultural principles – Islam is not.

    Darwin,

    Islam lives peacefully with Dar-Al-Harb, the House of War (the West, us) only to the extent that it is pragmatically necessary in order to gain the upper hand. When they think they can conquer, they will. It is pillar of the ‘faith’. We are commanded to go and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost – we conquer with Love. They are commanded to conquer by the sword and slay all enemies, although Jews and Christians may be allowed to live as slaves.

    How do you suggest we peacefully exist with that mentality?

  • AK is correct about Dar-al-Harb.

    Muslims are instructed to lie and live among infidels until they become the majority.

    That’s at least according to Bernard Lewis and Robert Spencer, both experts on Islam and the Middle East.

  • No reasonable person would think this is to celebrate the 9/11 attacks. The problem is that committed Muslims aren’t reasonable, so, yes, they are erecting this to celebrate their greatest salvo in the war against the West.

    The guy in charge of the proposed community center is named Feisal Abdul Rauf. Here is an article by Mr. Rauf from last year arguing against prohibiting alcohol based on Sharia. Sounds like a real extremist.

  • Blackadder,

    You are employing reason as we understand it from a Christian perspective. That is not how the Muslim mind thinks.

    Muslims are commanded to employ taqiy’ya, loosely translated as concealing or guarding. Practically it means employing deceit to conquer your enemy. ‘Moderate’ Muslims are living pleasantly amongst us simply to be inside the gates to open them for the inevitable attack. Any other view is asking for our destruction.

    The only solution to the problem of Islam is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we cannot sit back and watch as over a billion of God’s children are led into hell. We are obligated to witness to the Truth of Christ to them so that He has an opportunity to save them. Confirming them in their error is akin to desiring their eternal damnation.

  • T. Shaw,

    You should be very careful referring to all Muslims as ‘filthy animals’ – that is an error, it is rude and is probably a sin. Our problem cannot be with Muslims, they are made in the image of God also and we have to look for Christ in them. Our problem is with Islam, which is as much the enemy of the poor, enslaved Muslims as it is ours.

    Tone down the rhetoric. Our Lady loves the Muslims. Muslims also revere Our Lady. She is given the highest honor above all other women, including Mohammad’s daughter, Fatima. We pray, “Blessed art thou amongst women” in the Ave Maria. Muslims actually share that sentiment. Our Lady appeared at Fatima, which is the name of Mohammad’s daughter. She also appeared at Guadalupe from the Sparabic (that is Spanish and Arabic hybrid) Wadi Lupe, Wolf River. She also appeared to a mostly Muslim crowd in Zeitoun, Egypt (Zeitoun is the Arabic for olives, as in the Mount of). She has her eye on Muslims, she will crush Islam and bring the Muslims to her Son.

    When she appears, clothed with the Son, with a crown of twelve stars on her head, what is under her feet?

    A crescent moon. Think about that.

  • It would mean much more to the world, I believe, if Muslims would invest the one hundred million dollars in support of the global war on terrorism as a religious statement that Islam really is about peace; and as an incentive for the Arab nations of the world to do the same.

    Going to prayer isn’t proof of anything.

    The proving of prayer is in the way we live.

  • If someone feels compelled to call all muslims “filthy animals” they will do so at some other blog than American Catholic. T.Shaw, I have unapproved your comment, and for the time being you are on moderation.

  • The mosque would be 2.5 blocks from Ground Zero. It would be in the middle of the block surrounded by buildings so I doubt Ground Zero would be visible from that location.

    [I]magine being Baraheen Ashrafi, nine months pregnant with her second child. Her husband, Mohammad Chowdhury, was a waiter at Windows of the World restaurant, on the top floors of Tower One. The morning of September 11, they prayed salaat-l-fajr (the pre-dawn prayer) together, and he went off to work. She never saw him again. Their son, Farqad, was born 48 hours after the attacks — one of the first 9/11 orphans to be born.

    http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm

    Anyone opposed to the building of the mosque should be able to tell Baraheen Ashrafi that she should not be allowed to worship so close to Ground Zero.

  • And anyone in favor of building the mosque so close to ground zero should explain to Debra Burlingame why this is a good idea:

    “Outraged family members and community groups are accusing a Muslim group of trying to rewrite history with its plans to build a 13-story mosque and cultural center just two blocks from Ground Zero, where Islamic extremists flew two planes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    “This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the attack on the Pentagon that day.

    “I think that it is incredibly insensitive and audacious really for them to build a mosque, not only on that site, but to do it specifically so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened,” said Burlingame, who is co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/plan-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-riles-families-victims/

    This is America, so assuming the building permits are issued, the mosque will be built, and the promoters of this project have every constitutional right to do so. However, that is not the end of this inquiry. To overlook the role that Islam played in the attacks on 9-11 is to be historically blind. Are all Muslims to blame for the attack? Of course not. Does Islam have a very long history of justifying such actions as part of conflicts with non-Muslims? Of course. This pours salt on a very raw wound, and the backers of this project are playing with fire. Having a right to do something does not make that action smart, moral or proper.

  • Until I am no longer considered dirt by Islam – ie, until I can travel freely and worship freely in Mecca as a Catholic – then Moslems can go jump in a lake as far as I’m concerned in such matters. They get to build their Mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a Church in Mecca.

  • I’ve been told that we can built a church in Mecca when they can build a mosque in Vatican City.

