07 April 2006

Chronicle of the Damned, part 9


"Roman Catholic Womenpriests"
(Yes, this is the actual name of the organization, and no, they don't put a space between women & priests.)

Where do we start with this? Like the Dutch, their crimes are without number. A glance at their website provokes laughter, which suddenly turns into sadness mingled with scorn as you realize it isn't a joke. Quickly, you start laughing again so as to keep from crying. Surely, you think, this must be a fantasy or a prank. You click your browser's refresh button frantically, thinking there must be some mistake. It just has to be.

But it isn't.

The mosaic image at the top of their homepage is meant to suggest some sort of historical allusion along the lines of "the original Church did [fill in the blank], but the practice or belief was snuffed out by the reactionary/patriarchal hierarchy. Such baseless drivel is endless, it seems. In this case, the "fill in the blank" is women's ordination. Faithful Catholics and Protestants alike are united against this idea.

"The goal of the group "RC Womenpriests" (Roman Catholic Womenpriests) is to bring about the full equality of women in the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time we are striving for a new model of Priestly Ministry." Ordination isn't about equality or rights--no man has a right to ordination. God doesn't call men to be mothers, and He doesn't call women to be fathers. Priesthood is spiritual fatherhood, plain and simple. But they're half right--it is certainly a "new model." Women's ordination was never part of the Christian tradition until introduced by various Protestant sects in recent centuries. But let's not get bogged down in the facts.

"The movement "RC Womenpriests" does not perceive itself as a counter-current movement against the Roman Catholic Church. It wants neither a schism nor a break from the Roman Catholic Church, but rather wants to work positively within the Church." One would think that you don't work positively within something by separating yourself from it, but that is exactly what these women do. It matters little what they "perceive" themselves as--a man usually doesn't "perceive" that he drinks too much or drives too fast, but reality may suggest otherwise.

Their homepage is even complete with a "Myths and Truths" section, which would be fine if the two were reversed. There, among other bunk, is the claim that "The group 'RC Womenpriests' receives its authority from Roman Catholic bishops who stand in full Apostolic Succession. These bishops bestowed sacramentally valid ordinations on the women." Nevermind that a valid sacrament requires valid matter, which for Holy Orders according to Church law is a man (it would be like using corn tortilla chips instead of pure wheat bread for Holy Communion. Doesn't work)...not to mention that even if proper matter is used, if the person doing the ordination was invalidly ordained in the first place, you still don't have a sacrament. A larger question, however, looms here: if these are valid ordinations with legal "authority from Roman Catholic bishops," why do they have to perform them on a boat in international waters or in some place that doesn't fall into any bishop's jurisdiction?

Take a look at this picture. Look out the window towards the left. That ain't no cathedral or church. They're on a boat. They boast of ordinations in international waters between the U.S. and Canada and on the Danube River. The other absurdities in the photo aside (and there are soooo many), this betrays that they know what they're doing is in open defiance of they very organization to which they claim allegiance.


"Roman Catholic Womenpriests" websitehas evenprovided lotsof picturesof theiractivities. Wehave providedthe captions.

Typically, the person who is vested is the one who gives the blessing. Then again, there's so much here that typically doesn't happen



Here they prostrate in humble submission to the god of International Waters



One of these is supposed to be a bishop. Can you guess which? We sure can't



We have no idea what this is. Perhaps they're all raising their hands to ask which one is the bishop?



Look at all the pretty colors.



Huh????


Great stuff. It's all the evidence we need to rest assured their place in the afterlife is secure.

These images certainly do convey the sense of sublime beauty, sacramental mystery, and sacredness that faithful Christians search for in their journeys. If only we could embra...(cough, yack, chuh, hucchchhchew...sorry, I just threw up a little). Anyway, I'm sure the Episcopal Church will welcome these new priests ministers.

In the world to come, Lucifer will give these women their own diocese in Circle Six, where heretics dwell. Under the guidance of Bishop Margaret Renewal, this group will also sink lower to occupy Circle Eight, where the purveyors of fraudulent rhetoric and the falsifiers roam. May the Lord, in His infinite mercy and kindness, take pity on those who are deceived by these miscreants.

06 April 2006

Happy Birthday, Merle


The Fightin' Side of Me

I hear people talking bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country.
Harping on the wars we fight,
And griping about the way things oughta be.
And I don't mind 'em switching sides,
And standing up for things they believe in.
But when they're running down my country, man,
They're walking on the fightin' side of me.

They're walking on the fightin' side of me.
Running down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it!
Let this song I'm singin' be a warning.
If you're running down my country, man,
You're walking on the fightin' side of me.

I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
And I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on being free.
They love our milk and honey,
But they preach about some other way of living.
When they're running down my country, hoss,
They're walking on the fightin' side of me.

