See No Evil

 


One thing you can give our media Chattering Classes:
They are utterly consistent. After Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on a roomful of defenseless people in Fort Hood, it was absolutely assured that we would immediately be told that this outrage had nothing to do with his Islamic faith and that it was not an act of terror. Then, as time went on and the bleedin’ obvious became bleedin’ obvious, we would spend all weekend enduring TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads and pondering the question of whether there might be some remote connection between Islamic belief and a guy who praises Muslim suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, sits under the teaching of a Radical Islamic imam who praises his act of slaughter as heroic, uses his authority as a psychiatrist to proselytize vulnerable patients with Islamic agitprop, and dresses in traditional Muslim garb and shouts “Allahu akbar!” as he guns down his prey.




It was a spectacular display of deliberate willed stupidity by a media culture that demonstrates repeatedly it does not want to acknowledge that Islam tends to breed such acts of terror with startling frequency. And it was predictable because it happens every time some Islamic butcher opens up on innocent victims in the name of the Prophet. So, for instance, when a Koran-spouting Egyptian took it upon himself to butcher innocent people for the crime of flying on El Al, the initial twaddle from both the state and the media immediately assured us this was an “isolated incident” and that it had nothing to do with the crazy, bloodthirsty Islamic beliefs of the butcher who did it. Finally, after nearly a year of intensive study of the noses on their own faces, the FBI and CNN finally figured out that the murders were specimens of Islamic terrorism. Same deal with the guy in Seattle, who slaughtered a few Jews in the name of Allah some years back. We got the assurance from the media that this had nothing to do with Islam. Then they eventually tried the novel approach of opening their eyes to see the plain light of day. Good job, Sherlock.

Of course, that same media culture has absolutely
no trouble painting Christians as dangerous fanatics (no doubt due to the roving gangs of gun-toting Methodists who shout “Jesus is Lord” as they blast away at defenseless people). We live in a culture where Larry David can piss on Jesus, but we are continually lectured on the need to respect the sensitivities of butchers who get invited to participate in the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute Presidential Transition Task Force and who return the favor by murdering the sons and daughters of the nation that gave him a great education and such high honors.

 
Meanwhile, the Religion That Can’t Grow Up beholds the carnage wrought by another Son of the Prophet and naturally blames . . . somebody else, while feeling sorry for itself:
 
“When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.”
 
Um, no. When the Muslim calls it jihad, we call it jihad, just as when a Christian used to call it a crusade, we call it a crusade. (And, by the way, when the rare Christian does something heinous in the name of Jesus, Christians condemn the evil act and the one who committed it, not the world for being upset by the evil act.) But in the world of our crazy media, the first response to mass murder by an Islamic killer is moaning that somebody made fun of the shooter. Poor widdle butcher. Boy, I’m sure lucky that nobody in our culture ever mocks us mackerel snappers or says we are the greatest force for evil in the whole wide world. If they did, I guess we’d be perfectly justified in opening fire on innocent human beings.

Indeed, speaking of us mackerel snappers, some particularly ingenious thinkers actually found a way to blame 400-year-old English Catholics for Hasan’s crime:
 
There simply is no information yet about what Hasan’s motives were, or whether Hasan is indeed muslim [sic] or not. Of course, that last bit of information is the one that everyone will want to know about the most, even though in a fundamental sense it matters the least. . . .
 
However, something disquieting about the date . . . . It should be noted (as others like Ali Eteraz already have) that today is Guy Fawkes Day — the anniversary of a plot by a Catholic dissident to blow up the English Parliament then dominated by Protestants).

If the shootings were motivated by some sense of grievance against US foreign/military policy, then the date is surely significant.


If you are wondering why centuries-dead Catholics are the Prime Suspects for some of our Chattering Classes, Roland Emmerich does a standup job making clear what motivates so much of the willed stupidity from the Won’t See the Noses on Their Faces Brigade.
It’s all about the cowardice:
 
For “2012,” Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there’s one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn’t: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It’s the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, ‘I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.’ And he was right.”

Emmerich went on: “We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have . . . a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.”


Note the passive voice. Emmerich doesn’t acknowledge that he is a coward afraid of offending Bronze Age Bullies with thin skin. Instead, he blabbers something about “what the state of the world is.” By this, he means that Christians have that whole “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek” thing that makes us such safe targets to courageously attack. In a word, Rome doesn’t issue fatwas.

 
Now, I’m all for not leaping to conclusions. Merely having a Muslim-sounding name no more makes it an act of Islamic terror than being named Rodriguez makes a shooter a “Roman-Catholic terrorist.” But had the shooter in Orlando had a history of praising the IRA murders and bombings, of posting that non-Catholics deserve death, of trying to use his position to pressure subordinates to convert, and of opening fire on rooms full of defenseless people while shouting “Hail Mary!” I think normal people would agree that this guy was a terrorist inspired by a very dark version of the Catholic Faith. What drives me crazy about our media is that they constantly make the preemptive leap to definitively declare that acts of evil committed by Muslims have nothing to do with their Muslim faith, when any fool can see that’s exactly what inspired them.

No, that doesn’t mean all Muslims are terrorists (of course!). Indeed, one of the few sensible people in this entire exasperating farce of idiots in need of Insensitivity Training was Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, who, after listening to Hasan’s Radical Islamic nuttery, told him, “There’s something wrong with you,” and assumed the Army would, you know, take care of an obvious threat to its own troops in its midst. But the Current Thinking among the leadership is that the slaughter of a few troops is to be preferred to upsetting the sensitivities of butchers and those who love them:

 
Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates in a graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.
 
That’s because, like everybody else in charge in this crazy country, we treat ideas as though they are genetic traits we can’t help having and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that ideas have consequences. We regard theological and philosophical profiling with the same horror as racial profiling. But here’s the thing: Skin color doesn’t kill. Thoughts of the heart, however, are exactly where murder begins. That doesn’t mean instituting Thought Police, but it does mean that when somebody (or some particular ideological group) demonstrates a pattern of sympathy for violence, we are idiots to ignore it.
 