    Don, we should be required to prove that our chosen location for a church is a “good idea”? The burden is on the opponents to show that it’s a bad idea. Why is it insensitive to build a mosque near Ground Zero? That might make sense if the mosque was to preach that 9/11 was good but there is no indication that that’s the case.

    There’s nothing immoral about it. Saying it’s not smart or proper sounds an awful lot like the criticisms leveled against the Holy Father when he spoke about Islam. “It wasn’t wrong but it was unwise and improper.” Maybe the criticism should be directed at the irrationally oversensitive.

  • To the extent to which Muslims are prepared to exist peacefully with or in the US, we should welcome that.

  • MAGISTERIUM SAYS EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH FOR SALVATION, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

    Catholic blogs and websites are still not willing to discuss extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they just accept a secular media interpretation of a Catholic ex cathedr dogma. This has an important bearing on our understanding and relationship with Islam.

    The following is from the blog eucharistandmission
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/apologist-simon-rafe-in-real-catholic.html#links
    ____________________________________________________

    July 15,2010
    APOLOGIST SIMON RAFE IN REAL CATHOLIC DIFFICULTY : MAGISTERIUM SAYS EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CHURCH FOR SALVATION, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

    Apologist Simon Rafe says :

    The teaching of the Church is that a person CAN be saved if they are not a visible member of the Church.
    Lionel: Yes. True. This is not being denied.

    To deny this is to cease to give full acceptance to the Church.
    Lionel: It is not being denied.

    Non-Catholics can be saved, DESPITE their failure to be a visible member of the Church. This is the teaching of the Church.
    Lionel: This is not the official teaching of the Church. This is a popular interpretation.

    I would say everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to be saved and there are no known exceptions. If a person was saved without being a visible member of the Catholic Church it would be known to God only, we cannot know any such case.

    It’s a real Catholic difficulty these days, with the new doctrine, which goes like this: everybody needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire or a good conscience.

    When people say that everybody needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance, with the baptism of desire and a good conscience it could be right or wrong depending on the interpretation.

    1. It is WRONG if they mean that every one does not need to become a visible member of the church. Then this is a new doctrine and contrary to the Deposit of the Faith.

    2. It is RIGHT if they mean every one does have to become a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and if there is anyone with the Baptism of Desire, genuine invincible ignorance and a good conscience it will be known only to God.

    (Note: Above I affirm the Baptism of Desire, invincible ignorance and a good conscience and I also affirm the dogma that everybody needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.)

    The dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.

    ‘…it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.). Ex Cathedra

    ‘…none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation…

    No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” – (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra
    The dogma does not contradict other Church Documents regarding the Baptism of Desire.

    Simon Rafe’s problem is one being faced by many Catholics, including those who have orthodox Catholic beliefs.Some Catholics are describing the situation as ‘a mystery’.So Rafe is only repeating the problem as other Catholics face it i.e everyone needs to be a visible member of the church and everyone does not need to be a visible member of the Church.

    Catholics in erroe interpret the Catechism and the Vatican Council II according to the Jewish Left media and believe there is no other interpretation. Simon Rafe and others needs to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, in line with the ex cathedra dogma which says everyone needs to be a visible member of the catholic Church and there are no exceptions. Simon agrees everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation but when I ask him of Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts this teaching of the dogma he does not answer.

    The Magisterium of the Church cannot reject an ex cathedra dogma.
    So interpret all Church documents according to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    Catholic Church documents say everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell and there is no Church document issued to refute it.

    1. For instance we can misinterpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

    In order for someone to be saved, it explained, “it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church as an actual member, but it is necessary at least to be united to her by desire and longing.”-Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The same message is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    True however this (not receiving the Baptism of water as an adult and being saved) is only known to God. It is not as real as the Baptism of Water. So it was wrong to suggest that everyone does not have to be a visible member of the Church, as if the Baptism of Desire is explicit and visible by nature. So this is a distorted interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office using the Cushing Doctrine. It is heresy. It is clear ‘double speak’. Discerning Catholics consider this new doctrine a hoax, the equivalent of the fabled Emperors New Clothes. Liberals call it a developed doctrine.

    Through his books Fr. Hans Kung uses the Cushing Doctrine, suggesting Lumen Gentium 16 refers to explicit and not implicit salvation, to question the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. He maintains the Kung Deception that the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus after Vatican Council II.

    Without the Cushing Doctrine, one could say: For salvation everyone needs to be a visible (explicit) member of the Catholic Church with no exception and if there is anyone with the Baptism of Desire or who is in invincible ignorance it will be known to God only.

    If this point in the Letter is ministerpreted one could also misinterpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the Church alone saves from the flood like Noah’s Ark and so everyone needs to enter the Ark to be saved. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    N.845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845
    Here we have an interpretation of the Catechism affirming the dogma.

    3.”Outside the Church there is no salvation”

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846
    CCC 846,847 like Lumen Gentium 16 refer to implicit salvation, those saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).They are known to God only.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.-Catechism of the Catholic Church,N.847

    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”-Catechism of the Catholic Church,N.848
    Those saved implicitly (CCC 847,848) for us, they are just a concept, something hypothetical, a possibility. It is not explicit. Since it is not explicit it does not contradict CCC845, 836.It does not contradict Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14 and the infallible teaching outside the church there is no salvation.

