Sunday, December 6, 2015


This is a clever experiment and eye-opening!


GenXBen said...

Koran = Bible is basically the argument used by secularists and atheists, not to excuse Islam, but to condemn Christianity as essentially different sides of the same morally bankrupt coin.

Carol H. said...

I am surprised by the complete ignorance displayed by this experiment.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Bernard - The experiment doesn't equate the Qur'an and the Bible. It reveals two things: 1 - ignorance of people regarding the Bible and 2 - that the misuse of sacred texts is dangerous.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It does appear, though, that Fundamentalists are greater in number in Islam compared to Christianity. Catholic fundamentalism is a misnomer as most Catholics (at least up until the Council) did not take the Bible literally and relied on Church teaching and the catechism. Catholic fundamentalism never leads to violence justified by religious text, either in Tradition or Scripture and it certainly has not led to terrorism in the modern age.

So we must ask what is it about Islam in the modern world that it produces such fanatics and terrorists and the ability to be radicalized to the point of willing to kill others and commit suicide in the process. What is it about Islam. This is a fair question and certainly Muslim who are balanced need to be asking the same question a promoting reform where it is necessary.

Rood Screen said...

The legal requirements of the Old Covenant do not apply to Gentile Christians, so this is not a matter of fundamentalism versus modernity, but of the Law versus the Gospel.

Victor W said...

The experiment is interesting, but how many of those vicious quotes are in the New Testament, which for Christians speaks about their New Covenant with God?
Here is a much more serious experiment by someone who has lived among those who try to emulate the warrior Mohammed:

This also raises the issue of how many Catholics are preaching the Gospel to the Mohammedans; the "fundamentalist" Protestants sure are.

Vox Cantoris said...

To say it is dishonest is an understatement, ignorant and manipulative is more like it.

Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated to Mahomet word for word by Allah. It cannot be "interpreted," nor can it be viewed in context. It is literal and must be taken that way.

We on the other hand believe that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God, correct? We also are able to put those things that are historical and relevant to ancient Israel in context.

To equate Catholic fundamentalism which means, going to Mass at least every Sunday, Confession at least once per year, the rosary, scapular, etcetera with those who murder at the behest of their false Christ-hating prophet and his god is repugnant. That is why Francis was wrong and his comments so disgusting.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

I don't agree that Catholic fundamentalism never leads to violence justified by religious texts. And I would suggest that there are Catholics who are Biblical fundamentalists and Magisterial fundamentalists. Fundamentalism of either variety has led to violence, particularly against the Jews.

Anonymous said...

Muslims have not received Jesus Christ who taught us "They said... But I tell you...." Since we are a sinful people, it takes time to change but Jesus has had a positive influence on humanity. I really don't know why Muslims (some) feel they must participate in terrorism. Perhaps they need the teachings of a New Testament.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Frmjk please list what violence Catholics have done to Jews since Vatican II.

George said...

Holy Scripture must be read with authoritative guidance of the Church so that it can be properly understood. Christ came into our existence to reconcile man to God through the salvific and sacrificial act of His Suffering and Death. In doing this, the Old Covenant gave way to the New Covenant by which the Old is fulfilled in Christ and His Redemption of humanity. While the people of the Old Testament were being prepared by God for the coming of the Redeemer, they were living under the cloud of sin. What transpired in ancient times was what was necessary for the preservation of the people of Israel,which meant in part deliverance from their enemies, and also for their spiritual preparation for the coming of the Messiah. With the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, the legalistic ritual laws would no longer be necessary, and the people of God would be embodied in the members of His Holy Church, the New Israel.

The two people who did this video, while seemingly clever, either are disingenuous or they betray their own ignorance.

Jusadbellum said...

Golly gee wilikers, I guess this explains why Christian fundamentalists are always blowing people up and cutting heads off apostates and stoning adulterers rather than you know, arguing about whether they should be allowed to receive Holy Communion or not.

Jusadbellum said...

Here's a better video about the topic:

It's long but it's worth it. It's dispassionate and it is about the doctrine of political Islam not so much about the religious aspects. It distinguishes the Meccan from Medina period of Mohamed's life, the peaceful vs. the warlike Koran. And points out that the Surah and Hadith make up the lion's share of the doctrine that together with the Koran make up Islam.

60% of the trilogy is basically political and involves "non-believers" (what to do about them). The Meccan period (first part of the Koran) is relatively peaceful. The latter part and the Surahs and Hadiths are full of Jihad as violent conquest of unbelievers and what to do about them.

So in this context a 'moderate' is not a devoted religious person but a lapsed or lax believer. A moderate is someone who doesn't live the religion to the full political extent as it's made to be lived.

So telling me that 90% of Muslims are moderate really doesn't help matters. I suppose only 10% of Catholics are hard core too but is that very comforting?

