Isis claims responsibility for murdering more than 350 Catholics in Sri Lanka during Easter Mass in retaliation for the murder of Muslims in New Zealand.
There are videos of one suicide bomber walking across a square and entering the church with a full backpack. The cameras in the church show unsuspecting Catholics in the packed church, men, women, children, elderly and young during the Mass.
I am sure there are videos of the explosion and the deadly conflagration.
It is demonic!
29 comments:
The media does not care because the perpetrators are their favorite new identity group and the victims, their enemies.
Yes, Father McDonald, it is demonic, as all terrorism and (unjustified?) violence is.
How can we try to stop the demonic cycle of violence? It is too early perhaps to credit the report but Fox is now reporting the following:
“Sri Lankan authorities suspect that there are ‘international terror groups which are behind the local terrorists,’ and are said to be investigating funding sources. Officials also said Tuesday that they believe the onslaught was ‘in retaliation’ to the New Zealand mosque terror attack that claimed the lives of fifty people in Christchurch last month.”
See https://www.foxnews.com/world/sri-lanka-mastermind-zahran-hashim-isis
I have thought for a very long time now—decades really—that human violence is essentially a problem rooted in the male biology and psyche. I would express the matter today by saying it is the result of biologically influenced culturally constructed masculinity. Cain, a male, was guilty of the first murder and set the stage for so much of the violence in human history. He was not, in my view, a real man. Who have been the perpetrators of violence throughout human history? Women?
Jesus, by contrast with all of these, was a real man. He taught us that violence only begets more violence. Go the extra mile when the Roman soldier forces you to do so. Turn the other check when he slaps you. Don’t lash out but show real, God-given strength. The way of Barabbas hardened Roman hearts and led to Vespasian and the destruction of the Temple. The Way of Jesus Christ led to the conversion of the Roman Empire—albeit an incomplete one, and so the violence continued. As Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Serendipitously, the following piece was in my Google “Pocket” recommendations today (whatever “Pocket” is). Despite the use of some vulgar language, it is certainly thought-provoking and I offer it in that spirit. I hope readers will not superficially dismiss it as being an example of PC but will really give it a fair read and considered reflection. Is the author wrong and, if so, how and why? Or is he right?
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-s-the-problem-with-masculinity?utm_source=pocket-newtab
P.S. Turn the other cheek, not check (a Freudian slip in these days of Mammon?)!
Oh and not to forget the all-important “Pray for him (your enemy) too.”
A2, you're sexist! There is no such thing as gender anymore.
Androphobe!
You may pray for your enemies as long as you are shooting them as you pray for their souls. The liberal answer to everything is to attack masculinity. Sissies, that is the only thing that comes to mind. Do you want your country run by the guys who always got beat up in high school.
Gene,
I would respectfully suggest that sissies (and liberals) should not be the only thing that comes to mind. Was Jesus a sissy? Were the Apostles sissies? Were the other male Christian martyrs? Was Gandhi a sissy? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a sissy? Were they all liberals? I could go on but don’t need to.
Who murdered them? It wasn’t women. Or did women only not murder them for lack of opportunity because men were running the show? Doesn’t the question answer itself?
Is Tit-for-Tat escalating violence sane? You bombed my mosque so I will bomb your church (e.g., Christchurch and Sri Lanka), or you bombed my mosque so I will bomb your mosque (e.g., Sunni-Shia in Iraq), or you attacked my Christian community so I will attack yours (e.g., Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland)?
Sometimes, of course, violence may regrettably be unavoidable and justifiable (or at least excusable). That is why criminal law recognizes the right of self-defense and why we have a Just War doctrine. But what is at the root of the aggression that makes these exceptions necessary in the first place? And what is at the root of the aggression that perpetrates Tit-for-Tat retaliation or that murders innocent holy people and peacemakers? Sin, of course. But is our biologically influenced and culturally constructed masculinity one of the roots of that sin?
Whoever said “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” may have had a point. The author of the article I linked suggests that male aggression had survival value but may have become significantly dysfunctional in today’s world. Could it be time to rethink (repent) the problem of violence and to rename it in a way that wasn’t open to earlier generations?