And it means we are absolute idiots to go on ignoring the fact that a) Islam has plenty of room in its body of doctrine for this sort of brutal violence; b) Islam has plenty of people who approve of this kind of violence and are in various stages of readiness to commit it; and c) Radical Islamic ideologues often emit glaring warning signals. We are even greater fools to tiptoe around those Muslims whose first reaction to such crimes is to blame everybody else but their tradition and to demand victimhood for themselves.
 
We want very much to believe that Violent Islam is a perversion of the Islamic tradition and Wise and Benevolent Islam is the Real Islamic tradition. But the reality is that Islam is an invented human religion that borrows from fragments of Judaism and Christianity, mixes in Mohammed’s own delusional (or lying) claims of revelation, and completes it with a dash of conventional wisdom from seventh-century Arab culture. It is not a magisterial faith with some adjudicating body that defines what is and is not the orthodox reading of the Koran. It is whatever its various adherents say it is.
 
That means that if you are looking for a sanction for violence in the Koran, you can find it, because it’s there. So is the wisdom, almsgiving, and peace stuff, if you want that. So Muslims who commit these heinous acts with such frequency are not “betraying Islam” when doing so out of self-described piety. They are, in fact, implementing one possible interpretation of the Muslim tradition (and often slaughtering a great many other Muslims in the process). Westerners who lie to themselves that these monsters are “not real Muslims” are simply self-deluded fools. They are as Muslim as Mohammed, as are their Muslim victims. There is no Islamic Magisterium to excommunicate them. They don’t speak for all Muslims, but they most certainly do speak and act for the disturbingly large percentage of Muslims who either applaud them, remain silent, or complain about being victims of suspicion and distrust by the victims of terror instead of complaining about the thugs who commit the terror in the name of Islam.

That said, the reality is that the cure, if it is to come at all, will have to come from within Islam: from Muslims who inculcate in their children a sense of shame for Radical Murderous Islam, just as Christians have successfully inculcated shame in their own ranks for expressions of Christianity that turned a blind eye to slavery, terrorism, oppression of women, and racism. It will not come from the preferred Western dream of a post-religious secular world scrubbed clean of “religion.” Such experiments have been attempted in communist countries; they are akin to saying, “We’ve noticed a correlation between immune systems and disease, so let’s get rid of immune systems.” Not accidently, the disease of human sin has only prospered in such regimes to the tune of millions slaughtered. Instead of pretending the beast of Radical Islam is not there, the West will sooner or later have to learn how to educate itself about theology again — or perish. It will also have to profile those who have not a particular skin color but a particular ideological paper trail of ideas and views that makes it obvious they sympathize with Radical Islamic violence, just as we should profile those who sympathize with skinheads, Klansmen, or tales of the Glorious IRA Terrorists.

 
Most of all, it means we need to get theologically literate again and find a more sophisticated way of understanding things than simply dumping Christianity and Islam into a bucket and calling it all “religion” (which, as we all know, leads to undifferentiated “violence”). The only way to counter an inflamed theology like Islam is with a healthy one, not with the watery delusions of postmodern secularism. And that, sooner or later, means a return to the sanity of the Catholic Faith.
 
 

Mark P. Shea

By

Mark P. Shea is the author of Mary, Mother of the Son and other works. He was a senior editor at Catholic Exchange and is a former columnist for Crisis Magazine.

  • Austin

    The Media tries so very hard to tiptoe around the issue of Nidal’s Islamic Jihadist attitudes. As soon as I heard his name, it hit me that this was a terrorist act by a fanatical Muslim. It’s really very simple, but of course, our “Chattering Class” in the media and also government refuse to see the obvious.

    D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad, wanted to kill infidels, but this was also sidestepped as well. How many rampages do we have to endure before we recognize the obvious?

    The government keeps insisting that Nidal “acted alone” and was not part of a conspiracy or terrorist cell. So what. Those peope he killed are just as dead if he is a lone wolf vs a member of a terrorist cell. It doesn’t matter.

    Stalin had his “useful idiots” on the Left, who would excuse literally any atrocity, and now the Jihadists have their useful idiots, in both media and government, who worship at the altar of “DIVERSITY.”

    Thus, at airports, my arthritic, white haired, 80 year old mother is carefully searched, before she flies to Florida to visit her sister, while young Muslim men walk through with no detail search, all in the name of “diversity.” The whole thing has become Kabuki Theater: The Government pretends to protect us, and we pretend that it actually works.

    Sooner or later, we need to wake up, before it is too late.

  • Bill Sr.
  • Jennifer

    Mark,

    Thank you so much for this. I’m an Army wife, and I can’t tell you how much this tragedy hurts. We’re not stationed at Ft. Hood right now, but we were in 2003 when my husband deployed to Iraq at the start of the war. He was in that building on countless occasions, as was I with our babies. I shudder to imagine…

    The Army’s cowardly political-correctness has cost 13 families the ultimate price, and the Army should be profoundly ashamed. It means that even on our own installations, we’re not safe anymore. That’s what this says to every single military family. Even on our home base, we’re not safe. They can have the greatest security at the gate and demand ID’s all they want, but it doesn’t matter a bit if they won’t root out the terrorist hiding in an Army uniform.

    My heart breaks for these families, and I am damn angry at the Army and the US Government for this completely preventable slaughter.

    I’m not holding my breath to see if Obama will have the guts to prosecute this guy as a terrorist… I think we all know where his loyalties lie and it ain’t with us.

    Thank you for saying it so plainly and unapologetically. God bless you.

  • Dymphna

    In light of the masacre at Fort Hood, I’ve already heard the following from an atheist relative: Religion poisons people’s minds. So, thanks, radical Islam. Now non-religious types think that all religions breed violence and hatred.

  • D. Tracy

    “Instead of pretending the beast of Radical Islam is not there, the West will sooner or later have to learn how to educate itself about theology again — or perish.”