Yeah, walking on the fighting side of me.
Running down the way of life,
Our fighting men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it!
Let this song I'm singin' be a warning.
If you're running down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

- By Merle Haggard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read why Hollywood loves Johnny Cash and not Merle Haggard

Spucatum tauri: Punishing women because they're...educated?

Dutch Feminazis Want to Punish Educated Mothers

The Dutch are at it again. The same folks who euthanize (i.e., murder) handicapped and terminally ill children without compunction have a new hair-brained scheme on the burner.

Sharon Dijksma, a prominent member of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) wants to penalize educated stay-at-home women. "A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital," she said in an interview. "If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished."

Knowledge that isn't put to use in the workforce is thrown away? How about women who stay at home to care for their children? Would Dijksma (how the hell do you pronounce that, anyway?) prefer that such women be uneducated? How about women who work hard to keep a home for their family?

According to The Brussels Journal article linked above, "Dijksma explains that her proposal is a logical consequence of the Dutch system of subsidizing students. Society finances their studies with government scholarships, hence it is only normal that they pursue a professional career or repay. 'If someone chooses not to work, then there should be a substantial repayment,'" she said.

"Dijksma says she wants to stimulate more women to join the work force." Good choice of words. Here's an idea for the reimbursement program's motto: "Work Makes You(r Education) Free".

We wait with giddy anticipation for Europe to use this sort of progressive and forward-thinking approach in health care. After all, government pays for that, and what's the point in having Big Brother heal what ails ya' if you're not going to contribute to the economy? Better yet, why not apply this to Public Works such as roads, utilities, and sewers? Let the freeloaders provide their own oil lanterns and crappers, I say.

Economic history makes it pretty clear that socialism doesn't exactly pave the road to prosperity, but if you're going to provide "free" (chuckle) schooling to your citizenry in the name of universal education, shouldn't it be, well, actually universal?

Ultimately, in the grand scheme of Dutch lunacy, this education proposal is relatively tame. It's just one more thing that makes us shake our heads in frightened wonder as Europe continues to sqander the patrimony of Western Civilization.

The blessings of Europe's Tolerant and Inclusive Socialism are indeed without number, unless of course you're an educated woman (or a handicapped or terminally-ill child, for that matter).

29 March 2006

Oriana Fallaci strikes again



The Fallaci Code

Written by BRENDAN BERNHARD

Oriana Fallaci asks: Is Muslim immigration to Europe a conspiracy?

In The Force of Reason, the controversial Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?

How did Islam go from being a virtual non-factor to a religion that threatens the preeminence of Christianity on the Continent? How could the most popular name for a baby boy in Brussels possibly be Mohammed? Can it really be true that Muslims plan to build a mosque in London that will hold 40,000 people? That Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close to having Muslim majorities? How was Europe, which was saved by the U.S. in World Wars I and II, and whose Muslim Bosnians were rescued by the U.S. as recently as 1999, transformed into a place in which, as Fallaci puts it, “if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell?”

In attempting to answer these questions, the author, who is stricken with cancer and has been hounded by death threats and charges of “Islamophobia” (she is due to go on trial in France this June), has combined history with episodes of riveting firsthand reportage into a form that reads like a real-life conspiracy thriller.

If The Force of Reason sells a lot of copies, which it almost certainly will (800,000 were sold in Italy alone, and the book is in the top 100 on Amazon ), it will be not only because of the heat generated by her topic, but also because Fallaci speaks for the ordinary reader. There is no one she despises more than the intellectual “cicadas,” as she calls them — “You see them every day on television; you read them every day in the newspapers” — who deny they are in the midst of a cultural, political and existential war with Islam, of which terrorism is the flashiest, but ultimately least important component. Nonetheless, to give the reader a taste of what Muslim conquest can be like, in her first chapter, Fallaci provides a brief tour of the religion’s bloodiest imperial episodes and later does an amusing job of debunking some of its more exaggerated claims to cultural and scientific greatness.

The book is also animated by a world-class journalist’s dismay that she could have missed the story of her lifetime for as long as she did. In the 1960s and ’70s, when she was a Vietnam War correspondent and a legendarily ferocious interviewer going mano a mano with the likes of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, Fallaci was simply too preoccupied with the events of the moment to notice that an entirely different narrative was rapidly taking shape — namely, the transformation of the West. There were clues, certainly. As when, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her (while a bodyguard aimed a submachine gun at her head) that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism.

Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens … In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.” It is a low-level but deadly war that extends across the planet, as any newspaper reader can see.Fallaci is not the first person to ponder the rapidity of the ongoing Muslim transformation of Europe. As the English travel writer Jonathan Raban wrote in Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth (1979), in the mid-1970s Arabs seemed to arrive in London almost overnight. “One day Arabs were a remote people … camping out in tents with camels … the next, they were neighbors.” On the streets of West London appeared black-clad women adorned with beaked masks that made them look “like hooded falcons.” Dressed for the desert (and walking precisely four steps ahead of the women), Arab men bestrode the sidewalks “like a crew of escaped film extras, their headdresses aswirl on the wind of exhaust fumes.”