Although one wants to be careful to avoid over-simplistic reductionism, perhaps the answer (or at least an important part of the answer) to the root causes of violence, as well as the solution (or at least an important part of the solution), are staring us in the face, too close for earlier generations (of men) to see but more visible to us because of additional perspective. Because male domination (and let’s be honest, that is what it was) seemed the natural order of things, previous generations did not think to question it, let alone imagine an alternative, and so they could not see what we can see. I strongly suspect that Jesus, being the Son of God, did see it, which may also help explain his very counter-cultural attitude to women.
I raise all these points in a spirit of genuine spiritual and fraternal (not political or ideological) inquiry. You know me, and therefore you know that I am being honest when I say this. And I know you. Therefore I trust you to take the inquiry seriously (and not treat it flippantly or dismissively as some others who post here are likely inclined to do), and I hope that you will draw on your very considerable theological resources in responding to it.
Anonymous 2
I read Mark Manson's article. One passage stood out, and not simply on account of the deliberately bad English:
'We have like, women's rights and equality and stuff. Fact is, we're much more conscious and moral than we used to be.'
Really?
What is beyond dispute is that had any writer, male or female, indulged in such gender-stereotyping with regard to women as Manson does with regard to men, he or she would have been excoriated as irredeemably sexist, and denied the right to air such views in public. However, generalizations can be instructive, and Manson makes some valid ones.
Here are a few of my own.
1. The downplaying of manly virtues (something of a tautology, since the Latin 'virtus' means 'manliness') is having a corrosive effect on society. Women have muscled into those areas where 'virtus' in its positive sense was highly regarded, most notably in the armed forces.
2. It is symptomatic that homosexuals, who in a sense represent the antithesis of manliness, are held up as exemplars.
3. Women are less sociable than men, something that many women would freely admit. They are also more risk-averse. This is a handicap in business and politics which can only be overcome by 'positive discrimination'.
4. Because they are more emotional and intuitive, they are less suited than men for the judiciary, where objectivity should be a prerequisite.
5. Men are generally more creative. This is particularly noticeable at the highest levels of the visual arts, literature and music. BBC Radio 3 celebrated International Women's Day this year by playing works solely by female composers. They were all very talented and competent. Not one stood in the first rank.
What annoys me is that women demand absolute equality with men on every level, to the extent of having the right to stick a bayonet into an enemy soldier (the fact that an enemy soldier might hesitate before bayoneting a woman, thus giving her an unfair advantage, is apparently immaterial). Yet when it suits them they will portray themselves as weak exploited victims. There's nothing like having your cake and eating it.
Ah well. They are welcome to their International Women's Day. We'll be content with the other 364.
The guys who did the beating up in high school were not the "masculine" ones.
They were the weak, the frightened, the sadly insecure.
They've been bullied - maybe at home by an abusive dad.
They're insecure - they are desperate to deflect attention from themselves and what they perceive as weaknesses in themselves, so they pick on others, making them the momentary center of attention.
They're the ones who struggled to come to terms with their normal human emotions. So, rather than doing so, they acted out.
No the bullies weren't, and aren't, the masculine ones. They're the messed up one.
They can get over it - they can grow and mature. Or they can grow into adult bullies.
Anon 2, Twentieth century political labels and philosophy cannot be applied to First Century Christians and martyrs. Ghandi is way over-rated, and to compare any modern political hero (Ghandi, King, etc.) with Jesus and the Apostles and early Christian martyrs is absurd. Even our term "liberal" has been so misused and mis-defined (by, say, Jeffersonian standards) that it has become jaded and meaningless. In one sense (the proper one, I think) , Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were "liberals." In terms of political philosophy, the US Constitution is the most liberal document in history. Funny how our definitions change. This is a discussion that should be had over lunch.
Do you know why women have smaller feet than men? Because it allows them to get closer to the stove and sink.
Problem is much of the "violence" throughout history was MEN trying to PROTECT women and children and society.
Besides men, how about let's blame religions, political ideologies, or maybe homosexual degenerates with political power. Yeah, that's it.
Yeah that "toxic masculinity" garbage has shown itself to be so valuable in improving the culture. And of course NO woman who has even had any political power has EVER been the cause of any policies that have caused death, violence, or misery. Now that women have all the rights they need (at the moment) they constantly demonstrate how enlightened they are by pushing for even MORE killing of their own children.