    I do not understand the motivation to explain away Maj. Hasan’s actions or to quickly distract any discussion of his actions by foisting up stories about a backlash against Muslims.

    Do we make such excuses or bend over backwards to explain away the actions of a white supremacist who burns a cross or commits a violent act?

    Has political correctness made some of us to afraid to have an honest and frank discussion about this violent event?

  • Francis Wippel

    Mark,

    Thanks for a well-written and honest portrayal of this story.

    While I am upset with most of the media

  • Stephen Wise
  • Just Saying

    Religions don’t kill people. People kill people.

    (Come on now, folks. You swallow it hook, line and sinker when the NRA spews it.)

  • Stephen Wise
  • Mark

    The MSM may be afraid to look at the violent aspects
    of Islam. Doing so might cause people to examine Christianity
    as well, with the risk that Christianity wins more converts.
    Additionally, George W Bush may come out looking justified
    in the war on terror, and the MSM and liberals cannot afford
    that.

  • Christine

    Hi Just Saying,

    Please read the Quran and let me know if you change your mind. You can find on on http://www.jihadwatch.org, but use another source, but by all means, do you research before “just saying” it.

    PS – I think that any military person in Fort Hood would have been grateful to God to have been in possession of a sidearm at the time of the attack. Many lives would have been saved, especially when the people bearing arms are trained professionals.

    PPS – Believe it or not, I am not necessarily against some forms of gun control!!!

  • Christine

    My post reminded me of a joke…

    What did the London police officer say to the criminal while he was chasing him as he ran away from the scene of the crime?

    “Stop… or I’ll tell you to stop again”[smiley=wink]

  • sanwin

    Possibly one of the best analysis of the events at Fort Hood I have read anywhere.

    You now have a new fan of your blog.

  • I am not Spartacus

  • I am not Spartacus
  • VR

    D. Tracy – Yes
    Just Saying – yes,It is true
    Christine – What forms would you like, that weren’t already in place there @ Ft. Hood?

    God Bless

  • Mark P. Shea

    Racial profiling deserves to be massacred. It is ideas, not skin color, that should concern us.

  • Krystyna Wise
  • Joe H

    Thanks for saying precisely what needed to be said, Mark.

  • Dienekes

    “Homeland Security” is turning out to be just as big a fraud as public education. The preening officials who dropped the ball on this should be fired and forced to walk around Fort Hood in sackcloth and ashes for a month, asking forgiveness from passersby.

    Starting with the Commander in Chief.

  • I am not Spartacus

    NOT singling out for increased scrutiny those you know to be the enemy is deadly.

    Although, to be fair, it does put all of us, not just soldiers fighting overseas, in harm’s way,

  • I am not Spartacus

    Racial profiling deserves to be massacred. It is ideas, not skin color, that should concern us.

    Returning to your house, you see a young black man speeding away from your driveway. Upon entering the house you discover your entire family has been killed.

    You call the police and give them the info and description only to later learn the perp skated because the police stopped every 7th car whether it was driven by a young black man or an old white woman.

    Of course that would be ideological insanity totally divorced from the real world real men and real women must live in and that would never happen in America – wait – sorry, I was thinking about Dead Old America.

  • Richard

    Mr. Shea, in an otherwise good article, keeps reaching for some Christian terrorists to compare with muslim ones. I don’t think the IRA fits that mold, however. The IRA was never fighting for Catholicism, the IRAs fight was for a united Ireland. Some members may have been devout, believing Catholics{just as I suppose there were devout Catholics in Hitler’s Army} the battle between the IRA and the British government was never a religous crusade. The fight was between ethnic Irishman who wanted self-determination, no matter how hard the Rev Paisley tried to spin it.

  • Cursillo Rules

    Mark Thank you for your intelligent and well thought out article. I agree that we have to state evil for what it is, and murder for what it is. Not all Muslims are evil, and not all Catholics are good. Evil is defined by the lack of love for others. The more Evil you are, the less concerned you are for the well being, or lives of those with differing opinions & practices from your own.
    I support calling extremism EVIL no matter what form of it it is, when it calls for the killing of all those with opposing views. We need to pray for conversion of hearts and minds to Christ’s. We need to teach THOU SHALT NOT KILL! We are examples to the world of turning the other cheek, but apparently it’s not enough for us to be tolerant of all. We cannot tolerate EVIL. We need action and to express our outrage at those who commit acts of VIOLENCE!

  • Warren

    Well done Mark. This article is cogently and fearlessly written. There is no doubt that the West must relearn its traditions, faith and culture. I try not to be pessimistic about whether this will ever happen but people like you give me hope.

  • Wayne Pacific

    Consider how you would feel if you too were a Palestinian and had to witness everyday the Israeli atrocities against your people, which is paid for and backed by the self-righteous USA.

    I am only surprised that these acts don’t occure everyday.

    An intelligent Nation would think to reconsider changing its lopsided Israei/Palestinian policy.

    To set the record straight, the Gazan Palestinians were driven off their ancient properties by the European Jews through brutal slaughter of the villagers. these people fled dow nto the seaside to escape the mass murder, and therre thye sit today hearede up and surrounded by the European and American Jews that have no valid deed to the land other than the gun in their hand.

    The entire world recognizes this outrage, but the lone USA veto has kept the UN Security Council form acting. We have vetoed saving the Palestinians over and over again.

    The Palestinians have acted with great restraint towards the USA.

  • Mark P. Shea

    Hasan did not one damn thing to help the plight of the Palestinian people (a plight with which I strongly empathize). He is a man who murdered a bunch of innocent people. Period.

    IANS:

    Your analogy is bogus. If you *know* the perp was black then, of course, it’s stupid to stop other people. We are talking about something else besides skin color here.

  • Vicki

    The question to ask ourselves is not what his motives are but why on a military base (You know that place with lots of guns) the shooter got a chance to shoot more than one round?