Writers far better acquainted with the Muslim world than Raban have been equally perplexed. In 1995, the late American novelist Paul Bowles, a longtime resident of Tangier, told me that he could not understand why the French had allowed millions of North African Muslims into their country. Bowles had chosen to live among Muslims for most of his life, yet he obviously considered it highly unlikely that so many of them could be successfully integrated into a modern, secular European state.

Perhaps Bowles would have been interested in this passage from Fallaci’s book: “In 1974 [Algerian President] Houari Boumedienne, the man who ousted Ben Bella three years after Algerian independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And without circumlocutions he said: ‘One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.’”

Such a bald statement of purpose by a nation’s president before an international forum seems incredible. Yet even in British journalist Adam LeBor’s A Heart Turned East (1997), a work of profound, almost supine sympathy for the plight of Muslim immigrants in the West, a London-based mullah is quoted as saying, “We cannot conquer these people with tanks and troops, so we have got to overcome them by force of numbers.” In fact, such remarks are commonplace. Just this week, Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” he said. “By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”In other words, Europe will be conquered by being turned into “Eurabia,” which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming. Leaning heavily on the researches of Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fallaci recounts in fascinating detail the actual origin of the word “Eurabia,” which has now entered the popular lexicon. Its first known use, it turns out, was in the mid-1970s, when a journal of that name was printed in Paris (naturally), written in French (naturally), and edited by one Lucien Bitterlin, then president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity and currently the Chairman of the French-Syrian Friendship Association. Eurabia (price, five francs) was jointly published by Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva) and the European Coordinating Committee of the Associations for Friendship with the Arab World, which Fallaci describes as an arm of what was then the European Economic Community, now the European Union. These entities, Fallaci says, not mincing her words, were the official perpetrators “of the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created,” and Eurabia was their house organ.

Briefly put, the alleged plot was an arrangement between European and Arab governments according to which the Europeans, still reeling from the first acts of PLO terrorism and eager for precious Arabian oil made significantly more precious by the 1973 OPEC crisis, agreed to accept Arab “manpower” (i.e., immigrants) along with the oil. They also agreed to disseminate propaganda about the glories of Islamic civilization, provide Arab states with weaponry, side with them against Israel and generally toe the Arab line on all matters political and cultural. Hundreds of meetings and seminars were held as part of the “Euro-Arab Dialogue,” and all, according to the author, were marked by European acquiescence to Arab requests. Fallaci recounts a 1977 seminar in Venice, attended by delegates from 10 Arab nations and eight European ones, concluding with a unanimous resolution calling for “the diffusion of the Arabic language” and affirming “the superiority of Arab culture.”

While the Arabs demanded that Europeans respect the religious, political and human rights of Arabs in the West, not a peep came from the Europeans about the absence of freedom in the Arab world, not to mention the abhorrent treatment of women and other minorities in countries like Saudi Arabia. No demand was made that Muslims should learn about the glories of western civilization as Europeans were and are expected to learn about the greatness of Islamic civilization. In other words, according to Fallaci, a substantial portion of Europe’s cultural and political independence was sold off by a coalition of ex-communists and socialist politicians. Are we surprised? Fallaci isn’t. In 1979, she notes, “the Italian or rather European Left had fallen in love with Khomeini just as now it has fallen in love with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat.” Considerably less intemperate than her last book on the topic of radical Islam, the volcanically angry The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason is despairing, but often surprisingly funny. (“The rage and the pride have married and produced a sturdy son: the disdain,” she writes with characteristic wit.) And, Fallaci being Fallaci, it is occasionally over the top and will no doubt be deeply offensive to many, particularly when, in a postscript the book might have been better off without, she claims that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Nonetheless, the voice and warmth and humor of the author light up its pages, particularly when she takes a leaf out of Saul Bellow’s Herzog by firing off impassioned letters to the famous both living and dead. She is savage about the Left, the “Peace” movement (war is a fundamental, if regrettable, condition of life, she states), the Catholic Church, the media and, of course, Islam itself, which she considers theological totalitarianism and a deadly threat to the world. She is much more optimistic about America than Europe, citing the bravery of New Yorkers who celebrated New Year’s Eve in Times Square despite widely publicized terrorism threats, but here one feels that she is clutching at straws. Though Fallaci now lives in New York, little amity has been extended to her by her peers since the post-9/11 publication of The Rage and the Pride, and she remains almost as much of a media pariah here as she does in Europe.