Soon gender ideology and indoctrination and mandatory hormone therapy will make us all women.(or is that womyn?)
Cn't remember who told me, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union a generation ago, someone said the biggest threat the US would face from thereon was radical Islam. How true.....
"Manly" virtues are not being downplayed. Aristotle and the Romans thought that manly virtues included courage, loyalty, industry, resiliency, resolution, personal responsibility, self-reliance, integrity, and self-sacrifice. None of these are to be found predominantly among males. Manhood is not the opposite of womanhood, it is the opposite of childhood. Both genders can and do strive for virtuous, human excellence.
Women are commonly known to be more sociable (willing to talk and engage in activities with other people; friendly) than men. They tend to find social interactions more rewarding than males. Some studies suggest that these characteristics are one of the reasons women live longer, on average, than males.
As to the suitability of women in the judiciary, "Yet when it comes to performance rather than qualifications, we find no statistically significant differences between the decision-making ability of male and female judges in any of our data sets. Female judges are cited just as often as male judges; they write as many opinions; and they are just as likely to dissent, and to dissent from opinions written by judges who belong to their party. Indeed, female judges with the same level of experience as male judges are more likely to dissent from opinions written by fellow Democratic or Republican appointees, suggesting perhaps that women on the bench are less influenced by political considerations or are just tougher nuts than their brethren." (Choi, Stephen J. and Gulati, Gaurang Mitu and Holman, Mirya R. and Posner, Eric A., Judging Women (September 28, 2009). U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 483; NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 09-54; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 09-38. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1479724 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1479724)
As regards "the visual arts, literature and music", the judgment of which is highly subjective: Britannica's list of the 12 greatest novels includes 5 written by women. Women were actively excluded from much of the fine arts milieu until relatively recently, so it should come as no surprise that women composers are underrepresented on the BBC Radio 3.
Anonymous
Fine. Your generalizations are arguably as valid as mine, although you don't address the masculinization of women which results from the pursuit of the chimera of sexual equality.
You misunderstand what I meant by sociability. Men find it easy to socialize with other men, since it excludes the sexual element. Women prefer the sociability of mixed company rather than that of exclusively their own sex.
In literature women have certainly achieved great things in the field of the novel, but if one were to draw up a list of the top twenty English poets it would probably not include a single poetess.
The paucity of great women painters is even more striking, given that drawing was regarded as an eminently suitable recreation for young ladies. As of course was music, yet how many women would be rated among the top fifty composers? The critical consensus of generations up to the present cannot be dismissed as 'subjective' unless you are a cultural relativist, in which case there is no point in arguing with you.
The songs and chamber music of Clara Schumann are beautifully crafted and attractive. Yet not even the most perverse of critics would put them on a par with those of her husband Robert.
Many thanks to all for taking the inquiry seriously and for the many thoughtful and challenging comments. This, I believe, is what the Blog should ideally be encouraging rather than partisan sniping and bickering. Thank you.
I did not read the author Mark Manson to be dismissing manly virtues but to be suggesting that “traditional” male aggression, while historically necessary for the three Ps (protecting, providing, and procreating), had now become somewhat dysfunctional because the world has changed in very significant ways. Clearly, these three Ps are still required but we need to adapt and channel male aggression in a way that is appropriate to current circumstances.
Can we quibble with some of the author’s generalizations? Of course. But we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. With all needed qualifications, isn’t the author still on to something significant? Is the following passage really that far off base?
“We unfairly objectify women in society for their beauty and sex appeal. Similarly, we unfairly objectify men for their professional success and aggression.
But the biggest problem with these external metrics – making more money, being stronger and more domineering than the competition, having sex as much as possible – is that they never end. If you measure yourself by how much money you make, then whatever you earn will never be enough. If you measure yourself by how strong and dominant you can be, then no amount of power will ever satisfy you. If you measure yourself by how much sex you can have, then no number of partners will ever be enough.
These are metrics that, while on a population level, were good for society for thousands of years. On an individual level, they [mess] a man up, destroying his self-esteem and encouraging him to objectify himself, to see himself not as a human with strengths and weaknesses, virtues and flaws, but rather as some vessel with no other prerogative than to accumulate as much power and prestige as possible. . . .