    The scenario SHOULD have been. Shooter hops up on table. Soldiers that notice think it is a joke.

    Shooter shouts “Allahu Akbar” and pulls out his pistols (if not already out)

    15-20 Soldiers around him (realizing this is not a joke) pull their service pistols, Drop to kneeling position and take aim.

    Shooter discharges 1 round wounding a soldier.

    15-20 Soldiers, seeing that they are firing up (no people behind the shooter) discharge their weapons 1-3 times each.

    Shooter meets Allah.

    News headline
    “1 dead, 1 wounded in attack on military base.”

    At most 2 dead.

    No need to care about the shooters motives.

    Unfortunately because of a Clinton (Bill) policy from the early 1990’s all military bases are “gun free zones”. All of our highly trained soldiers were forced to stand around like sheep in a slaughterhouse.

    It took a traffic cop with a gun to neutralize the attack.

    This insane behavior MUST stop.

  • Steve

    No wonder conservative catholics get such a bad name among the general community when they publish drivel like this. I guess all the previous gun wielding crazies who were Christians were Christian terrorists? I always love a columnist who begins with “the chattering classes”. Mark, who exactly are the chattering classes?

  • Pauli

    Israeli soldiers are not only allowed but *required* to carry weapons on their persons at all times if they are on active duty. Our soldiers are not allowed to do this. Enough said.

  • I am not Spartacus

    Your analogy is bogus. If you *know* the perp was black then, of course, it’s stupid to stop other people. We are talking about something else besides skin color here.

    You are talking race when it comes to Muslims Massacres and Muslim attacks in America. I am not writing it is only about race but agreeing that it is ok for the Govt to exclude race as a factor in their actions is to surrender intellect and common sense in becoming a Dhimmi to institutionalised liberalism whose Dogma is The Principle of Non-Discrimination (except against white male heterosexual christians).

    The physical appearance – race and “presentation” – of a few of the 911 hijackers in Portland, Maine caused a Mr. Touhey to state:

    TOUHEY: They had a tie and jacket on. All right? And as I’m looking at them, you know, they’re holding their IDs up, and I’m looking at them. It’s not nice, but I said, “Jeez, if this doesn’t look like two Arab terrorists, I’ve never seen two Arab terrorists.”

    TOUHEY: I don’t know. Immediately, I felt guilty about thinking something like that. I just said, “This is awful.” How — you know, I’ve checked in thousands of Arabic people over the years. You know, doing the same job. Businessmen. I said, “These are just a couple of Arab business guys.”

    Poor Mr. Touhey. He was right as rain but Institutionalised Liberalism had been so implanted in his intellect, so drilled into him in his professional training, that he condemned himself for his sharp and right reaction.

    BECAUSE he used race as a marker, he felt guilty. And he felt guilty because EVERYONE tells him (and everyone else) that using race as a marker is evil.

    Institutionalised Liberalism is the death of America. I did not write “will” be the death of America. America is dead and Liberalism killed it.

    And,as I pass through the Morgues, otherwise known as Airports, I know that there is as an equal chance that my Mother-in-law (82 y.o. white woman) with an English surname will be subjected to a search as will an 18 y.o. Arab male named Mohammed.

  • steve

    You are talking race when it comes to Muslims Massacres and Muslim attacks in America. I am not writing it is only about race but agreeing that it is ok for the Govt to exclude race as a factor in their actions is to surrender intellect and common sense in becoming a Dhimmi to institutionalised liberalism whose Dogma is The Principle of Non-Discrimination (except against white male heterosexual christians).

    again in English?

  • I am not Spartacus

    again in English?

    Race is a factor in Muslim Massacres.
    It is not the only factor.
    It is wrong for the Govt to exclude race as a factor.
    To agree to exclude race as a factor is to become a Dhimmi under Institutionalised Liberalism.
    A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living with limited rights under Muslim rule and a dhimmi to Institutionalised Liberalism is one who is a non-liberal in America who has limited rights under Liberal Rule.
    The Principle of Non-Discrimination as defined by Mr. Auster:

    Friday, September 25, 2009
    Larry Auster

    …To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

    The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

    This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

    To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can

  • Dan McGuire

    If the vast majority of Muslim Jihadists are: male, are ethnically Arabic and between the ages of 20 and 35; why in the world would a prudent security system employ racial profiling as one of its tools? This does not mean arresting/interrogating people because they are arabs. It means using it as one, among many, means of identifying possible jihadists.

    Absolute prohibition of racial profiling is politically correct nonsense. Stipulating that “skin color” ought not concern us is simply ignoring the obvious.

  • David

    This article is certainly not drivel. I understand “the chattering classes” to be simply a euphemism for the MSM. But really, what difference does it make? The article does not consist of one introductory sentence. Furthermore, conservative Catholics only get a bad name from liberals – of what consequence, its not about popularity, its about the truth.

  • Mr Lahey

    Steve, your comments about the Christian gun wielding terrorists? other then a few one off’s,,who indeed were Christian terrorists, how many examples can you give?

    On the other hand, not much effort required to list off Muslim terrorists…

    Open you eyes…these Muslim terrorists dont hide the facts they want to destroy us,,they proclaim it,,yet people like you still deny it….

  • Christine

    Hi VR,

    I think that there should be a background check and waiting time for gun purchases, as well as gun licensure that would require people to take a course on proper gun use and storage (like a driver’s license).

    My family is from Texas. We had guns in the house and we were taught about the things I mention above. I never understood how a child could get a hold of a gun and play with it…

    I am no lawyer, but I think that with the right of bearing arms, there should come responsibilities. I don’t think that what I propose, therefore, would be unconstitutional. It would just make a lot of people who sell guns at gun shows and pawn shops nervous.

  • Steve

    I wasn’t asserting that there are Christian terrorists at all. I was pointing out the illogical assumption that because the shooter in Ft Hood was a Muslim he was a Muslim terrorist.

