Saturday, December 12, 2015

SIGN OF THE TIMES OR OVEREACTION?

Does anyone belong to a parish that is taking preventative action such as hiring security?

St. Matthew Catholic Church, Charlotte,  increasing security measures for all worship services

Church adding uniformed and plain-clothes police at Masses
Move part of ongoing planning to protect parishioners
Rev. McSweeney: Church has ‘moral responsibility to protect’

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article49331535.html?ref=yfp#storylink=cpy

38 comments:

Gene said...

"And our enemies said, "They will not know or see until we come into that midst of them and kill them and stop their work." When the Jews who lived by them came and they said to us ten times, "From all the places where they live they will come up against us." So in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall I stationed people according to their families, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked and arose and said, "Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord who is great and terrible, and fight for your bretheren, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your homes." Nehemiah: 4:13.14.

A timely warning and reminder, I should think. Just let your licensed ushers and parishioners carry guns or your vets and active servicemen or LEO's. They can figure a security plan and contingency actions to take. Or, tie a dog or a pig at every entrance, line the steps with ham or bacon.

JBS said...

These measures should be effective at deterring vandalism and some petty crimes, but I don't see how they will deter terrorists, whether of the insane variety or of the religious variety. And as far as deterring vandalism and petty crimes, I wonder if the deterrent effect will also be cost effective. The best option is probable a few dozen Gene's with concealed carry permits among the parishioners.

gob said...

What if the "ushers" or "greeters" passed out little derringers to faithful as they entered? It might actually be best if they just gave them to the women....Then they would just put them in a box as they left...

Anonymous said...

Gene is correct, we all know who we are being on the lookout for: Our friends from the "religion of peace"!!!

JustMe said...

If I got killed by a terrorist during Mass, I think I could be considered a martyr to the Faith, couldn't I? Nothing bad about that :-)

Jan said...

JustMe, just because you are in church and you are killed would not make you a martyr. However, if you were asked to deny Christ and you refused to do so and were killed that would make you a martyr.

Interestingly, a few years ago a priest used to talk about the martyrs and smile and say, "Well, I don't think any of us have to worry about losing our heads". He said this a couple of times but he obviously spoke too soon. I am sure he won't be saying that in too many sermons these days.

I think that what this parish is doing is wise. At least, other than storming the building, whoever gets in would only be able to smuggle in a small weapon and not leave a bag with a bomb in it. Therefore, at least some people have chance of escape. I think all parishes should insist at a minimum now no backpacks or bags in church. Two would be terrorists were arrested in Australia just this weekend, one only 15 years of age. They have been denied bail as they are considered to be such a serious threat, so they're getting even younger. A few months ago in Australia an unarmed civilian police worker was ambushed and murdered by a young terrorist and of course they have had a siege where people were held in a care two or three died in that incident so these sorts of things are be coming much more frequent and some measures will have to be taken. The harder we make it the better.

Gene said...

JustMe, I wish you success in your goal of martyrdom.

JBS said...

gob,

Great idea! You're becoming so wise!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Life in an unending cloud of suspicion and fear is not life, it is mere existence.

It is joy held hostage by uncertainty. It is exuberance wrapped in a suffocating mantle of anxiety. It is "What Might Happen" run amok.

The next logical step, if one lives in terror of "What Might Happen" is to stop holding gatherings of any size - no celebration of mass, no football games, no NASCAR races, no Thanksgiving Day parades.

If "What Might Happen" determines how we go about our ordinary daily activities, we will stop having all surgeries because we might contract a terrible disease from improperly sterilized scalpels. If "What Might Happen" controls our actions, we'll give up driving, since we never know when a drunk driver will take our lives or leave us permanently disabled.

When "What Might Happen" becomes the filter through which we see any stranger, especially those who might be swarthy or who might speak with an unfamiliar accent, we will become more and more isolated from love, from joy, and, eventually, from life itself.