The major difference is that we’re not putting her on trial. As that Norwegian Mullah told Aftenposten, “Our way of thinking … will prove more powerful than yours.” One hopes he’s wrong, but if he is, it will be ordinary Americans and Europeans, including courageous Arab-Americans like L.A. resident Wafa Sultan and the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali (two women openly challenging Islamist supremacism), who prove him so, and not our intellectual classes (artists, pundits, filmmakers, actors, writers …). Many of the latter, consumed by Bush-hatred and cultural self-loathing, are perilously close to becoming today’s equivalent of the great Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, who so hated the British Empire that he sided with the Nazis in World War II, to his everlasting shame. The Force of Reason, at the very least, is a welcome and necessary antidote to the prevailing intellectual atmosphere.

-----------------------
Editor's note: We also recommend The Rage and the Pride, her previous work on Islam. Those interested in her earlier works should explore her collections of interviews with world leaders.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20359



This article provides a introduction to Fallaci. "Prophet of Decline"


Online articles by Fallaci:

Article 1 "The Rage, the Pride, and the Doubt"

Article 2 "I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews"

Article 3 "Sermon for the West"

Quote for the Day

From Dave Shiflett's article "Chief of the Fat Police," in the 27 March 2006 print issue of The National Review.

"We might further suggest that there's only one reasonable way to deal with the Grim Reaper. Do not attempt to flee him, for that is futile. Better to charge him head-on, the belly full of Burgundy and beef, heavily salted. If that means adding another slat to the coffin, so be it."

Christian Reflections, Ten

His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)


"No one goes to Church to hear someone's personal opinions. I am not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith. Anyone who preaches himself in this way overrates himself and attributes to himself an importance he does not have. Only by letting himself become unimportant can the priest make himself truly important because, in that way, he becomes the gateway of the Lord into this world."

-From Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982

28 March 2006

Quote for the Day


"Freud and Marx ... undermined the whole basis of Western European civilization as no avowedly insurrectionary movement ever has or could, by promoting the notion of determinism, in the one case in morals, in the other in history, thereby relieving individual men and women of all responsibility for their personal and collective behaviour."
Malcolm Muggeridge

Spucatum tauri: What liberals really mean when they say "tolerance"

Recently, a Christian group known as "BattleCry for a Generation" held a rally billed as a "reverse rebellion" against the excesses of pop culture. Where'd they hold it? San Francisco, the bastion of moral fortitude in the West.

According to Time Magazine (another stalwart of moral responsibility), "Organizers say they're sending a message to the outside world that teens are sick of the sex, drugs and violence that permeates their culture." How many youths attended this radical fringe event? More than 25,000.

Democratic State Assemblyman Assemblyperson Mark Leno wasn't thrilled that this happened in his district. According to Time Leno told "counter-protesters that he found the BattleCry participants 'obnoxious' and 'disgusting' and that 'they should get out of San Francisco.'" Needless to say, it didn't take Leno long to realize what he had said. Quickly backtracking, Leno "issued a statement saying he regretted that some had interpreted his remarks to mean he didn't think people of different beliefs should come to San Francisco; the city was, he said, a 'beacon of acceptance and love of all people.'"

Ahhh, we can feel the love Mark. It's written all over your excrement-laden press release.

27 March 2006

Quote for the Day


"Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so to say, through necessity, he would begin doing good? Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure, innocent child!"
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Spucatum tauri: A strange case of Parenting


Or, more accurately, non-parenting:

Sarah Jessica Parker fails in role as mother

from the linked article:
Actress Sarah Jessica Parker was shocked when her three-year-old son asked to see Brokeback Mountain, but feared she would send the wrong message if she refused. The former Sex and the City star allows James Wilke to watch part of a movie or TV show before he goes to be at night if he behaves during the day. She explains, " He said, 'Mama I've been hearing a lot about a movie lately.' I said, 'What movie?' and he said 'Brokeback Mountain. I've heard it's about two cowboys. I would like to watch it tonight.' "I didn't want to deny him, because I didn't want to set up some idea about what's bad, because of the subject matter. "We live in New York City, we live in the West Village. So we found an 18 minute segment he could watch. "The next day he hugged his nanny and he wouldn't let go and he said, 'That is like the two cowboys in Brokeback Mountain!'"

---------

Our Commentary: Tempting as it is to give Ms. Parker a Chronicle of the Damned article, for corrupting a child, we reserve those write-ups for leaders or organizations, generally in the religious sphere, that fail those who look to them for guidance or example.

Therefore, we will place Ms. Parker in the Spucatum tauri category. That is, unwise, probably worthy of ridicule, and generally outrageous. Ms. Parker harms her son when she cannot tell him "NO!" without guilt and liberal second guessing. Also, why has her son been hearing so much about an adult movie? And finally, it says alot when only 18 minutes are suitable (and from his reaction, even 18 minutes was too much) for general viewing.



