Muslims, many of them refugees from war, keep coming to America. Other than for the obvious reasons, the opportunity for a much better standard of living than what is expected in their home countries and the opportunity to collect government benefits, who have to wonder why this is happening.
I have some things to say to the Muslims who want to emigrate here.
If you believe in theocracy, in other words, sharia law, as many Muslims do, then America, with its long history of separating religion from government, is not for you.
Although this very recent development is still very controversial, in the United States, men can marry men and women can marry women, and yes, they have sex with each other. Millions of unmarried Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sexually active. If this bothers you, then America is not for you.
Women and men in America, and teens too, often where next to no clothing. If this angers you, then America is not for you.
Dogs are beloved animal companions for many Americans. If you believe that Islam teaches you that dogs are unclean and that they should be avoided, then the United States is not for you.
While not as popular as beef or chicken, pork is a popular meat choice for many Americans. If this dietary selection gives you anguish because of what is written in the Quran, then America is not for you.
About three-quarters of American adults drink alcoholic beverages several times a week. Beer commercials are a staple of sports television and are common fare on many other TV programs. If you don’t approve because Islam teaches that alcohol is forbidden, then America is not for you.
Of course in this verbal exercise I could easily substitute France for the United States and make the same point.
And yes, to be fair, there are members of religious groups who have lived in the United States since before its founding, such as Orthodox Jews and the Amish, who feel uncomfortable with some of these American mores I just pointed out. Mormons too. But there is a big difference in regards to Islam. The first two I just mentioned don’t proselytize–although Orthodox Jews preach to other Jews–they are what I call beehive religions. You don’t bother them and they don’t bother you.
But Islam–read your history, naysayers–is not only a proselytizing faith, it is a conquering one. But three or four million Muslims can’t overthrow America.
Yet they keep coming.
Dialogue from the otherwise worthless Jeff Bridges film Wild Bill may shine some light on this paradox. John Hurt’s character remarks to Wild Bill Hickok as they arrive in hedonistic Deadwood, “This town… I really think it’s like something out of the Bible.”
Sir Humphrey Appleby:No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn’t continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves “Modernists”.
James Hacker:How could the Church of England suggest an atheist as Bishop of Bury St Edmunds?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organization, not a religious one.
Yes Prime Minister The Bishop’s Gambit 1986
Father Damien Karras:I think it might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three. She’s convinced… Father Merrin:There is only one..
The Exorcist 1973
Stacy McCain has struck again with a long post on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and while Stacy is highlighting the goals of feminism here there is a point I’d like to make from his piece to wit:
As the presiding bishop election process winnowed down nominees, three of the final four candidates were women. . . . As I’ve written before . . . it’s not just about numbers. To respond to the needs facing the church and society in the 21st century, a collaborative leadership style is needed, and studies show that women more naturally use this form of leadership.
Stacy notwithstanding the disgrace here isn’t the ELCA pushing feminism per-se the disgrace is that nowhere in this statement is the goal for a Christian church to find a candidate that will serve the word of God.
Now none of this is a surprise, we talked about the decision of the largest batch of Lutherans to allow married gay clergy as I wrote at the time:
Hey this was just what he was envisioning when he broke away from us Roman Catholics all those centuries ago starting the reformation and all that.
So now the Lutherans have endorsed specific biblical sin among clergy I say good luck to you guys.
Sophia our Goddess, As a full moon rising, You unveil your vision of love for the universe and work within us to bring about your healing purposes.
You are reading this right, this is a prayer being put out by a “Christian” Church founded by Martin Luther because we Catholics were getting the worship of God wrong. It concludes:
Sophia our Goddess, As a full moon rising, You are the One Sacred Thread and Source for All Times, Grandmother, Mother, and Child, Blessed She!
This is definitely not a Christian prayer. Any student of the occult would recognize the reference to “Grandmother, Mother, and Child” as an invocation of the so-called “Triple Goddess” (Maiden, Mother, Crone) of modern neo-pagan Wicca. So far gone is the ELCA in its abandonment of biblical truth that it accepts witchcraft in its “Lutheran” pulpits.
And some Catholics complain about Pope Francis?
You might be shocked by this, I’m not. Christianity without Christ is the logical conclusion to Martin (I know better than the church) Luther’s rebellion. It’s the whole vine branches thing that Christ talked about:
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.
Now don’t get me wrong the Catholic church had some folks like this but when it did God raised a simple poor Clare nun who fought the culture war in the church
Stacy talks about feminism corrupting everything it touches and sounds the call to fight.
I submit and suggest that we must fight, but let’s be clear, feminism isn’t the enemy, it’s a tool being used by the same enemy that we’ve been fighting from day one.
One final thought, the invitation that I mentioned back in 2009 still stands:
if you are a Lutheran who actually takes Christianity seriously that old Roman Catholic Church that Martin decided wasn’t good enough before is still there.