    Mass shootings are not an uncommon occurrence in America. Just try a web search for “gun massacre America.” – The article below was published on mj.com in Feb 2008.

    What was the religion of the shooters in this article (the massive death toll from just one month)? Or Columbine, or Virginia Tech?

    Is it relevant? Probably not. That’s my point.
    If the shooter IS an Islamic Jihadist, then it worries me that he had a job on a US Army base, for which I assume he would have needed a high security clearance.

    February 17, 2008, 8:53AM

    The past couple of weeks have been a dangerous time to live in America. We witnessed a skein of high-profile, multiple victim shootings, many causing the deaths and woundings of several innocents and police officers. Meanwhile, the world looked on in shock and disgust.

    The shootings included:

    ~Saturday, February 1: 15-year old honor student shoots and kills parents and two brothers in Baltimore suburb;
    ~Saturday, February 1: Gunman shoots and kills five women in suburban Chicago clothing store;
    ~Sunday, February 2: Gunman shoots and kills three at suburban Washington, DC pizzeria after argument over Super Bowl;
    ~Thursday, February 7: Gunman shoots and kills police officer, three others in fiery Los Angeles stand-off;
    ~Thursday, February 7: Disgruntled citizen shoots and kills two police officers, three others in rampage during Missouri city council meeting; and
    ~Friday, February 8: Nursing student shoots and kills two other students and self at Louisiana college.

    What would have likely been the most damaging shooting of all during the period occurred mercifully without death or injury Sunday, February 2, when a man armed himself with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and approached the Super Bowl near Phoenix intent on massacre, but had a last-minute change of heart and turned himself in before opening fire.

    The series was capped off this past Thursday, Valentine’s Day, when a disturbed gunman shot and killed 5 students and wounded 16, before killing himself, in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University.

  • Steve

    Mr Shea more accurately descibed the situation in one of his replies:
    “He is a man who murdered a bunch of innocent people. Period.”

    He earlier said
    “But the reality is that Islam is an invented human religion that borrows from fragments of Judaism and Christianity…”

    by which I assume he means that Catholicism is NOT an invented human religion?

    I’m not sure I can see the difference between Muslim intolerance of Christianity and Christian intolerance of Islam.

  • Vicki

    As I read thru some of the comments I am again appalled at the lack of knowledge in we the people. The equation is VERY simple. There are people out there who will for some motive try to kill a lot of others. If we were to as a country abide by the intent of the framers and the intent of the Creator (you decide the name) and the very LAWS of the Constitution many of us would be armed.

    With many of us armed, as in the scenario above, the people out to kill us with guns would not because they could not.

    We would not CARE what the motives were. We would simply neutralize the attack. The courts (or God) would take care of dealing with motives.

    We would not CARE what color the skin of the shooter,
    We would not CARE what religion the shooter claimed to believe in.
    We would not CARE what ethics or principles the shooter claimed.
    We would not try to kill the shooter.
    We would not try to wound the shooter.

    We would neutralize the attack either by our presence or, by as the traffic cop needed to, the force of arms.

    True to our Christian faith, and just as the soldiers did that day we would move to save the life of the shooter who had just tried to kill us.

    Until we as a people get over being sheep we will be sheared and slaughtered to the hearts content of those who see us as sheep.

  • Tournefort

    “The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.”

    Good ole “multiculturism”.

    Whatever happened to the “melting pot”?

  • Mark P. Shea

    by which I assume he means that Catholicism is NOT an invented human religion?

    Right. And your telegraphed incredulity at what you assume is my provincialism, which is rooted in your own “If you’ve seen one religion, you’ve seen ’em all” postmodern assumptions makes your next remark almost inevitable:

    I’m not sure I can see the difference between Muslim intolerance of Christianity and Christian intolerance of Islam.

    Well, how about, for starters, that Islam is legal and tolerated in Christian cultures while Christianity is persecuted and illegal in many Islamic cultures?

    Really, you should actually learn something about the history and theology of both Islam and the Catholic faith and not just go with the breezy assumptions you’ve picked up from TV and water cooler chat.

  • Penitent

    Mark,

    This article was spot on, and wonderfully written. Thank you.

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    Richard is spot on in pointing out that the IRA is not an example of Catholic terrorists. (I think the new term is “insurgents.”) The IRA fought, with a fair bit of success, for Ireland, not Catholicism. The Irish Republican movement, of which the IRA is a central element, traces its lineage to the United Irishmen movement of the late 1790’s. A leader of this movement was Theobold Wolfe Tone. Irish Republicans claim Tone as the father of Irish Republicanism. They still hold annual commemorations at his grave site in Bodenstown, Co. Kildare. Tone was definitely not a Catholic. He was a member of the Church of Ireland. (The Church of Ireland is ANGLICAN). Some of the most prominent 19th century republicans were also PROTESTANT. Two which come to mind are Robert Emmett and Henry Joy McCracken. The republican movement remains secular and decidedly non-sectarian. Moreover, the struggle in Ireland has always been one of national liberation, not religion. Rather than Catholic and Protestant, political terms like nationalist and unionist are more appropriate.
    Why then have the terms “Catholic” and “Protestant” been bandied about for so many years in relation to difficulties in northern Ireland? Two reasons, first, journalists are lazy and stupid. Second, throughout the 1969-1995 Irish war the British wanted to be seen, not as a combatant, but as an impartial, rational third party attempted to stop two irrational tribes from killing each other. In reality, the British were very much a combatant, but they knew good propaganda and they had the pull needed to manipulate compliant news agencies.

  • Geremia

    It is not a magisterial faith with some adjudicating body that defines what is and is not the orthodox reading of the Koran. It is whatever its various adherents say it is.

    One could say that about Christians, too, because only one sect (Catholicism) has a magisterium and hierarchy of authority by which to judge truth. Does not Islam have an analogous sect? Would this be the Sunni sect because it is the most orthodox?

  • Steve.