Christian Reflections, Nine













Prayer of an Unknown Confederate Soldier

I asked God for strength, that I might achieve,
I was made weak, that I might learn humbly to obey.

I asked God for health, that I might do greater things,
I was given infirmity, that I might do better things.

I asked for riches, that I might be happy,
I was given poverty, that I might be wise.

I asked for power, that I might have the praise of men,
I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God.

I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life,
I was given life, that I might enjoy all things.

I received nothing that I asked for but everything I had hoped for.
Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.

I am among men, most richly blessed.

Christian Reflections, Eight

St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

"Let the whole of mankind tremble, the whole world shake and the heavens exult when our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, is present on the altar in the hands of a priest! O admirable heights and sublime lowliness! O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under the little form of bread! Look, brothers, at the humility of God and pour out your hearts before Him! Humble yourselves as well, that you may be exalted by Him. Therefore, hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves so that He who gives Himself totally to you may receive you totally."

26 March 2006

Auden's reflections


The Poetic Truth About Homosexuality

Since the scandal surrounding British poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, homosexuality has claimed no literary figure more prominent than the 20th-century Anglo-American poet W. H. Auden (1907-1973). However, after considerable personal experience, Auden delivered a remarkably negative judgment on this kind of sexual activity.

According to a newly published critical study, Auden made decidedly negative comments about homosexuality during a 1947 conversation with Alan Ansen: "I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong to be queer, but that's a long story. Oh, the reasons are comparatively simple. In the first place, all homosexual acts are acts of envy. In the second, the more you're involved with someone, the more trouble arises, and affection shouldn't result in that. It shows something's wrong somewhere."

Nor did Auden's perspective on homosexuality grow more favorable in the years that followed.

In 1969, just four years before his death, Auden wrote candidly, "Few, if any, homosexuals can honestly boast that their sex-life has been happy."

(Source: Arthur Kirsch, Auden and Christianity [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005], 172-173.)

Quote for the Day


"I'm against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise."
-Robert Frost

25 March 2006

Quote for the Day



"I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth."

—William F. Buckley Jr. (1925- )

24 March 2006

Article of Note: A World without the United States?

Hobbes in Sudan
What a world without U.S. power looks like

Our Commentary: sadly, many people salivate at the prospect of a world without a militarily, politically, and economically strong U.S. While our nation's actions at home and abroad are by no means perfect, a casual glance through the last 100 years of world history causes one to tremble in fear at what horrors might have triumphed were it not for us. This editorial from the Wall Street Journal gives us an important perspective the issue, and hence is an article of note for today.

From the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, 23 March 2006

At places like Davos and Harvard, the world's sages rarely stop fretting about the dangers of a too powerful America. Well, if you want to know what the world looks like without U.S. leadership, Exhibit A is Darfur in Sudan.

Today's leading authority on Darfur is the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who prophesied a world "nasty, brutish and short." At least 200,000 civilians have been killed in the past three years and two million more have become refugees. The source of the problem is the Arab rulers in Khartoum, who have pursued an ethnic cleansing campaign against black Muslims in western Sudan. They've equipped the Janjaweed Arab tribesmen to do the dirty work, and that militia is now attacking civilians across the border in Chad, creating 20,000 more refugees.

To his credit, Kofi Annan started shouting about the problem two years ago, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell labeled it "genocide" not long after that. The U.N.'s mighty peace-making machinery then started to roll and . . . nothing. The Chinese (who have close commercial ties to Khartoum) and Russians have blocked any serious intervention. Arab members of the Security Council have also opposed any attempt to single out Khartoum.

The Arab League--so quick to denounce Danish cartoons--has also stymied any global intervention to stop the murder of their fellow Muslims. Here's League Secretary General Amr Musa earlier this month: "In Sudan, there is a problem related to Darfur. We will listen to the Sudanese state minister to explain to us the developments in the issue of Darfur . . ." The League plans to hold its meeting next week--in Khartoum.

The African Union has at least sent 7,000 troops to the region, but they are under-funded and under-equipped to enforce a truce that Sudan blatantly flouts. But the African failure is also political. In January the Union held its own summit in Khartoum, and next year it plans to award Sudan its presidency. The rule seems to be never to say a discouraging word about other African leaders, no matter how murderous.

As for Europe, France would be ideal to lead an intervention force. The French have military bases in neighboring Chad and could establish a no-fly zone to stop Janjaweed bombing. However, Paris is already occupied with another intervention in the Ivory Coast, and with its own business interests in Sudan isn't volunteering in any case.

Amid this global abdication, Mr. Annan finally decided last month to call in the American cavalry. He visited the White House and, with media fanfare, all but begged President Bush to do something. Despite U.S. obligations in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places, Mr. Bush responded by proposing an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force under "NATO stewardship."