We’d be pleased to welcome you in.
We can use good soldiers in the fight to save souls.
France has entered a new and unhappy phase–the land of liberté, égalité, fraternité is now in its terror age.
Seven days into 2015, twelve people were murdered by radical Muslims inside the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that regularly poked fun at Muhammad, including publishing naked cartoons of him.
On Friday–known as Jumu’ah, the day of prayer, for Muslims, a series of coordinated attacks in the French capital killed over 120 people, the Islamic State caliphate immediately claimed responsibility for the barbarism.
France has always been an uncomfortable fit for its roughly five million Muslims, the first wave of which settled there after the end of its war in Algeria in 1962. Its strict secularism flies in the face one of Islam’s central beliefs–that the faith is not only a religion but a way of life, and that includes the legal code. Sure, some Muslims in France support the secularism of the Fifth Republic, but younger Muslims less so.
Of the Friday attacks, ISIS promises, “This is just the beginning.” And even if just twenty percent of French Muslims support the Islamic State, that’s one million radicals ready to tear down the nation.
Of course many French people remain in denial. While I was driving to work yesterday morning, I switched on NPR, where I listened in disbelief as a French political scientist, Nicole Bacharan, said of the Muslim immigrants living among her in Paris, “they are as French as we are.”
Has Bacharan bothered to ask Muslims–both the native born and the immigrants living in France–if they agree with her?
Like it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I favored civil unions for gays for years, in essence, marriage in all but name. What is now called traditional marriage reaches back into pre-history–social norms should not be thrown overboard so quickly.
As for the other side of the gay marriage debate, the media focus has been on what Friday’s US Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of what some call marriage equality means for observant Christians who oppose it.
But what about Muslims? The Daily Beast managed to find a few Muslims who favor gay marriage, but it’s safe to say that followers of Islam overwhelmingly oppose it.
And I believe that Muslims considering emigrating to the United States–and for that matter, other Western nations–might want to consider staying home instead.
Other than our high standard of living, there is much in America for Muslims not to like. Arranged marriages are not only rare but are frowned upon. Dogs, beloved members of many American families, are viewed as only slightly better than pigs in Islamic society only because of their hunting and protection skills. As for those pigs, most Americans eat pork. Women in the United States wear whatever they want–or in some cases, how little they want. And the great majority of Americans drink alcohol–and advertisements for intoxicating beverages can be found almost everywhere. We can change our religion if we like–or, as has been happening more frequently, choose no faith at all. While somewhat controversial, religious satire is common in the USA. For the sake of brevity I’m stopping here.
And since Friday–two men, or two women, can marry each other in a government-sanctioned marriage from Portland, Maine to Honolulu, Hawaii.
All last week people were asking/and emailing me to comment on the Pope’s new encyclical.
While a lot of Pixels have already come out concerning it, many of them before it was released, I told everyone who asked that rather than bother with what the MSM has been saying I was going to withhold judgement until the Vatican actually released the document and see for myself.
Friday, Saturday and Sunday I wrote about the parts of the document that our friends in the media decided to neglect.
Now today I want to address the a basic fact of this encyclical itself, something that people are forgetting, “what is its purpose?”
an encyclical denotes a pastoral letter written by the Holy Father for the entire Church. This document focuses on a pastoral issue concerning a matter of doctrine, morality, devotion, or discipline.
Catholic answers has more:
They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent.
Laudato Si. is a long and detailed document. It is liberally sprinkled with footnotes quoting the Church, its saints, previous Popes and even his own previous pronouncements.
In other words it’s a sermon and like any sermon is about teaching people, particularly the faithful, about how one should act.
A fair reading of this document clearly indicated what is being taught, it preaches against lifestyle of consumerism absence of social interaction (and in fact encourages such interaction on the local level) and reliance on technology and stuff leads to an empty life.
18. The continued acceleration of changes affecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with a more intensified pace of life and work which might be called “rapidification”. Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. Moreover, the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development. Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity.
These are basic themes that the church has been teaching for a while. A Lesson that was important in the world 65 years ago where missionary priests were leaving Europe and America for Africa and South America and a lesson that’s important today, Missionary priests are coming to America from Africa and South America and he takes the time to quote these bishops of Africa (chapter 14)
As the bishops of Southern Africa have stated: “Everyone’s talents and involvement are needed to redress the damage caused by human abuse of God’s creation”.  All of us can cooperate as instruments of God for the care of creation, each according to his or her own culture, experience, involvements and talents.
Now there are people who are getting very upset about the passages concerning global warming and scientific consensus and acting on the best information that is currently known to science. Mostly because like myself I think the science is a lot more iffy than is being presented. They like the social teaching, particularly on abortion and life but they’re sure the left will try to use this as a club to move their agenda, and they will.