    CCC836 which says all people need to enter the Catholic Church include all Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body.
    If CCC 846,847(invincible ignorance etc) referred to explicit salvation, it would be irrational. Since we cannot judge who has a baptism of desire or is in genuine invincible ignorance.It would also mean that the Catechism, which is the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, is correcting and contradicting an ex cathedra teaching. So it would be a rejection of the dogma on the infallibility of the pope.It would mean CCC 846,847 (implicit invincible ignorance etc) is a new Christian doctrine or Christian Revelation.
    Yet this teaching was not mentioned for the first time in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium16).It was referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing. The popes over the centuries always considered those saved by implicit faith as, implicit. Hence the ex cathedra teaching said everyone with no exception needs explicit faith (the baptism of water and Catholic Faith).
    So 846,847 do not refer to explicit salvation. Otherwise it would be irrational, illogical and contrary to the Magisterium of the past and present.
    The Catholic Church is saying everybody needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell.Those who are aware of Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell, definitely.
    CCC is also saying that all non-Catholics in general need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. All. If there is anyone among them with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc (implicit faith) it will be known to God only. We cannot judge.
    De facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
    De jure there could be the probability, known only to God, of someone ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) being saved with implicit faith. God will provide all the helps in the manner known to Him only; it could include explicit faith (the baptism of water).So if someone says the Catechism says that they can be saved who are in invincible ignorance etc, the answer is: ‘Yes, as a concept only. In principle.’ De facto everyone explicitly needs to be a Catholic to go to Heaven is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.(CCC 845).Simon Rafe needs to clarify this point.

    “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).
    In other words everyone needs to de facto be a ‘card carrying member’ of the Catholic Church, everyone needs to have his name on a Parish Register. All who are in Heaven, people of different countries, cultures and times, are Catholics, the chosen people of God, the Elect, the people of the New Covenant. I think Simon Rafe and Michael Vorris would agree here. They recently produced a video on ONLY CATHOLICS IN HEAVEN! ( http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/2Dcfj0PU_JQ ) . It is highly recommended.( I try not to miss Michael Vorris’ videos)

    4.In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the sub title‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’ has been placed over N.846.It should really be above number 845.

    The ex cathedra dogma says everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation. It is in agreement with n.845

    N.845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church….(quoted above in full )
    Here is the ex cathedra dogma:

    1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.

    2.“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.).Ex cathedra.

    3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex cathedra
    – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
    It says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

    So CCC 847,848 must be interpreted as referring to implicit salvation, in ’certain circumstances’ and unknown to us, otherwise it would contradict the infallible teaching.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.-Catechism of the Catholic Church
    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”-Catechism of the Catholic Church
    CCC 847, 848 do not refer to explicit salvation and so do not contradict the dogma. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of. There is no explicit Baptism of desire that we can know of. While implicit Baptism of Desire is only a concept for us. Since it is known only to God.

    So if asked if everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation the answer is YES.

    5. Everyone explicitly needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and those who have the baptism of desire or are invincible ignorance would be known only to God.

    All men are certainly called to this Catholic unity. The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ and all mankind belong to or are ordered to Catholic unity.-CCC 836

    Here again we have an affirmation of the ex cathedra dogma and the word all is used as in Ad Gentes 7.

    6.

    How do we understand this saying from the Church Fathers? All salvation comes from Christ through his Body, the Church which is necessary for salvation because Christ is present in his Church…-CCC846
    Here the Catechism places de jure and defacto salvation together. It does not conflict with the ex cathedra teaching that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Catholic Church .We cannot personally know any cases of a genuine invincible ignorance, baptism of desire or a good conscience.

    7.

    However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God’s will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848
    Those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved -and this does not conflict with the ex cathedra dogma that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell. It is a conceptual, de jure understanding.

    8. CCC 1257 The Necessity of Baptism

    CCC 1257 affirms the dogma when it says that the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water. This is a reference to explicit salvation for all with no known exceptions.

    CCC 1257 also says that for salvation God is not restricted to the Sacraments. This must not be interpreted as opposing the dogma or the earlier part of CCC 1257. This is a possibility, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and we cannot judge any specific cases. Th Baptism of Desire is never explicit for us humans.
    I repeat the Church refers to the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 5. The word ordinary is used in RM 55).

    In Dominus Iesus the words de jure and de facto are used in the Introduction.

    In CCC 1257 we have the baptism of water as the ordinary means of salvation for all people with no exception.

    In CCC 1257 we also have those saved with implicit faith (invincible ignorance,BOD etc) as the extraordinary means of salvation.(‘God is not limited to the Sacraments’).

    VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

    1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257

    The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 while affirming the dogma and the need for everyone to be a visible member of the Church to go to Heaven with no exceptions- also says that ‘in certain circumstances’ a person can be saved with implicit faith, if God wills it.

    However, those, who through no fault of their own do not know either the Gospel of Christ or his Church, can achieve salvation by seeking God with a sincere heart and by trying to do God’s will (Second Vatican Council). Although God can lead all people to salvation, the Church still has the duty to evangelize all men.-CCC 848

    St.Thomas Aquinas says God will ‘provide the helps necessary for salvation’ by sending a person to baptize the one needing help in this extraordinary situation OR telling the person what he needs to do.

    Here we are in a conceptual area, open to theories since this is the nature of the baptism of desire etc which cannot be explicitly known to us humans.
    St.Thomas Aquinas also said that everyone with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation. De facto everyone needs to enter. De jure there could be the man in the forest for St.Thomas Aquinas. He did not have a problem with de facto and de jure.