In the 21st century, we need to evolve our definition of masculinity. Yes, we’re still protectors and providers. And you’re d**n right we want to keep pro-creating.
But there need to be new internal metrics for a man’s worth as well — his honesty, his integrity, his emotional openness and ability to remain strong in the face of vulnerability.
Some lament the ‘pussification’ of men happening today. But dropping the b******t tough-guy act isn’t the same as weakness. On the contrary, it’s an even deeper form of strength.”
I am not sure the author is correct to refer to qualities such as honesty, integrity, emotional openness and ability to remain strong in the face of vulnerability as “new” internal metrics. Aren’t they really very ancient? Indeed, aren’t they central to the Christian ideal? And isn’t the pathologically excessive pursuit of the external metrics of money, strength and domination, and sex (echoing Augustine’s multiple “libidos”) precisely what the Christian ideal seeks to combat?
If this is correct, then the kind of biologically influenced and culturally constructed masculinity that informs the dominant Western (and especially American) worldview may be part of that structural sin that affects all of us, including women. And—we should add—including abortion. Indeed, isn’t it telling that movies such as Unplanned rightly shock with the_violence_of abortion? Moreover, can’t Roe v. Wade itself be seen as a very “male” decision in more ways than one but not least in its emphasis on the isolated autonomous rights-bearing individual? The following article on the Catholic author Mary Ann Glendon’s book “Abortion and Divorce in Western Law” is certainly thought-provoking (if I recall correctly, Glendon herself makes the point about Roe being a male decision but my memory may be playing tricks on me here and I currently do not have the book to hand to check):
https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/556/article/rights-talk-and-its-remedies
What do you mean when you say, "...the masculinization of women."?
Do you mean that women now hold jobs that were heretofore held almost exclusively by men? Doctors, judges, CEO's, military personnel? If so, how does this represent a "masculinization" of women? Could it not be a recognition that women, who had been actively excluded from the professions for centuries, are as capable of men in doing the job?
What do you understand "masculinization" to mean?
"In literature women have certainly achieved great things in the field of the novel, but if one were to draw up a list of the top twenty English poets it would probably not include a single poetess."
Is this due to a lack of creative talent, or to an unjust relegation of women to "lesser" roles as determined by the men of their ages?
Anonymous
It's not to do with the admission of women to professions in which they perform just as well as men. However, a front-line soldier is required to employ extreme violence. If you read the testimonies of soldiers in the Great War (1914-1918) you get the impression that they had to abandon their humanity, and when out of the line they recovered it by contact with women, children and animals.
On a more mundane level, it has been noticed that young female drivers are becoming as aggressive as their male couterparts. And visit any English market town on a Friday and Saturday night and you will be treated to the spectacle of young women brawling or lying half-naked on the pavement in a drunken stupor. Is this progress? I think not.
I have just been listening to the A Minor Piano Quintet by Louise Farrenc (1804-1875). She was quite celebrated in her lifetime but is now unjustly neglected. Her misfortune was to be writing in the same century as Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Berlioz, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Verdi and other composers who were undoubtedly of the first rank.
"On a more mundane level, it has been noticed that young female drivers are becoming as aggressive as their male couterparts. And visit any English market town on a Friday and Saturday night and you will be treated to the spectacle of young women brawling or lying half-naked on the pavement in a drunken stupor. Is this progress? I think not."
Are driving aggressively or brawling and being drunk qualities of masculinity?
I think not.
Anonymous, you don't think at all. You're a troll.
"Are driving aggressively or brawling and being drunk qualities of masculinity?
I think not."
Opinions. Everyone has them. Most everyone (else) are wrong. In my opinion.
"Anonymous, you don't think at all. You're a troll."
Oh, I do, indeed.
You've expressed a concern the "masculinization of women."
I asked, "What do you understand "masculinization" to mean?"
You said, "On a more mundane level, it has been noticed that young female drivers are becoming as aggressive as their male couterparts. And visit any English market town on a Friday and Saturday night and you will be treated to the spectacle of young women brawling or lying half-naked on the pavement in a drunken stupor. Is this progress? I think not."