But those guys are missing the reality and the reality is this.
It takes a long time to move governments and move agreements but a very short time to move individuals.
If we’re right and the science is on our side then in the years that it takes for governments to meet, to negotiate and to even begin to move agreements the reality of the science will trump the left, after all the encyclical does say…
Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and political discussions; these should not be limited to the issue of whether or not a particular project is permitted by law.
But the lessons for individuals those can be applied today, now at once, and because they deal with eternal truths those lessons will be true no matter where the science on global warming goes.
Those eternal truths taught by this encyclical will change hearts and bring people closer to Christ by steering individuals to the right, this is what it’s all about, no matter what any individual hoped to do with this document, no matter if it’s a democrat pol looking to get a short-term advantage or a bureaucrat in Europe is hoping for graft or even if a cleric trying to ingratiate with others by attempting to manipulate a papal encyclical and the Holy Father who released it.
That’s the reality of Laudito si. It’s a reality divorced from politics. The church and the Pope doesn’t teach for the benefit of a particular political party in a particular country. It’s not all about republicans or democrats or Europeans or Africans.
It’s about souls it always has been and if people attempt to use it for evil they will find it. I’ll give the last word to CS Lewis again
On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything-even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop.
I’ve just finished reading the Pope’s Encyclical letter LAUDATO SI’ and I have a lot to say about it, but that will wait for later right now however I’d like to note one thing concerning this letter that in the long term will likely be the most important thing about this document.
At the start of Laudato Si’ in paragraphs 3-6 Pope Francis cites Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope St. John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI and their various writings on the environment as an introduction for this thesis. For anyone familiar with encyclicals this is nothing odd, Popes often draw on the writings and sermons of the church over the years to show the continuity of the sermon he is giving.
What is Unusual is that what happened starting in paragraph 7
I would mention the statements made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with whom we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.
And continued on from there:
8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”. For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”.
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms. He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which “entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion”. As Christians, we are also called “to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment of God’s creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet”.
I am a lay Catholic and do not claim any knowledge beyond what I have read or taught but to my knowledge I’ve never known of a post schism Encyclical that gives three paragraphs to an eastern orthodox patriarch.
Furthermore this is not a one way street. At 7:26 this morning Time Magazine put out a piece written by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: An excerpt:
Invoking the inspiring words of Scripture and the classics of Christian spirituality of East and West (particularly such saints as Basil the Great and Francis of Assisi), while at the same time evoking the precious works of Roman Catholic conferences of bishops throughout the world (especially in regions where the plunder of the earth is identified with the plight of the poor), Pope Francis proposes new paradigms and new policies in contrast to those of “determinism,” “disregard” and “domination.”
In the third year of our brother Pope Francis’s blessed ministry, we count it as a true blessing that we are able to share a common concern and a common vision for God’s creation.
This is REALLY Big I think people don’t understand just how big this is.
While the MSM is busy quoting the Pope and mentioned the Patriarch in their stories I don’t think they understand that the big story that is going to have a profound effect on the history of the world is not any statement on the environment.
It’s that a Catholic Pope is quoting an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in an encyclical and said patriarch is complimenting him back.
200 years from now that’s what people will be talking and writing about.
We are bombarded daily with news that even a few short years ago would have been unimaginable.
A recent article in Salon written by an abortion worker refers to an aborted baby as an “unwanted growth” and by removing it they “preserved the woman’s chosen course.” Seeing tiny arms and legs floating in a bowl made her even more pro-choice pro-abortion.
Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the country, tweeted that they thought telling girls to protect their character on prom night was “despicable.”
And the latest Gallup poll states:
Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000’s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, and sex between an unmarried man and woman. Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level. source
One glaring observation of this poll is that while support for abortion has gone up by three points, support for the death penalty has gone down by the same three points.
To see these findings in action, I need go no further than my own very conservative area where the illegitimate birth rate among teenagers has skyrocketed. Marriage is no longer important, and multiple children by different fathers is common.
Marriage and family, the bedrock of a civilized nation, is all but destroyed. I have no doubt that when the Supreme Court issues it’s ruling on same-sex “marriage”, it will come down on the side of the homosexuals, thereby completely changing the definition of marriage.
Benjamin Franklin emphasized that without virtue, free societies could not properly function. He said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
When was the last time you even heard the word “virtue”? If people conformed to accepted virtues, none of what is going on would be possible.
There is much talk on many sites, usually the ones focused on the economy, about some big event coming along to collapse our country. Trust me on this, it won’t happen like that. In fact, it’s already happening and has been for decades. The slow drip of immorality and depravity has already transformed our country into something most of us don’t recognize anymore.
The elites don’t want a collapse, they want slaves who will be willing to do their bidding.
John Adams, in a letter dated October 11, 1798, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts said:
[…]we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
I have no intention of being anyone’s slave, and I hope you don’t either.