Our "secure" enclaves will become self-constructed ghettoes where we merely exist, worrying each minute about "What Might Happen" next.

Each step in that direction is a win for terrorism.

Gene said...

Ah, the voice of capitulation. So, you think living is bombs going off in the streets, terrorist shootings, and Sharia law. Why are so many Priests namby pamby appeasers?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

There are no bombs going off in the streets (with extremely rare exceptions such as the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building which was carried out by a radicalized American), there is no Sharia law in this country (except for religious decisions within the Muslim community, much as we have Canon Law for decisions within the Catholic community), and terrorist shootings are less likely to harm you than drunk drivers or dangerous infections acquired in hospitals. (On an average day, 1 in 25 patients has at least one infection contracted from a hospital visit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Appeasement? Nope. Common sense without fear-mongering? Yep.

Jan said...

Oh, Fr Kavanaugh, tempting fate! If anything happens in your parish I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, the parishioners will be baying at your heels for not taking basic precautions.

Jusadbellum said...

Right now, I'd hazard a guess that in the South, of every 100 families attending Mass, 2 people are concealed carrying in a purse or on their person at any given time.

1 might be an off duty cop and the other an armed and responsible citizen like Gene.

Given a church the size of St. Joe's in Macon, this might mean at any given Mass there are 3-5 people packing heat at any given time, completely independent of each other.

It's probably been this way forever without a single problem because good Catholics and Concealed carry permit holders especially are statistically far less likely to be involved in reckless behavior than the general public.

Just today at Church by paying attention to the 'tells' I was able to be pretty sure 2 men ahead of me were packing. It didn't make me feel scared. It just is what it is. If either of them started acting weird I'd have been in a position to drop them (not with bullets of course) ;-)

But on the other hand, if someone started shouting behind me I'd be fairly certain they would be allies.

The point is....without doing anything at all, most of our rural churches are probably protected by the people, the first responders, the unorganized militia without any "plan" being put in place.

This is the best course of action unless you go full retard and re-create the position of Porter and officially designate 2-3 people per Mass as guards - one watching the outside and the other watching the inside.

Frederick (Fritz) Bauerschmidt said...

"And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?"

Jesus, that lame-o appeaser. I'd hate to be in his shoes if anything bad happened to his disciples. Oh, wait...

Anonymous said...

Jan - You sound a little too gleeful at the prospect that some people might suffer from an attack in a church.

Gene said...

And, Dr. Bauerschmidt, do you really think that in that passage Jesus was advocating pacifism? It troubles me that you may believe that; I have a theology professor friend who believes that the Christian is called to passively allow the church to be erased from the face of the earth by her enemies because that might be God's will. From your resume, I think you and I probably agree on very much, but not on that.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - You also argued that people like Anon 2 and I were, with our way of thinking and acting, going to get everybody killed.

I can imagine you as a companion of St. Charles Lwanga or St. Paul Miki saying, "If you keep saying this and acting this way, you're going to get us all killed!"

And by the way, you mistake non-violence for pacifism.

Fr MJK said...

Anon 2 and ME - sorry

Gene said...

Nop, I know the difference between non-violence and pacifism...and, besides, I was not talking to you.

Anonymous 2 said...

With all this talk about the fear of Shari’a law dominating in the United States, someone needs to explain to me just how this is supposed to come about and why it is any more likely to happen than the program of Christian Dominionism becoming the law of the land in contemporary America. Just what is the process going to look like? Would it be due to a majority of like-minded Muslim radicals assuming power democratically at a certain level of government? An armed coup? A violent revolution? At the moment I just don’t see it happening. What am I missing?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

As for me, I would like to impose Canon Law on the world, especially the USA!

Gene said...

Anon 2, You are missing what is going on in Sweden, Germany, and other countries. You are missing the aggressiveness of the Islamic religion and the passive stupidity of the American public, not to mention the complicity of academics such as yourself.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

Even granting all those things you mention for the sake of argument, by what particular mechanism(s) is Shari’a supposed to become the law of the land or parts of it in the United States? Is it one or more of the three I mention? Or is it some other mechanism? And exactly_how_is this supposed to occur?