But Sudan President Omar al-Beshir quickly played to type and withdrew support for a U.N. force. He also threatened that "Darfur will become the graveyard for the United Nations and foreign intervention." And rather than stand up to such threats, U.N. envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk has wilted. He's now talking up intelligence about al Qaeda terrorists in Khartoum who could retaliate against U.N. peacekeepers. And he's warning against any NATO intervention without Security Council approval--as if that would be forthcoming. All of this is a repeat of the same feckless U.N. pattern we've seen in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.

So that leaves . . . guess who? The cowboy President, the American unilateralists, the Yankee imperialists--or, to put it another way, the only nation with the will and wallet to provide order in an otherwise Hobbesian world. However, that will and wallet are being stretched today in Iraq and elsewhere, and Mr. Bush is rightly wary of committing more American blood and treasure to a conflict in Sudan that the rest of the world doesn't seem serious about ending in any event. One lesson of Darfur is that there really are limits to American power, and in its absence the world's savages have freer reign.

23 March 2006

Quote for the Day



"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Edmund Burke (1730-1797)

Nota bene: Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz

The Most Reverend Fabian Bruskewitz, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, is a holdout.

He's the last bishop in the United States to maintain that only men and boys can serve at the altar during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, VA, recently lifted the ban on "altargirls" in his diocese. The ramparts fell there, making Bruskewitz the last of the holdouts. God bless him for his steadfastness in fidelity to the heart and mind of the Church.

USA Today reported that "Bruskewitz, whose diocese includes 136 churches and 89,412 members around Nebraska's state capital, believes having only boys at the altar helps recruit them to become priests." The facts support that claim, as Lincoln is exploding with priestly vocations. Other dioceses are wringing their hands in worry as they see a largely graying presbyterate and mediocre seminary numbers. Certainly there are many reasons why Lincoln is prospering in vocations, but this policy is surely one of them.

I guess Lincoln won't be seeing one of those de-facto "Women in Albs" ministries that have become so prevalent in other dioceses!

Bruskewitz is a fine example for other bishops to emulate.

22 March 2006

Chronicle of the Damned, part 7


Christian Alliance for Progress

Committed to ignoring the Scriptures, orthodox theology, and history. Eager to celebrate the sins of those who for the moment, find the fashionable mores of progressive liberals on their side. Damned to the pit and reminded by Jesus, "better that a millstone were placed around their neck [and dropped into the sea]....than to lead [Christians] astray." A most UnChristian Alliance, in league not with the Son of God, but the Prince of Darkness.

"The members of the Christian Alliance for Progress believe we have an obligation to reclaim the vocabulary of Christianity from extremists and to restore the morals and values of Christianity. We bring together progressive Christians and other Americans who share our passion and convictions. We will use the collective power of our individual members to help shape the political realities in our country and to strive to build a more just and compassionate nation."

"We advance a renewed, progressive vision of Gospel values and help Americans express this moral vision in how we think, work, and vote."

Beware anytime a person or organization takes it upon themselves to offer a "progressive vision" of the Gospels or any other part of Scripture.

"Many of us feel pain about the way the name of Christianity has been hijacked. It is being used to promote beliefs and actions that violate the values Jesus lived and taught. This organization is determined to reclaim Christianity. That is why we are here. We stand for values that are basic to both the Christian tradition and the American tradition. You do not have to identify as a Christian to be a part of this movement. We welcome anyone who wants to defend these values from right-wing extremists."

Not historians, it appears. Nor particularly keen on actually looking at any Scriptures other than selected passages, often taken out of context, from the teachings of Jesus.

"First of all, we advocate the traditional American values of separation of Church and State. Secondly, Jesus stood outside the power structure of his day, and he spoke for the poor and powerless. That is what prophets do. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Desmond Tutu are examples of Christians acting in the prophetic tradition. Following Jesus obliges us to speak to the government in a prophetic voice and to stand for the values Jesus taught."

Interesting choices for secondary role models. I never found King, or Tutu, to be prophets. Is it worth noting that Christian Alliance did not turn to Elijah, or Isaiah, or any other Old Testament prophet for inspiration? Maybe because that would mean a message that entails more than holding hands, talkin' bout "love", forgetting the cross, and denying any need for salvation. A man's soul must be made right before his Maker. All else is secondary.

"Do you believe that through Jesus is the only way to heaven?
This movement is not about offering people salvation. We are not a church. Our purpose is not to make dogmas. We believe that we are called to follow Jesus. When he called the disciples, he didn’t say, "Come believe in me." He said, "Come follow me." Jesus calls us to act in the world here and now. And he tells us that we will be judged by "whatsoever you did to the least of these". People in this movement hold diverse views about religion and the Christian life. Some of us follow Jesus as part of an organized religion and some of us don’t. What we have in common is our commitment to stand for the values Jesus lived and taught like compassion and justice and the equality of all people."