    On the Saint Benedict Centre website, the community founded by Fr.Leonard Feeney in New Hampshire,USA it is written, that Fr.Leonard Feeney knew that his view on the Baptism of Desire was only an opinion.
    Finally everyone’s view on the Baptism of Desire is ONLY AN OPINION. De jure. This is seen clearly in CCC 1257.
    It reminds one of Jesus’ saying that ‘he who does not collect with me disperses’ and ‘those who are not against us are for us.’

    9.When it is said that only those who know about the Catholic Church need to enter to avoid Hell (Ad Gentes 7) we can mistake this to mean only this category of people are on the way to Hell. Instead we know that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell with no exception ( ex cathedra dogma) and if there is any one among them who is in invincible ignorance etc it will be known only to God.

    Those who are in invincible ignorance can be saved-and this does not conflict with the ex cathedra dogma that everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell. It is a conceptual, de jure understanding.

    So the Catechism is not asking us to reject the notion that one can be saved without the Sacraments according to the ordinary way of salvation. (Redemptoris Missio 55).If one says it does it is a misinterpretation of the Catechism.

    Where it refers to being saved without the Sacraments it is referring to that exceptional case, which in ‘certain circumstances'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) are known only to God. We do not even know if there has been any case of the Baptism of desire during our lifetime.

    A.Practically speaking everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven.

    B.Theoretically (de jure, in principle) a person can be saved through implicit faith (if God wills it) even without the Baptism of water.This is the official teaching of the Church.

    B is in accord with the Catechism which mentions the Baptism of water as a concept (it cannot be anything else other than a concept)

    B is in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney who mentioned the Baptism of Desire (catechumen).It was a concept in his mind (something dejure).

    B is in accord with the website of the Saint Benedict Centre,one of Fr.Leonard Feeney’s communities, which defines the Baptism of Desire. A definition is a concept.

    So when Simon Rafe says in his e-mail to me that ‘Non-Catholics can be saved, DESPITE their failure to be a visible member of the Church. This is the teaching of the Church.’ it is true ( de jure, in principle). However de facto everybody with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church, Jesus’s Mystical Body to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

    -Lionel Andrades

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Simon Rafe

    Simon Rafe is a former undergraduate in the Department of English Language and Linguistics at Sheffield University, England. An immigrant to the United States, he is an adult convert to Catholicism, formerly being what he describes as a “militant atheist”. Simon has been heavily involved in the Internet for over a decade, working as a webmaster and performing web design for several companies in the UK. He is well-versed in the ethos of the “New Evangelization”, having both found his wife and come to know Christ and the Catholic Church thanks to the Internet. He is the author of the book “Where Did The Bible Come From?” and consultant-author for the Saint Michael’s Basic Training series.

    ——————————————————————————–

  • [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dcfj0PU_JQ&hl=it_IT&fs=1]

  • How about we celebrate America’s Christian heritage with a church instead?

  • “Don, we should be required to prove that our chosen location for a church is a “good idea”?”

    Well, yes, actually restrainedradical, if a group of Catholic fanactics, to the strains of Ave Maria, had crashed two airliners into the twin towers and then less then a decade later Catholics wanted to build a grand Cathedral two blocks from the site.

    Of course the comparison breaks down in that I find it hard to imagine any priest, let alone a bishop, who would support such a terrorist act by Catholics, no matter the motivation. Plenty of imams, in this country and abroad, have given at least tacit approval to what was done on 9-11.

  • I’ve been told that we can built a church in Mecca when they can build a mosque in Vatican City.

    The Vatican is a 109 acre site occupied by antique buildings with complimentary plazas and gardens. The City of Mecca extends, per some accounts, over an area of 330 sq miles, and, like any city, makes additions to its stock of buildings each year.

  • How about we celebrate America’s Christian heritage with a church instead?

    I believe there already is a church equally close by to Ground Zero.

  • Blackadder,

    You are employing reason as we understand it from a Christian perspective. That is not how the Muslim mind thinks.

    Muslims are commanded to employ taqiy’ya, loosely translated as concealing or guarding. Practically it means employing deceit to conquer your enemy. ‘Moderate’ Muslims are living pleasantly amongst us simply to be inside the gates to open them for the inevitable attack. Any other view is asking for our destruction.

    Well, gee, if that’s the case how do I know that you aren’t secretly a muslim practicing taqiy’ya?

  • “Well, gee, if that’s the case how do I know that you aren’t secretly a muslim practicing taqiy’ya?”

    Or you BA? Paranoia, it’s not just a game! 🙂

  • “I believe there already is a church equally close by to Ground Zero.”

    Is there a synagogue? How about a Hindu shrine?

  • Allowing the building of this or any other Mosque shows our commitment to religious freedom. Not allowing it “to happen” gives the impression that we don’t take freedom of the religion seriously or that we take it seriously for us but not for them.

  • “Allowing the building of this or any other Mosque shows our commitment to religious freedom.”

    To whom? And to what end? Call it a hunch, but I think the Muslims worldwide who think America got what it deserved on 9/11 won’t react to a 13-story mosque at ground zero with heartfelt gratitude and a new appreciation for Western tolerance, but rather as unmistakable (and further) evidence that Western society is a paper tiger, an apple ripe for the plucking.

    I’m all for religious freedom, but we don’t need to symbolically bend over and clutch our ankles to show our commitment to it.