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Just to clarify -- Do you really mean you would like to_impose_canon law or, as I suspect may rather be the case, that the solutions envisaged in canon law would become the law of the land through appropriate democratic processes (including through appropriate judicial decision-making)?

Gene said...

Anon 2, it would most likely occur through Muslim politicians getting themselves elected in key districts and to Congress over a period of time. The more Muslims we let in, the more votes they have, plus liberals are too stupid and guilty not to vote for them as well. nThen, there are your so-called "black Muslims," who have probably never read the Koran but who call themselves that out of anger and hatred of whites who will also vote for them. Then you have a situation where the large urban areas control the country through the electoral college just like now, where urban blacks and liberals on the East and West coast control the vote. Hell, we already have a Muslim President.

Benjamin Franklin Bache said...

If a Muslim is judged by a majority of voters to be the best candidate for the office, well, that's how the system works.

Now, we could impose bans on, say, electing any non-Christian to office, because we know that Christians, always and without fail, do what is best. One wonders if Mormons would fall under the ban since, of course, they are not Christians.

To trump that proposal, we could ban the immigration of Muslims altogether to prevent this from happening. And while we're at it, we could throw in a ban on Jews, and maybe Sikhs. (You know, those Sikhs look an awful lot like Muslims with those turbans.) Next we can eliminate the Baha'i threat since everyone knows that Baha'i is really just an off-shoot of Islam.

Since we are running rough-shod over the Constitution here, let's eliminate the possibility that another Henry Kissinger or "Ahnold" Schwarzenegger could be appointed to high office or elected as a governor. Those "foreign born (hint, hint) folks can be plants, you know, Manchurian style.

Yes, there's a reasonable, truly 'Mericun' solution for ya..... Alien and Sedition, anyone?

Gene said...

I think the Alien and Sedition acts are fine things, just like John Adams. There is also nothing wrong with selective racial profiling...it is common sense and is quietly done all the time. I would have no problem limiting the Presidency to those of Judaeo-Christian descent. I also think it might be required that the President had served in the military...still pondering that one. And, yes, Muslims should be banned and deported. Don't you just hate that? Como sense is such a terrible thing...so, go wring your hands and polish up your self-righteous act.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Gene, what did Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs do to deserve being excluded from the presidency?


The military-thing is also stupid. It'd only exclude very bright people who have no inclination to join the military. Why should they be excluded from the presidency simply because they had a full scholarship to college? Why should people who serve the country via the state department, FBI or CIA be excluded?

More importantly, how does former military service guarantee *anything*? Although one could assume they would be more patriotic, I would disagree on the basis that many, many people join the military not because they love America, but because it's the easiest (and usually only) way to escape the projects, or the ghetto, or the family farm.

I would think those people *more* dangerous, since they're opportunistic, and not patriotic.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

In response to the question “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” that was asked immediately after the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin famously answered “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Although I suspect we already no longer have a pure republic, but instead have more of an oligarchy, I wonder additionally what poses the greater threat to our keeping a republic: the Muslims you fear or your reaction to that fear. (Of course, I recognize that in your eyes academics like me who ask these sorts of questions pose the greatest threat.)

By the way, why do so many people (like you) keep on insisting that President Obama is a Muslim? In one very technical sense, of course, they are correct (because the Muslim faith is transmitted through the father) but I strongly suspect this technical point of Shari’a is not what they have in mind.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Triple B

I realize this is the point you were conveying but subtlety is not necessarily big around these parts, so sometimes a 2X4 is necessary.

Anonymous 2 said...