That came to mind when I Noticed this piece at Glenn’s site talking about women not having children. It hit me that the premise is not entirely true, women are having children just not the women the media cares about
Women between the ages of 15 and 44 who attend religious services at least weekly have 1.42 children on average, compared with the 1.11 children of similar-age women who rarely or never attend services. More religious women said they also intend to have more kids (2.62 per woman) than nonreligious women (2.10 per woman), the survey found.
Religious mothers also have a larger share of the total births in the United States. Women who attend religious services represent only 51 percent of U.S. women ages 15-44, but account for 56 percent of births.
And the media’s favorite Pope is leading the charge to keep it up:
Pope Francis on Wednesday (Feb. 11) once again praised big families, telling a gathering in St. Peter’s Square that having more children is not “an irresponsible choice.”
He also said that opting not to have children at all is “a selfish choice.”
A society that “views children above all as a worry, a burden, a risk, is a depressed society,” Francis said.
Depressed? Gee that sounds an awful lot like the feminists that Stacy McCain has been writing about:
“Yes, she’s a ridiculous self-parody of feminist absurdity,” says the reader, “but how did she get that way? Why is Jess Zimmerman the particular kind of fool she is?”
It’s no coincidence that each year the pro-life marches contain more and more young people, particularly woman and their children brought up in religious homes, many educated in religious schools while not immune to the influences of the MSM culture are much more likely to hold the values that their parents hold dear.
The irony of all this? The cultural “leaders” noting the lack of children haven’t figured out that they are rapidly becoming a niche market and as we become a more streaming society and the gateways to culture and entertainment are less controlled by them their influence will drop even more.
The only question is, will I live long enough (mid 70’s or 80’s) to see it happen?
They MSM & their cultural allies are all Pauline Kael, they just don’t know it yet
Twenty years ago if you were unhappy with a business, let’s say a check out clerk was rude to you or you were served a rotten meal, you had some effective ways of getting back. Of course these methods still exist. You can never patronize that business again and tell your friends not to do so as well.
Last week a South Bend, Indiana television reporter ventured outside of her city and traveled to tiny Walkerton, a place she probably never heard of before, where she interviewed one of the owners of Memories Pizza, a family business, who told the reporter that because of their Christian beliefs they would not cater a gay wedding–if they were was asked. The reporter found the “gotcha” story in the sticks that she was seeking in regards to Indiana’s new Religious Restoration Freedom Act.
And then the online attacks poured in Actually they’re still coming. Memories’ Yelp page has been inundated with “reviews” from people who lives almost everywhere but northern Indiana. On the other hand, a high school coach from nearby Goshen took to Twitter to suggest that Memories be burned down. She has since been suspended. As I mentioned in my post here last week, Yelp’s CEO condemned Indiana’s RFRA, although just last month his firm opened an office in Illinois–which has a similar law.
Years ago I was at a concert where Elvis Costello answered a heckler who was shouting that he should play “Clubland,” by replying with something blues singer Little Willie John once said. “I remember the good old days,” Costello quipped, “they’re gone now. ”
True, very true.
But there is some good news. Supporters of Memories Pizza and religious freedom started a GoFundMe.com drive for the owners of the restaurant–and it has received $800,000.
Here is a headline from earlier this month that caught my eye and it comes from, surprise, the Washington Post: At last, a Western country stands up to Saudi Arabia on human rights. Sweden’s foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, had planned to speak at an Arab League event in Cairo and her office’s website published her speech beforehand. Wallstrom’s remarks included a call for expanding women’s rights and more democracy in the Islamic world. Even though Saudi Arabia wasn’t specifically mentioned, the Islamo-supremacist kingdom blocked Wallstrom from giving that address.
Meanwhile on the floor of the Swedish parliament, Wallstrom condemned the 1,000 lashes and ten-year prison sentence of Raif Badawi, a Saudi critic of Islam. He was received only 50 of those whippings–poor health has so far so far saved him from the other 950. The Saudis are merciful–who knew? Wallstrom calls this sentence, correctly, “medieval.”
The foreign minister, who promised a “feminist foreign policy” when she acceded to her post, has since made some make-nice comments about Islam. But that has not stopped the Saudis from recalling its ambassador from Stockholm and from pulling visas from Swedes.
Sweden has responded by cancelling a ten-year old arms agreement with the kingdom.
Not surprisingly, with the exception of the Washington Post, there has been little coverage of the Sweden-Saudi dispute by the American media, which surely causes great cognitive dissonance among the self-appointed gatekeepers of information who regularly promote feminist issues. But it seems with the Wallstrom story, moral relativism wins the day again.
I have a solution to this quandary. Stick to the facts and let the consumers of news decide what to think.
As for the Wallstrom, I have this to say: Keep up the good work.