    Actually Mark, I was a Catholic for the first 25 years of my life, so I do have a reasonable knowledge of the theology of the Catholic faith and it’s somewhat violent history. It was zealous attitudes like the one expressed in your article that drove me away. I also know that the Allah of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same thing, which of course are both the Yahweh of Judaism.

    One of the more astute observations you made in your original article was “Skin color doesn’t kill. Thoughts of the heart, however, are exactly where murder begins.”

    Spot on. And one of the more dangerous ideas that man has developed is the belief that ” all religions are made up, except mine”. That dangerous idea generates outcomes such as the racial and religious persecution and mass murder ( let’s not mince words) carried out by the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Outcomes such as the Islamic terrorism of today. And if you are looking for modern examples of persecution of Muslims by Christians do a bit of research into the genocides of Bosnia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.

    I can’t help thinking that if there is a God/Allah/Yahweh, it must get very frustrated when all sides claim that they alone know the truth.

    It reminds me of a Dave Allen sketch where two kings were praying before going into battle, with exactly the same words, you know, “oh great God of our people, protect us and smite thy enemies,.. blah blah”. Poor ol’ God (there was only one) ends up tossing a coin to decide!

    Oops that was on TV, which is where I get my theology apparently. Thirsy now, I think I’ll head on back to the water cooler 🙂

  • Mark P. Shea

    Right, Steve. Because as all smug postmoderns know, you are superior to all believers in such crude superstition.

  • Martial Artist

    Mark,

    I must, sadly, take issue with your characterization of “TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads…”

    It is clear to me that you are being far too generous in your assessment (not of cost of their haircuts, but of the value of their heads).

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    And one of the more dangerous ideas that man has developed is the belief that ” all religions are made up, except mine”.

    Steve, that sort of thinking isn’t restricted to traditional religion. The same could be said of other belief systems, including secular-fundamentalism, socialism/marxism, and environmentalism (i.e., global warming). These post-Christian belief systems also feature doctrinal rigidity. Marxism brought us gulags and the murder of nameless millions. I hear people talk everyday about “tolerance” when they don’t know the meaning of the word. Do you know the definition of a racist? A racist is anyone who disagrees with a liberal. Steve, you seem to have the idea that Mark’s beliefs are made up, and yours are not. ‘Sounds dangerous.

    At least Mark’s beliefs provide him with additional reason to perform works of charity, not cheat people, not commit adultery, etc. Can you think of a greater charitable organization than the Catholic Church? I can’t. Well, I’m sure there’s a Little Atheists of the Poor out there somewhere.

    You speak of various atrocious acts committed by the Church long ago. Did such things not happen in the non-Christian world? Did such things not happen before the Church existed? Maybe such acts were more a reflection of the particular era in question.

    As for Bosnia and Kosovo, how much of that really has anything to do with religion? After decades of communism, the Serbs don’t strike me as an especially pious people. You cite acts by people who may, at best, be nominally Christian, and attribute their acts to Christianity. You can only do so by ignoring other sources of inspiration, such as Serbian nationalism.

    In certain countries, religious labels can take on additional ethnic and political meaning, even to the point where the religious component becomes irrelevant. For example, in Ireland, one can be an atheist or agnostic, but still be a “Catholic.” All the best!

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    again in English?
    The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

    Is this a reference to the USCCB (a/k/a people who do not get my money)? 😉

  • Steve

    Right, Steve. Because as all smug postmoderns know, you are superior to all believers in such crude superstition.

    Ouch! Good comeback Mark. I now see the error of my ways, thank you so much for enlightening me. I can’t wait for your next pearl of wisdom.

  • Michael John Gamache

    The violent acts of Christians are Rare? [smiley=think] Interesting. I recent memory nations have been torn apart SPECIFICALLY for Christ, in the name of Christ.
    Go to school, take a history class. lol
    Then write.

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    The violent acts of Christians are Rare? [smiley=think] Interesting. I recent memory nations have been torn apart SPECIFICALLY for Christ, in the name of Christ.
    Go to school, take a history class. lol
    Then write.

    Could you please provide just one example of a nation which has “been torn apart SPECIFICALLY for Christ, in the name of Christ” in recent memory. I noticed you overlooked doing so.

  • Mark Erwin

    9/11 occurs, no shown support for the families and our nation by Muslims in the USA. Muslim nations that we have bleed for showed no support instead went to the street to should their happiness that the USA was hit by terriost. Mulsim nations after natural disasters always expect the USA to help while their brother nations do nothing. We have appointed two undersecetaries to the Homeland Defense Department last August and our congressnal electorate said nothing. Palestinians who complain have no concept of the amount of money the US has sent to their region to help their situation only to have their countrymen steal the money building palaces on the ocean while just outside thier back door people are living in tin roofing huts.

    Never put the fox in the chicken coop unless you want your chicken to come up missing. Who is leading our country? Do we know? He has not produced a birth certificate but he did apply for federal funds to go to college as a foreign national. Family members are listed on the terriost watch list.

    No one in this nation should have to look over their shoulders to insure that the person next to them is not going to shoot them. No one should loose their job to an illegal and take less than their worth because of them.

    Stop all immigration until we seal the borders and have time to verify all Mulsims then all that have entered into this country, checking backgrounds and worthness to stay. Stop the stupid practice, one that is not supported by the Constitution, of allow one citizenship if born in this country even if they are from illegal parents.

    God Bless the blacks in this country who showed the kind of faith in their rights to go to the streets, register to vote and stand should to should in the face of the establishment. This nation must go to the streets to show our support of the Constitution and vote out of office 100% of the current congress to show our resolve. Demand term limits and balanced budgets with no earmarks. Stop all foreign aide until our nation debt is paid. Get out of the United Nations and the World Bank. The concept of stealing with majority vote is ok should be given the boot and those responsible.

    God Help this nation, a nation that has sacrificed it’s youth and money to help free oppressed people all over this planet.

    God Bless you for reading all view points before making a decision.