    We’d do better to show our commitment to religious freedom by, say, standing up and fighting for our own religious values such as the rights of the unborn and the integrity of marriage. Simply preventing the construction of a mosque at ground zero isn’t enough to impress upon anyone that we do in fact take our own religious liberties seriously.

  • “Not allowing it “to happen” gives the impression that we don’t take freedom of the religion seriously or that we take it seriously for us but not for them.”

    If the “Cordoba Initiative”, a name that bespeaks gross ignorance of what Muslim Andalus was actually like, obtains the necessary permits they have every right to construct the mosque, just like the wackos of the Westboro Baptist “church” have the right to protest at the funerals of servicemen. Whether a right should be exercised in a particular case is completely separate from whether a legal right exists.

  • I’m happy for you all. You seem to be able to see ‘it’ – September 11/the Pentagon/World Trade Center – as the plot for boring History Channel specials they rerun every September.

    I know: I need to get over it!

    Well, at the least $100 million (from wherever they obtained it) won’t be used to arm, supply, and train mass murderers. Thank God for small mercies.

    I will join the widows, widowers, mothers, fathers, orphans of the 3,000 victims in whatever they deem approriate.

    Anyhow, there appears to be an amount of ignorance around here.

    Pull your heads out of the sand. The religious war that is now raging around you is far bigger than you know.

  • Yes, T. Shaw. We get it. Only you are seriously passionate about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Those of us who think that calling all Muslims filthy animals is beneath contempt must obviously have our heads in the sand.

    The sad thing is that there is a little bit too much naivety about the threat of Islamism – whether it be expressed here or in the wilder world. Yet there are those who seem to think that anything less than 100 percent, undiluted, RAGE AND HATRED ARGHHHHHH!!!!! is unacceptable. Shouting at the skies might be amusing for a while, but at some point it’s time to grow up. Raging at the world isn’t going to solve problems. I’m not saying we should stifle our passions or walk around like robots, but you’ve gotta channel some of that to more constructive purposes.

  • Is there a synagogue? How about a Hindu shrine?

    I have no idea. And, more importantly, who cares?

  • The enemy lies amongst us. They will continue to out breed us until the day they rise up to take control. It’s not too many years away before they’ll be able to vote whom ever they wish to the highest political seats in our nation.

    “America…it was fun while it lasted”!!!

  • Pat and everyone else,

    America is not Europe.

    What is occurring in Europe will not occur in America because we integrate our immigrants into society. We don’t make entire new neighborhoods for them to reside in as Europe does.

    Granted blue states like California and New York will not integrate their immigrants like the rest of the country, but I guess it is a problem they will need to deal with in the future.

  • We let them build it, not because we’ve forgotten 9/11 or because we think it’ll win world support for us. We let them build it because we’re America, and if we stop them then we’re liars.

    The whole point of this blog is to approach issues from an American Catholic perspective. The implication is that it’s possible to be both American and Catholic. The day we ignore the Constitutional protection of religion in the name of our Faith is the day we cease to be American Catholics.

  • They are commanded to conquer by the sword and slay all enemies, although Jews and Christians may be allowed to live as slaves.

    How do you suggest we peacefully exist with that mentality?

    Because not all of them share that mentality. There is nothing wrong with working with the more “Piskyized” versions of Muslims.

  • Tito –

    I’m not talking about immigrants. These will be American born Muslims, that worship Islam. They will/are out breeding everyone around the world. Like I said, they will be able to take control of the House of Reps., the Senate & ultimately the Presidency of the U.S. just based off the sheer numbers they’re producing.

    “America…it was fun while it lasted”!

  • Blackadder,

    If I am concealing my true intentions because I am a Muslim, then it appears that my secret plot is to NOT build the Mosque at Ground Zero and I am promoting the conversion of Muslims to the Catholic Faith through the intercession of the Blessed Mother of God.

    By their fruits ye shall know them. 😉

    Pinky,

    Religious freedom is limited to authentic religious practices. Satanists desire to sacrifice virgins to Lucifer – do you think we should let them kill virgins in the interest of religious tolerance? How about Rastafarians, should we allow the use of an illegal (well at least still somewhat) mind-altering drug in their practices?

    The attack we endured on 9/11 was perpetuated by Muslim terrorists. Not by terrorists who happen to be Muslim; rather it was their ‘religious’ ideology that inspired them to kill and destroy. At best, erecting a Mosque so close to Ground Zero is in bad taste and it is more likely a beachhead for the battle against the unfaithful infidels who must be subjugated or destroyed (in case you are wondering that is everyone who does not subscribe to the Islamist ideology of the particular terrorist group that committed the heinous attacks, and includes Muslims who tolerate the ways of the West).

    Your opinion, kindly civil sentiment as it is, is grossly naive.

  • AK – In what context to you mean “authentic religious practices”, theological or civil? False religions have no rights in themselves, but they have rights accorded them by human freedom. That’s what a theologian would say, I think.

    As a civil matter, religion isn’t an excuse to break the law. If we had reason to believe that this particular mosque was being used to commit or encourage criminal activity, we’d be right to investigate it and arrest those involved. If you’re worried that they’re hiding something, we can keep an eye on them. But we can’t forbid them from building on the grounds that they’re Muslim. At least not under the current interpretation of our Constitution.

  • Tito Edwards, yes New York will pay soon enough for failing to integrate the Irish, Jews, Italians, and Chinese.