You certainly seem to be saying that aggressive driving is a trait of masculinity, as are brawling and lying half naked in a drunken stupor.
If these are not behaviors that you think indicate a masculinization of women, what might some of your reasons be for thinking it?
Anonymous, if you had half a brain, you would comment on my post as a whole rather than focus on one element of it. Women as front-line soldiers, for instance.
Twenty years ago in GB there was much talk of a 'ladette' culture whereby young women relinquished modesty in order to become 'like the boys'. Their exemplar was the BBC pop music presenter Zoe Ball (she still works for the BBC but now middle-aged has quietened down a lot).
'Boy racers' and excessive alcohol consumption in public leading to loud-mouthed and violent conduct are indeed associated with the male sex (of a certain class). So either make a case that these are equally feminine traits, or shut up. Preferably the latter.
I have a brain, and I can comment on any post or any portion of a post I choose. As can you.
Women who choose to be front-line soldiers are not being "masculinized." They are women who are front-line soldiers. YOU don't care for that, so you conclude that this is a "masculinization" of women.
Women who take on roles that were previously male-only are not "masculinized." They remain 100% women who are taking on roles that 1) they are well-suited for, and 2) that were denied by people like yourself who want to believe that a woman can't be as good a soldier as a man, as good a Prime Minister as a man, as good a surgeon as a man, as good a judge as a man.
The fact is, they can do these jobs as well as many men and, in some cases, better. And they remain women while doing it, which seems to gall you.
Anonymous
So, according to your logic, why can't a woman be a priest? In the ancient world they often had a cultic role from which men were excluded.
Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister since the war, but made sure there were no other women in her Cabinet. I wonder why.
Since you are quite capable of imputing attitudes to me which I may or may not hold, I will make two imputations regarding you.
1. You have never known a woman 'in the Biblical sense'.
2. You have never served in the armed forces.
Right or wrong? You tell me. It might, however, be germane to the argument.
John and Anonymous,
Is it possible that you are both correct? The following article might suggest that perhaps you are:
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-feminist-objection-to-women-in-combat/272505/
I don’t believe this is a cop-out but a way to view the issue that complexifies it and also reflects the contrast between different types of feminism—in this case, it seems the contrast between “equality feminism” and “difference and/or domination feminism.”
In any event, it is a thought-provoking piece.
For another interesting perspective, the following piece by Ron Sider reviews the literature addressing the vexed question regarding early Christian attitudes to war:
https://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2016/janfeb/early-church-on-war-and-killing.html
The author’s bottom line conclusion (at the end of page 1), based on his own exhaustive researches and collection of relevant literary sources is as follows:
“Is there sufficient evidence to resolve this debate one way or the other? In spite of the massive amount of articles and books written about the early Christians' views on war and killing, no scholar had ever collected in one volume all the extant data (literary and archaeological) on the topic. I did that in The Early Church on Killing, published by Baker Academic. This sourcebook contains every extant statement I could find by Christian authors up to the time of Constantine relating directly to killing. It also includes all relevant inscriptions on tombstones and other archaeological data.
“In an afterword, I summarize the historical record. Starting in the late 2nd century and then increasingly in the later 3rd century and the first decade of the 4th century, there is evidence that some Christians were serving in the Roman army—at least a few by AD 173, and a substantial number by the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. Unfortunately, our sources do not enable us to say how many.
“On the other hand, there is not a single extant Christian author before Constantine who says killing or joining the military by Christians is ever legitimate. Whenever our extant texts mention killing—whether in abortion, capital punishment, or war—they always say Christians must not do that.”
"1. You have never known a woman 'in the Biblical sense'. 2. You have never served in the armed forces."
If you can show me how these questions and my answers have anything to do with your assertion that being a PM, a judge, a soldier, etc., makes a woman "masculinized," I might consider answering.
Whether or not a woman can serve as a priest is also, I would suggest, not related to your assertion. It is a red herring question, as far as I can determine, in this discussion.
Margaret Thatcher chose, one would hope, the best people for the jobs in her cabinet. I suspect, knowing how she had to fight the very prejudices you express to rise to the PM position, that if she had known a capable woman, she would have selected her.
Post a Comment