Flavius:

You make some good points. For me the best argument to restrict the Presidency to those who have served in the military is that it would stop people who haven’t served from starting wars when they have no clue about the realities of war. On the other hand, on balance the costs of restricting the Presidency in this way probably outweigh the benefits and perhaps candidates just need to have had some graphic vicarious exposure to the realities as part of their education.


Anonymous 2 said...

Benjamin Franklin Bache:

Sorry, not “Triple B” – I must go bak to skool to learn my alphabet. I should have sed BFB. Either that, or I need sum more kofe.


Gene said...

Flavius, I do not trust foreigners, especially of non-Jewish middle Eastern origin. The idea of required military service for a President is merely an idea I was pondering. I tend to agree with you, but certainly we need someone with an understanding of and appreciation for the military, its workings and its purpose. I absolutely do not think we need non-Judaeo-Christians running the country. They have no basis for understanding our history, origins, culture, traditions, or system of government and education. Sorry, call me Jingo.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

Do you have any idea just how incredibly ignorant most native-born Americans are about the things you mention. Most of them could never pass the citizenship test that I and every other naturalized citizen have had to take. Just sayin’.

Gene said...

Anon 2, that may be true, but many things about our culture and traditions are "caught, not taught." Hence, Johnny Lunchbucket and Susie Salesgirl may not know text book history and political science, but they have an intuitive understanding of certain principles and beliefs embodied in our founding. I know many blue collar workers and laborers who have a high native intelligence and who are more conversant about American traditions and laws than you might think. I believe you are revealing an academic and "veddy British" prejudice. PS I seriously doubt if Obama could pass the citizenship test, much less a 12th grade level American History test. Wanna' bet?

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

You may find my comment academic and “veddy British” but I find your response rather squishy. Let’s just eliminate education in civics or history altogether and rely on “intuitive understanding.” But why stop there? Let’s get rid of professional education too. Then next time you visit your doctor you can be content with him (or her) just having an “intuitive understanding” of where your spleen is.

I realize that it is fashionable nowadays to celebrate ignorance of all kinds but I am surprised that someone who reminds us of his extensive education as frequently as you do should now feel moved to join in the celebration. But then again, perhaps it is not so surprising in the current degraded and debased political climate. One has to have some way to justify the seemingly unlimited gross misstatements of fact propagated by the political candidate of one’s choice. To recur to Franklin again, such ignorance and inability to engage in critical thinking is how one loses the Republic. Were the Founders ignorant about history and political philosophy and proud of it? I think not.

If I were a betting man (which I am not), I feel confident that you would lose the bet you propose.


Gene said...

Anon 2, I think you miss my point, and I am certainly not celebrating ignorance. Plus, my comment has nothing to do with professional education but, for kicks, how many law school graduates do you think could pass an impromptu 12th grade history exam? How many could properly correct the grammar, structure, and punctuation errors in an unpunctuated page with basic grammatical and structure errors(my daughter assures me that very few could do either)? I stand by my statement that most Americans have an intuitive, ingrained understanding and awareness of our laws, culture, and traditions.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

I do not disagree about law students’ general ignorance of history and civics (and surely, it is not much better in other professions). In fact, my own experience can verify this. Just as a little test (and glimpse into the abyss), I sometimes ask students to recite the opening of the Declaration of Independence (or, easier, to tell me what rights it protects). Most of them cannot do this. Pathetic! And I fight against it all the time. But this just proves my point. (As an aside, though, Mercer law students do very well in the writing department. Mercer is customarily ranked at the very top or close to the top of all 200 or so law schools in the United States for legal writing).

You do understand, I hope, that I was drawing an analogy with professionals and suggesting that just as we want professionals, like doctors, who are not ignorant of their specialized field, so also we want citizens who are not ignorant of theirs. This means everyone, of course, and the field is civics and current affairs—you know, the sorts of things we are supposed to know about when we walk into the voting booth to evaluate candidates. The following 2011 article from Newsweek explains why this is more important today than ever before. The “intuitive understanding” you mention will no longer suffice:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-ignorant-are-americans-66053