    Fact is we’re never had a problem with people retaining foreign cultures as long as they retain or adopt a common set of core values. There is nothing to indicate that the Muslims who will worship at the mosque do not share our values. In fact, their values are probably closer to conservative Southern values than liberal NYC values. If you talk to Muslim cabbies in NYC (who will probably make up a large portion of the mosque’s congregants), they sound like conservative Southerners with the exceptions of their views on immigration and Israel. I even met one who thought Bush would be remembered as one of America’s greatest presidents for taking down Saddam. Another Muslim cabbie expressed his disgust that an Episcopal church we were passing by was converted into a club. These are hardly the people who are subverting our way of life.

  • RR,

    I’m referring to the “multi-cultural” programs that purposely segregate and demonize “whitey” that is taught in the schools in New York and California.

    I am not familiar with the sample pool of NYC cab drivers and their political leanings.

    Though I know Tijuana taxi drivers and they have a pretty good right hook.

  • RR,

    As a Coptic friend of mine once told me, “Your problem is you think like a Westerner.” Her portrait of living under (and I do mean under) Islam is not flattering. Her experience is probably more informative than a few cab rides in NYC.

  • Way too much education wasted here. Our sense of right and wrong, enshrined in our legal system, will guarantee that when the permits clear, Islam will have it’s Al Aqsa Mosque casting a triumphalist shadow over (or very near) the place of execution of thousands of (mostly) infidels.

    That said, there is no way to turn their intent to erect this hellish monument into anything less triumphalist, even malicious, than Catholic-in-good-standing Nancy Pelosi’s provocative march of the Democrats through those gathered in DC to protest against the passage of the ObamabortionCare bill.

    Our sense of right and wrong will cause us to stand by with our hands in our pockets while those who wish us ill lay the legal, financial, and political groundworks from which they will ultimately bring us into dhimmitude.

  • j. christian, I didn’t know we were talking about Islam in Egypt. I had thought we were talking about Muslims in NYC.

  • And I thought we were talking about Islam, not Muslims.

  • This is not about individual opinions, but demographic changes.

    You meet Muslims who are sympathetic to Christianity when it is attacked by secularism – and you meet Muslims who are allied with leftist radicals against all things Western.

    Today, its sensitivity programs and recognition of holidays. That’s where it starts. Tomorrow, towns with significant Muslim populations start wondering why they can’t have sharia courts for family disputes. The flow of Muslim immigration to the US isn’t like what it is in Europe so we may have a while yet before such things occur. But we may as well take measures against it now – like, perhaps, state laws forever barring the establishment of separate sharia courts. I know people will say our first amendment prevents it. Lawyers will always find a a way to justify anything. What we don’t want in the future must clearly be spelled out now, before some bottom-feeder hoodwinks a judge or jury and establishes a dangerous precedent.

    That’s why I care, Blackadder. Jews and Hindus don’t have a mandate to convert the world by any means necessary. Muslims do. Christians also have a mandate to spread the Gospel throughout the world, but many Muslim states punish both proselytization and conversion from Islam with death.

    I really don’t hate Muslims. I respect them on many levels. But I don’t want their values replacing ours. We don’t have to become hateful savages in our dealings with them, but we need to at least match their level of determination to see their own religion and world view triumph.

  • I don’t think we assimilate like we used to. Even 30 years ago, it was assumed that the first generation would figure out English the best they could, and the second generation would be raised American (even if the family remained in an ethnic neighborhood). These days, we reinforce the “manyness” of the immigrant rather than promote the “oneness” of America. If we don’t stop that, we can’t handle any immigration at all without falling apart. If we return to the idea of assimilation, we can handle a slow influx of any culture.

  • Pinky, know many 2nd generation Americans who can’t speak English? I don’t that’s been an issue since French immigration to New England 100 years ago. Immigrants probably assimilate faster today than ever before.

  • It’s my understanding that there was a much smaller mosque, near the twin towers, and that it was damaged when the airplanes hit. Rebuild the mosque to what it once was, there is nothing wrong with that, but to build a new, much, much larger mega mosque is a slap in the face to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. As someone above said, how would muslims like it if a Cathedral was built at Mecca?

  • Pinky,

    There are a few problems with your line of thinking.

    First, there have only been two authentic religious practices – those of the Hebrews prior to the Incarnation and those of the Catholic Church since. That being said, we are not a Catholic nation; however, we are Christian.

    To be clear in our Christian nation we allow religious freedom, originally that meant that as a matter of culture we allow the different denominations of Christians to practice their own faith – it also meant that we would allow guests to practice what they desire; however guests are not invited to change the fundamental principles of our culture including religious life.

    Something as fundamental to the make-up, the constitution, of each and every one of us as religion is, cannot be multi-cultural. We have to genuinely agree on some basic truths of conduct. The only rules of conduct that are compatible with authentic human freedom are those of mere Christianity (to quote C.S. Lewis). Muslims who practice within the confines of Christian culture are welcome. Yet Christians are barely permitted to be Christians in a Muslim state.

    It is a terrible error to apply Western Christian thought about human dignity, religious freedom, human rights, etc. to the Muslim view. Islam is a conquering religion, at any cost. It is imperial, it is unbridled human passion without the restraints of reason. Do most Muslims practice their religion that way? No. But that doesn’t change what Islam is. Many Muslims do adhere to the jihad between Dar-Al-Islam (the House of Peace) and Dar-Al-Harb (the House of War). You cannot take that lightly. If you do, it is to your own peril. We are commanded to love our enemies, which means we should want them to be saved by the Precious Blood of Christ – without compulsion. But, it does not mean we tolerate their blasphemies, errors, heresies and aggression.