Bad theology, or no theology has yet to lead anywhere good or worthy of further consideration.

Well, let us consider a couple of the specifics (there are many) which damn this organization:

Abortion
"Honoring the Sanctity of Childbearing Decisions"

What a mockery of decency. I wonder how far they would take this line of thinking. For example, "the sanctity of marital faithfulness decisions" or "the sanctity of end-of-life decisions" or maybe Christian Alliance is unable to think of where these creative phrasing might go?

"You know, under the abstinence-only education programs pushed by the radical right, the rate of abortions has actually increased. Plenty of studies show that the abortion rate goes down when accurate information about human reproduction and contraception is available. But the extremists are opposed to even a basic preventative measure like that."

No! Abortion rates go down when abstinence is practiced. No sex = no baby = no abortion! And they also go down when individuals find it morally reprehensible to compound a mistake of lust and the consequences, with murder.

Now what does that tell you? It tells me that what the extremists really want is to punish any woman who has an unintended pregnancy. Jesus taught compassion, responsibility, and equality.

Beyond the buzzwords, the tell-tale signs of an ill-defined position, what really are they saying?

"Over and over in the Gospels, Jesus is scathing in his dealings with hypocrites. We believe that Jesus would recognize the inherent hypocrisy in decreasing support for family planning or reducing access to contraception while simultaneously seeking to criminalize abortion. "

So in the name of not being hypocritical, Jesus would support the murder of a child. This seems highly unlikely, particularly when one remembers the extensive use of children as metaphors or examples in the Gospels.

"Recognizing that Jesus teaches us by his example, we hold that he would treat women as full and complete partners today, just as he did in his own time. Therefore, we assert that creating secular laws to give control of a woman's body to the state is unchristian. We assert that compulsory childbearing (if Roe v. Wade were overturned), compulsory abortion (as in China), and compulsory childbearing or abortion based on the state's decision (as in Nazi Germany) all deny a woman's essential humanity and are immoral."

Well, the purpose of government is not to protect innocent life. That, according to Christian Alliance, would be unchristian. Let's pull out the police from their tidy little communities, troops from our borders, remove completely the sword from the government. What exactly is government for? Cradle to grave welfare might hint at protecting life -- so they better not espouse that line of thinking.

It is not a question of compulsion (in child-bearing). A life is created, there is no choice of what to do with him. He must live.

The time for choosing was before sex. Again = no sex = no child = no abortion. (this has been discussed in the context of extra or pre-marital relations)

All the emotional distress, the physical pain, the worry, et cetera, do not even tip the balance when weighed against a life, created in the image of God. Every consideration pales before this one fact.

"In a world where men held all positions of institutional power and had social dominance over women and children, Jesus overturned firmly established taboos to clearly demonstrate the complete equality of women. Rather than "keeping women in their place," Jesus as we find him in the scriptures empowered women."

Ah, shades of Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code.

I think it's fairly clear that Christian Alliance will not hold the line. They excuse away murder, encourage it even, all in the name of tolerance and "compassion." I find nothing, not one line, that would suggest Jesus might sympathize or support abortion. Instead, I am convinced that he would welcome those who had abortions and tell them, "go, and sin no more." To the pregnant, perhaps a warning about harming "the little ones..." and a command to raise up the child in the fear of God, always trusting upon Him to see her through the difficulties of life. Or he might suggest an adoption. That the child is unwanted or unloved is irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. The same with the extremely rare case of a child conceived out of rape or incest. The circumstances of a child's conception do not negate his worth in the eyes of God. And finally, for cases of a mother's life being in danger, well, as compassionate as it may seem on the surface, the philosophical implications are grave. For then one is choosing one life over another based on value. That is a road straight down.
Jesus would never suggest or condone the murdering a child. That is blasphemous.

Homosexuality

"There is only the community of humankind to which all of us belong - all God's children in all our beautiful variety." This includes the full gamut of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning and any new variation blown in on the media winds.

"Currently, there is a stampede to pass laws and constitutional amendments to "defend marriage and traditional values" from gay and lesbian people by denying legal protection for their basic civil rights as Americans. We predict these laws will be viewed by generations to come as the Jim Crow laws of the 21st Century, and great will be our shame in the eyes of those generations."

The point must be simply stated. Civil rights based on gender or race, both unchosen, is in no way comparable to a sexual deviation or practice. Indeed it is neither in the same category, nor is it relevant.

"The sad fact is that, in every age and culture where a group of 'unclean, sinful others' has been identified, those outsiders become objects of fear and oppression. For example, in Jesus' day, lepers had to travel in packs, beg for food, and shout the warning 'Unclean! Unclean!' as they moved about, so no one would get near them. Today, extremists have identified gays and lesbians as the 'dangerous others' we must fear. It is said that they have an agenda to "attack the family" and that a committed relationship between a gay or lesbian couple is an 'attack on marriage.'"