  • steve

    Hi Philadelphia Lawyer.
    Your interpretation of my post is pretty close to what I was trying to say.
    “that sort of thinking isn’t restricted to traditional religion”. Exactly. Belief systems are exactly that, systems of belief not fact, and the belief systems become dangerous when the adherents belive they are right and everyone else is wrong. My original dispute with Mark’s blog was that it made fairly strong implication that Islam was a religion prone to generate extreme behaviour and that Catholicism was not. That is patently nonsense. If you doubt that interpretation, just read his last paragraph: “The only way to counter an inflamed theology like Islam is with a healthy one, not with the watery delusions of postmodern secularism. And that, sooner or later, means a return to the sanity of the Catholic Faith.” Mark asked for examples of the difference between Christian intolerance and Muslim intolerance which is why I quoted Serbia and Kosovo.

    “You speak of various atrocious acts committed by the Church long ago. Did such things not happen in the non-Christian world? Did such things not happen before the Church existed? Maybe such acts were more a reflection of the particular era in question”

    Such atrocities have always occurred and probabaly always will and are frequently driven by out of control belief systens

    “You cite acts by people who may, at best, be nominally Christian, and attribute their acts to Christianity. You can only do so by ignoring other sources of inspiration, such as Serbian nationalism”

    And you have to apply exactly the same criteria to judge Muslim extremists. It’s not reasonable to dismiss atrocities by Christians against Muslims with “well they’re not really Christians”, without applying the same logic atrocities carried out by Muslims. If the Christian extremists aren’t really Christians then by the same logic Muslim extremists aren’t really Muslims. Which is probably a reasoanble conclusion. Extremists are extremists. Period.

  • steve

    Hi Philadelphia Lawyer
    I do have to respond to your question:
    “Can you think of a greater charitable organization than the Catholic Church?”

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “greater” and “charitable”. But in Australia (where I am) the Red Cross (non-denominational) and Salvation Army (Christian) certainly would be on a par for presence and dollars. And worldwide the International Red Cross and Red Crescent could easily be the worlds largest charitable organisation

  • Paul Simmons

    The reason that our liberal press, liberal politicians, and Hollywood liberals see no evil and cannot call terrorism out by name when everybody in the world knows it is terrorism is because, in addition to being smug bullyies and cowards in pursuit of acceptance by those they deem “intellectuals” they are all part of the culture of evil. Almost to a person they approve of abortion in any form all of which are murder, and they can report and portray the most violent acts occurring on earth at this time in history and smile immediately before and after – they are very insensitive and detached from it all. Their center of interest is the self. As bullies, they beat up on the innocent and helpless who they do not think we fight back, such as Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus and willingly portray them destroyed in such movies as 2012. But when it comes to the Muslims, who will kill them if they blaspheme or otherwise mock, belittle or mimilize their religious beliefs, then true to form as the bullies they are, they don’t do anything in that area because the Muslims will stand up and punish them for it. As we all know, bullies do not harrass and torture people who will stand up to them. Our liberal press, liberal politicians, and liberal Hollywood bully with money, bully with their fame and influence, and bully from their public pulpit knowing they are backed up by lawyers, film companies, and a liberal press. They have no qualms about attacking and suing regular people who cannot fight back. One of the most pathetic of these bullies is Bill Maier, a comedian who is one of the most aggressive, smug, and pathetic bullies on TV today. He claims to have been born a Catholic. Obviously he was not listening to church teachings when he was growing up. Ultimately they will all meet the Lord and that day they will not be able to hide from justice or the evil they have helped propogate and sustain.

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    Hi Philadelphia Lawyer
    I do have to respond to your question:
    “Can you think of a greater charitable organization than the Catholic Church?”

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “greater” and “charitable”. But in Australia (where I am) the Red Cross (non-denominational) and Salvation Army (Christian) certainly would be on a par for presence and dollars. And worldwide the International Red Cross and Red Crescent could easily be the worlds largest charitable organisation

    Where I am, South Jersey, I have to go to Camden, Trenton, or Philadelphia to find any Salvation Army presence at all. Catholic charities are also there tending to the homeless, hungry, and addicted. However, Catholic charities are also closer to home. I need only attend my own church on Sunday. My parish has a very active and effective St. Vincent de Paul Society. At least once a month, non-perishable food items are collected for distribution to needy families through the Society’s food pantry. There are other efforts, including an annual school supplies drive for needy school children. Also, portion of the money which is given via the collection basket funds charitable efforts undertaken by the Diocese of Trenton.

    As for the Red Cross, they collect blood. Other than that, they react to major disasters. I know of no day-to-day charitable efforts undertaken by the American Red Cross.

    Around the world, the Catholic Church has thousands of dioceses, parishes, schools, clinics, hospitals, residential care facilities, soup kitchens, food pantries, etc., which serve the poor, without charge, every day. With all due respect to the Red Cross and Salvation Army, I don’t think they can match that, even combined.

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    It’s not reasonable to dismiss atrocities by Christians against Muslims with “well they’re not really Christians”, without applying the same logic atrocities carried out by Muslims. If the Christian extremists aren’t really Christians then by the same logic Muslim extremists aren’t really Muslims. Which is probably a reasoanble conclusion. Extremists are extremists. Period.

    Steve, I dismiss the “Christian” label as applied to Serbs because the Serb militias were not motivated by Christian, even Serbian Orthodox, beliefs. I would apply the same reasoning to “Muslims” in the Bosnian context, as the actions of Muslim militias were not motivated even by a flawed understanding of Islam. There were a lot of nominal Muslims in Bosnia as well. In Bosnia, “Muslim” is also an ethnic label. The sides in the Balkan wars were Croats, Serbs, and Muslims. Only you are identifying anyone as “Christian.”

    However, jihadists are not nominal Muslims at all. They are motivated by religious belief, unlike the Bosnian Serbs, Croats or Bosnian Muslims. The only people who kill in the name of religion today are Muslims. I promise you that no Australian on holiday will ever be blown apart by a Catholic suicide bomber. The Catholic concept of martyrdom does not involve violence on the part of the martyr. No, not all religions, ideologies, belief systems, or whatever, are the same.