    Furthermore, the civil law is only valid when it is built upon the rock that is God’s Law. What are you going to do when the Catholic Church is declared illegal because she discriminates against women by not ordaining them as priests, or, engages in ‘hate speech’ for her views on homosexualism?

    Most Catholics throughout the world, including China and ALL Muslim controlled lands, practice their faith in secret because to be Catholic is illegal.

    There is no such thing as the CURRENT interpretation of the Constitution – there is only the original intent of the Constitution, properly amended. The false idea that it is to be perpetually and continuously interpreted is a liberal idea to undermine the very term constitution.

    Patrick Henry said it clearly, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.” (Now there is some dispute as to whether or not he actually said that, or if it was added to one of his letters in 1956 – nevertheless, the sentiment is valid.)

    We can accept certain Muslims into the United States; however, those would be either guests, tourist or laborers who are invited by the employer for a temporary stay and that has to be enforced strictly. Muslims that want to come here to live, would need to choose to live in a Christian culture, which is essentially to no longer desire to be Muslim.

    I agree with your point about assimilation. We are a nation of many elasticities, but we are of one culture – the American culture and authentic American culture is Christian in character and quite compatible and welcoming to Catholics. Of course, we should all remember, sadly many don’t, that we are to uncoercively change the culture toward the one true Catholic faith without being changed by the culture.

  • AK – You raised a lot of issues, but since we disagree on a lot of things, let’s take them one at a time.

    You said that religious freedom is limited to authentic religious practices, and that there is only one such practice at this point in history. But that’s not the same thing as banning the practice of other religions. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines three types of religious toleration: dogmatic, civil, and political. The practice of dogmatic toleration of error is an affront to truth, but civil and political toleration of error are obligations. That’s why I was making the distinction between our obligation as Americans and as Catholics.

    The Summa calls religion a natural virtue, not a supernatural one. I take that to mean that the practice of any religion, even in error, contains an element of virtue. Jacques Maritain says that with respect to God and truth each of us is obligated to follow the true religion, but “with respect to the State, to the temporal community and to the temporal power, he is free to choose his religious path at his own risk; his freedom of conscience is a natural, inviolable right”.

  • Pinky,

    We are Catholics first and from the dogmatic perspective we have to be intolerant. The Spirit of the World stands against God and we are always to seek His Kingdom first. On this I know we agree.

    As for being Americans, well then we have to be vigilant to protect the fragile nature of a free society. Although the natural virtue of religion is admirable in all, after all it is innately human to seek Truth and that is what the virtue of religion is, it is not admirable to twist the virtue into an orientation for anything else. Religion is the justice due to God. For an American to have freedom of religion necessarily means a religion based on truth, not necessarily God’s revealed Truth, but the natural truth that we can know by reason.

    The religion of the atheists can be practiced by good people. If their intellect is acute enough and can see the world as it is, then an atheist can have some sense of morality. They won’t admit it, but that morality would necessarily have Christian elements, although not fullness of truth – that is what Western tradition is all about. Mormons too. They do NOT believe in God as we do, and the ‘revelation’ they received from the mind of Joseph Smith is full of error. Yet, being an American invention, their religion is replete with authentic Christian morals, which is why most Mormons are good people and fully compatible with life in America – religious heresies excepted.

    Islam is like Mormonism in many ways. It was ‘revealed’ to a mentally unstable man by and ‘angel’ and is a horrible heresy. Islam is very different than Mormonism in that Islam demands the conquest of the world by the power of force, terror, fear, plunder, deceit and unbridled human passion. This is incompatible with life in America, with our civic institutions, with our way of life. It cannot coexist in the same culture as anything other than Islam. It is not to be tolerated because it is a dangerous political movement and even the most benign Muslim will eventually face the choice of renouncing their faith (which is a death sentence) or becoming a jihadi. Mohammad left no other option.

    To be ‘tolerant’ of Islam within our country is to tempt God to unleash hell upon us. Perhaps that is what He has in mind. I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be the first time He uses Islam to chastise the children of His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

    As for freedom of conscience as an inviolable right, I do agree; however, keep in mind that when we commit a mortal sin we may be damning ourselves, but we also bring down the whole Church and when we repent all the angels and saints in Heaven rejoice. We do not sin alone, so while we must have freedom of conscience, after all God gave us a free will, we cannot be absolved of the responsibility our individual sins have on others. The sins of Islam have direct temporal and eternal damage attached. Islam calls for the subjugation of all people of the Book and the wholesale genocidal slaughter of ALL others. That means that Islam desires the murder of 60% of the people, 3 billion souls! And the slavery of another billion. Those numbers may be right out of the Book of the Apocalypse and we are to hasten the Lord’s Parousia, but we are not to desire the tribulation that precedes the Return of the King. Islam thrives on violence, discord, domination, rape, theft, plunder, murder and chaos. To let that blasphemy take hold within our borders is suicide. For Muslims, suicide is salvation; for us it is an unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.

    We are at war!

    Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio.

  • It’s not a matter of being “Catholics first”, AK. Obviously, we’re all Catholics first. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be Catholics at all. Given that fact, the question isn’t whether we choose to be dogmatically intolerant, civilly tolearant, or politically tolerant. The question is how do we do all three at once.