Strange. I always thought lepers were unclean. Have we forgotten the medical values of quarantine. It is for the good of everyone. Jesus ministered to them, but he did not tell them to blend with the general population unless he healed them and they submitted to an examination by the priests. The isolation of inflicted individuals was an Old Testament law. One ought to fear those who by their actions knowingly or not, undermine the social structure and break down the marriage institution as ordained by God. It does not follow that gays or lesbians should be quarantined, but as long as they persist in their sin, they cannot enter fully into the fellowship of other Christians nor can they contribute to the greater good of society.

"Murder. Rape. Bestiality. The destruction of the nation. It's terrible to even think about these things, and civil rights for gay and lesbian people are in the very same list of evils. It's enough to frighten anyone - until the rhetoric is exposed under the revealing light of truth."

Sodomy. Deviation. Perversion. The destruction of the nation. Look at Greece. Look at Rome. Look at America. "until the rhetoric is exposed.....truth." Well, what is the revealing light of truth??? Christian Alliance does not say. Because there is nothing to say.

Christian Alliance strongly believes that sexual perversion and sin are gifts. God's uniqueness working itself out in the lives of those who practice such things. No theological evidence, no Scriptural teaching, nothing in the Bible supports this. It is, a lie of the devil, embraced by those who would not call sin, sin. Damnation awaits.

Stated goal

"We believe all these values were central to the life and wisdom of Jesus. He came to teach us and show us how to live in a way that would bring the beloved community, the kingdom of God here on earth. The beloved community was so important to Jesus that he worked to establish it despite the clear risk to his own life. Living these values requires hard work. But it is in living values out that the beloved community, the kingdom of God, is established. The result of it is called Shalom, the well-being and wholeness of all. This is what the word "Peace" means. And, it is our most closely held dream and hope for the world."

This seems at odds with "my kingdom is not of this world" and "I come to bring a sword" and "take up your cross" and "the world will hate you for My name's sake." Christian Alliance has fallen into the oldest lie, "you can become like gods" that is, you can create a heaven on earth. The Enlightenment tried this. Revolutions and regimes tried this to the cost of hundreds of millions of lives. Social Darwinists, social gospel, scientific methods of regulating society, and so on tried. All failed. What happened to the Christian acting as salt and light on this earth but seeking to advance the kingdom of heaven?

A strong and bitter dose of Biblical theology, orthodox teaching, and discipline might improve their vision. But one is tempted to remember the words found in Romans 1:18-28. Verse 32 offers their end: "Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Destination:

Being an organization, Christian Alliance for Progress has their corporate headquarters in Circle Six, reserved for heretics. In seeking a kingdom on earth, they pay no heed to the soul's eternal destination. This hints at a denial of immortality. "Who make the soul die with the body," Dante places in this circle.

Branch offices and individuals affiliated with this organization will reside in Circle Seven, reserved for the blasphemers, murderers, and sodomites, and Circle Eight, reserved for falsifiers, sowers of division, and those practicing fraudulent rhetoric.

Louis L'Amour


It's the birthday of novelist Louis L'Amour, born in Jamestown, North Dakota (1908). One of the hardest working and best-selling novelists ever, he wrote a hundred and one books in his lifetime.

He knew he wanted to be a writer from the time that he could walk. So L'Amour quit school when he was fifteen and traveled around the West working as an animal skinner, ranch hand and lumberjack.

Wherever he went, he got people to tell him their own stories and whatever stories they knew about the Old West. Once, he met a gunman who had ridden with Billy the Kid and who had gone on to sell real estate.

In the early 1930s, L'Amour hopped an East African Schooner and made his way from Africa to Asia. He lived with bandits in the mountains of China and then started boxing professionally in Singapore. He won thirty-four of his fifty-nine boxing matches by knockout.

When L'Amour got back to the United States he started writing for pulp fiction magazines because he needed money and the pulp magazines paid him the fastest. He wrote all kinds of adventure stories, but eventually settled on westerns.

L'Amour's first big success was Hondo (1953), about a love triangle between a cowboy, an Apache warrior and a young widow living on a remote Arizona ranch. It begins, "He rolled the cigarette in his lips, liking the taste of the tobacco, squinting his eyes against the sun glare."

In Ride the Dark Trail (1972), L'Amour wrote, "I just pointed my rifle at him ... and let him have the big one right through the third button on his shirt. If he ever figured to sew that particular button on again he was going to have to scrape it off his backbone."

For further reading, see his autobiography Education of a Wandering Man.

taken from today's edition of The Writer's Almanac


L'Amour said, "I write about hard-shelled men who built with nerve and hand that which the soft-bellied latecomers call the 'western myth.'"