  • steve

    Local experience does not make for very good research.
    You might want to broaden your world view a bit:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross
    Steve

  • steve

    A bit of reading on the role of religion in vioelnce and persecution might not go astray.
    Here’s some useful starting points:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims

  • Andre Dubuc

    But the reality is that Islam is an invented human religion that borrows from fragments of Judaism and Christianity, mixes in Mohammed’s own delusional (or lying) claims of revelation, and completes it with a dash of conventional wisdom from seventh-century Arab culture. It is not a magisterial faith with some adjudicating body that defines what is and is not the orthodox reading of the Koran. It is whatever its various adherents say it is.

    Unfortunately, this argument also could point to an underlying cause of the current state of affairs in the United States. A short reading of early American history would indicate that Protestantism was the ruling ‘religion of choice’. Its various ‘denominations’, like Islam, fragmented the Truth and enforced varying degrees of intolerance upon whomever failed to follow their particular way of thinking.

    After two hundred odd years, the American experiment in freedom is at a crossroad. Freedom is drowning in half-truths divorced from their Origin, Jesus Christ, the Truth. But more so, accomodations to the secular universal truth of ‘tolerance’ without the God-Man’s Church to guide it, is hastening its demise.

    In this Season of Advent, I turn, with great hope and trust, to the coming Baby Jesus. He can do all things! I pray that He turns your country (and other fallen countries of the world) back to Him in the fullness of His Truth.

    May we all seek the safe refuge of the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    Steve: Wikipedia is not reliable source material. Don

  • Steve
  • Steve

    Hi Philadelphia lawyer,
    Please read my posts properly before you get so defensive.

    “Your claim that Catholicism, or any element of remotely mainstream Christianity, constitutes a dangerous ideology is nonsense.” Of course it’s nonsense, I never claimed that. You inferred that yourself.

    My original point, which seems to have got lost, is that intolerence, and the idea that “my religion/tribe/ideology or whatever is better than yours” is what causes a lot of violence. “non-religious” belief systems are equally culpable. Nazi extermination of Jews, extermination of Kurds in Iraq, the Rwandan genocide are all recent horrific examples. The list is almost endless. People who murder in the name of preventing abortion are about as illogical as they come.

    I responded to your claim that the Catholic Church is the greatest charity in the world because that kind of claim is a sympton of the “my (insert appropriate word here) is better than yours”. I also think the Catholic Church specifically carries an enormous load of the world’s charitable work. But so do lots of other organisations.

    Blogs like Mark Shea’s are entirely unhelpful in promoting tolerance as they are completely intolerant. His final sentence is symptomatic of the entire problem. I referred to it before and I’ll refer to it again:
    “The only way to counter an inflamed theology like Islam is with a healthy one, … And that, …, means a return to the sanity of the Catholic Faith.”

    THAT’s intolerance.

    However I have since read some more of Mr Shea’s articles and have come to the conclusion that he is deliberately provocative. I guess as a blogger and speaker that’s his job and he needs the publicity.

    But what is frightening is some of the responses he generates, such as the one from Mark Erwin above, and some of the frightening responses on his own blog site.

    The world would be a safer place without posts like “See No Evil” from Mr Shea.

    Thank for a cilised debate. A Merry Christmas to you and yours.

  • steve
  • Philadelphia Lawyer

    Steve, I guess I kind lost sight of the way in which you framed your point, but I think I kept the bottom line. Catholics believe that theirs is the one true faith. Evangelicals believe that theirs is the one true faith. Other Christians believe that theirs is the one true faith. So we are intolerant. But we all worship Jesus Christ. He commanded us to love our enemies. That is still a unique concept. He commanded us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc. We all believe that ours is the right way. However, that right way forbids violence or the oppression of others, while commanding love for others. All of this set us clearly apart from others who think that they alone are right. Yet, you still call us intolerant. You still blindly lump us in with others with whom we have nothing in common. I have every right to be defensive about that. You stick us in a box labeled “intolerant” when you know nothing about us.

    My university and law school both drone on and on about “tolerance” and “diversity”. But none of their departmental faculty hiring committees would ever even think of hiring a social conservative. Is that tolerant? It sure doesn’t lead to diversity. I received an e-journal from my law school some months back which included an article, by a professor, on the “gay marriage” issue. Care to guess on which side the professor came down? I did, and I was right. It was a sure thing. They are all very predictable because they have zero tolerance for anyone who thinks differently, no matter how sound their legal reasoning may be. They speak of “tolerance” but practice intolerance, and even hate, by design. They have no intention of practicing tolerance. Catholics practice love, or at least try to, or at least are supposed to try to, for everyone. (Ted Kennedy was a tough one for me. Barrack Obama is also proving to be quite the challenge.)

    My claim that Catholics are the largest source of private charity is not just me saying that my people are better than others. The Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian church, so we SHOULD be the biggest source. We are in every country which will allow us, and some which don’t. Also, not all faiths emphasize charity. Charity for kaffir is foreign to Islam. Many secularists are also charitable, but they’re not commanded to be charitable. Some find it easy to just let the government handle it. They also have to go out of their way to practice charity. I just have to go to church and I am presented with opportunities. In any event, I’m more than thrilled that you accept that Catholics do a lot of charity work. That was all that I was looking for in making my claim. I don’t need everyone to believe that we are the biggest or best of anything. My only point is that we are not scum. Too many people only accept what their anti-Christian university professors and the media say about us. They say we’re scum. They even say we’re anti-science, for example. Hmm. Makes you wonder why the Vatican has an observatory in Arizona. Also, that must make it tough to practice in all of those Catholic hospitals (1/3 of US hospitals are Catholic.). What do they use, leeches? Who was that guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory? And what date is it? I’ll have to consult my GREGORIAN calendar.

    Happy Christmachanukaramadan! 😉

MENU