    I’m no fan of sharia, believe me, and I’m not gullible. I understand the dangers of Islam. But America isn’t at war with a religion.

  • Pinky,

    I try to state the obvious when I post because people who aren’t in the dialogue will read it and perhaps some of them aren’t Catholics or at least poorly catechized Catholics.

    We are not at war with a religion, but we are at war with a violent, dangerous, anti-intellectual (reason), anti-brotherhood (love), anti-Christian political ideology masquerading as a religion. To think we are not is to give in to defeat – in this matter we cannot concede. Our primary battle is within ourselves, but in order to win souls for Christ – our primary mission, we cannot allow an environment that is dangerous to both those outside of Islam as well as those mired in it to grow. Will we win? Ultimately – yes; however, we must remember that our part is in the effort – the victory belongs to God alone. Islam is not to be tolerated.

  • It’s not a Ground Zero mosque… it’s a few blocks away… and if you’ve ever been to NYC, you’d know that a few blocks is a huge distance in such a highly densely populated area. And the Imam heading the project has had his own Sufi-based (y’know…the tolerant, love-all type Muslims) in Tribeca since 1990 (Masjid Al-Farah)… roughly 12 blocks from Ground Zero. Masjid Al-Farah, where he’s given the Friday prayer service for over 20 years is the antithesis to fundamentalist Islam. It’s a seat of the Jerrahi Sufis…lead by two female Shaykhas. Heck, they’ve even had same sex couple blessings there and female-led prayers. Imam Rauf was chosen by the FBI to lead sensitivity training following 9/11 and has been involved in Interfaith issues for years. He’s very well-respected among the NYC Interfaith crowd.

    It’s not the same as building a Church in Mecca… nor is it the same as building a mosque in Vatican City (which would be similar). Although you may not know this, people like Imam Rauf are hated by Islamic Extremists far more than non-Muslims. They are viewed to be the kafirs…not Christians and Jews who are viewed as People of the Book. Sufis, liberal/tolerant Muslims are much more enemies of Bin Laden types than you and I. There would be nothing that would bother the Wahabis more than having a Sufi affiliated, Multifaith Islamic Center representing Islam. I say thumbs up. And opposing this mosque, goes against our Constitution. I’d much rather show what true religious freedom is about than unfairly target Muslims–especially those like Imam Rauf.

  • karla,

    You may not have slogged through all the posts, but it is probably worth the time if you have interest in the subject.

    Islam, even Islam as understood by the ‘nice’ Muslims, is incompatible with Western Civilization and especially Christendom. To rationalize any other viewpoint is suicide. Muslims are less than 1.5% of the American population; if ‘tolerant’ people like you keep welcoming more and more of them, that number will grow and the inevitable clash will be a disaster.

    Additionally, I don’t see how Muslims who promote homosexualism are to be held as a sign that Islam is improving. That is some seriously twisted thinking.

  • To prove their love for us, the Mosque proponents seek the civil protection of a fair minded US Constitution which is their right. But will it make us love them? Coming to us outside of the courts and appealing to our Christian duty to love, especially to love our enemies, would have been the better result, if it were for mutual love and respect. As it stands now, we have to love, but we don’t have to like. This manner of action makes me suspect the true motive and I will remain wary, very wary.

    I trust, however, that living long enough in the presence of New Yorkers will have the same “liberating” effect that New Yorkers have had on every monolithic creed they have ever encountered. How long before New York Islam buckles under New York mockery, ridicule, perversion, and defilement? Do you think their grandchildren will be wearing head scarves or jeans? Do you think their children will marry into their faith or be seduced by New York style liberty? We can corrupt the sacred in anyone.

    I also trust that living side by side with committed people of other faiths, persecuted equally by secular society, will lead to personal choices that would not be possible in single faith societies. If the Saudis want to remain Islamic pure, they better not allow any Churches.

  • Woe to us who just don’t get it. Islam seeks to conquer, pure and simple. They will build a mosque in any area they deem significant as a conquest. This is what they do, hence the reason for the mosque on the temple mount in Jerusalem. Anywhere near ground zero, for that matter, the whole of NY City as one of our centers of commerce that represents America, is where they would erect a huge ediface to the glory of their moon rock god (little g) as an insult to us. They would level NYC, then build a new Mecca if they could. We are really the ostridges with our silly 60’s peacenik, hippy, lovefest heads in the sand. They just laugh and praise allah (little a)that our stupidity with our complacent holier-than-thou humanistic, atheistic (a religion by the way), political correctness will lead us to hand over our country (if we don’t wake up!) As to previous posts, if we haven’t already allowed islam (little i) into our political system, we are certainly paving the way.

  • My wife is Muslim (from Lebanon; I am black). The father of the family is a lawyer and the mother is a lawyer. They are living the great American dream– a big screen TV, a German shephard dog in the back yard, a full 401k, a mini-van to bring the kids to footbal practice, the whole enchilada. They also happen to be practicing Muslims. We should not split “us” and “them,” we’re all “us.” Don’t let those criminal terrorists divide our vibrant, learned Muslim community from the rest of America.

  • Max,

    I’m 100% with you.

    Freedom of Religion is a right! The builders behind the Ground Zero Mosque have every right to build their mosque.

    My personal opinion is that the mosque should still not be built near Ground Zero. That’s me practicing my free speech rights.