Islam is the Koran + Hadith + Surah. You become a Muslim to the degree you accept that allah is God and Mohammed is the prophet. If you accept this then His words matter - all them them. The religious and the political. The early peaceful ones and the latter warlike ones. They all matter. Now, you can be a lax or lose or ignorant member but the thing itself is a totalitarian doctrine - totalitarian because it touches on every aspect of life: religious, social, political, economic etc.

Now, communism is another such civilizational doctrine that touches on everything. And most communists in China or most Communists in the USSR and Warsaw pact were not gun toting KGB or GRU agents. Most were civilians going about their lives. But that fact doesn't make communism any less a toxic and satanic belief system.

I think the reason why leftists are so in love with Islam (vs. say, the Tea Party or pro-life movement) is because they see in it a kindred spirit. It speaks their language so to speak. They 'get' that there can be no separation between Party and State so there can't be between Mosque and State. They get that all is political and they appreciate the dualism between the smiling face and the gritted teeth.

Islam was the archenemy of all our ancestors for a thousand years. It was the existential threat to Europe from 712 to the fall of the Ottoman empire in the early 17th century. It has come back from the brink of death and is growing in strength as all the other systems of the West crumble. It's a Leviathan and those who worship such things will worship this beast as well.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh seems to have conveniently forgotten that the first martyr, St Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews. St Paul was another Jew who also took part in the persecution of Christians. I suggest today that persecution is ongoing in that liberal Jews are constantly persecuting Christians in America, attacking Christian feast days etc particularly Christmas. It is high time Christians, particularly Catholic priests, stood up for Christ rather than those other religions hell bent on destroying Christianity.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Good Father - Your homework is to research and report back to us on the " violence Catholics have done to Jews since Vatican II." (I suspect there will be little to report, since, starting in the late 1800's the Catholic Church began to recognize it's errors regarding the Jews, a recognition that was formally stated at Vatican II.)

And Good Father, would you ask, in the context of the anniversary today of Japan's attack on Pearl harbor, "What is it about being Japanese in the modern world that it produces such fanatics and terrorists and the ability to be radicalized to the point of willing to kill others and commit suicide in the process." I suspect not.

Jan's use of "the Jews" in her comment is an example of how we Catholics, and, I suspect most Christians, adopting a fundamentalist/literalist approach to understanding Sacred Scripture, acted in ways that were not concordant with the revelation contained in Holy Writ. In "God's Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching" (September 1988) the USCCB writes: "Another misunderstanding rejected by the Second Vatican Council was the notion of collective guilt, which charged the Jewish people as a whole with responsibility for Jesus' death." (no 7) The section continues, "Collective guilt implied that because "the Jews" had rejected Jesus, God had rejected them. With direct reference to Luke 19:44, the Second Vatican Council reminded Catholics that "nevertheless, now as before, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their fathers; he does not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues," and established as an overriding hermeneutical principle for homilists dealing with such passages that "the Jews should not be represented as rejected by God or accursed, as if this followed from Holy Scripture" (no 7)

Happy חֲנֻכָּה to all!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I endorse the question about the Japanese culture leading up to WWII that promoted military fanaticism which America's defeat of the Japanese and subsequent occupation has helped them to eradicate it!

So you have no modern examples of bishops calling for a Catholic jihad against infidels?....simple yes or no!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"I endorse the question about the Japanese culture leading up to WWII that promoted military fanaticism which America's defeat of the Japanese and subsequent occupation has helped them to eradicate it!"

It would be helpful if you could turn this into a sentence that follows standard American English grammar and syntax. Then we might have some idea of what you seem to think you are "endorsing."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You have made a caricature of yourself in avoidance !

Rood Screen said...

Where in the New Testament, or in the canons and decrees of the ecumenical councils, does one find any instruction to assault or deprive members of the Nation of Israel or the Tribe of Judah? If the fundamental teachings of Christianity provide no such directives, then how can we describe adherence to such non-existent directives as "fundamentalism"? It's illogical.

Anonymous said...

As the the great Dutch politician Geert Wilders has stated for years, it is not MUSLIMS who are the problem it is ISLAM that is the problem, he correctly states that Islam is Islam there is no such animal as "MODERATE" Islam. Islam CANNNOT be reformed it is impossible, for Mosque and state go hand and hand there is no distinction. Mr. Wilders and his wife both Roman Catholics have lived under 24 hour protection for years and don't sleep in the same place for to long under constant threat from radical Muslims who have tried to murder him, just like Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were murdered in the streets of Holland. His party called Partij voor de vrijheid has soared to the top!! Now as of yesterday we have the National Front in France scoring huge victories in the first round of elections led by Marine Le Pen and her devout Roman Catholic niece Marion Marechal Le-Pen who attends the traditional Chartres pilgrimage each year. The French people with the help of the Holy Ghost are waking from their slumber and eyes wide open to the Islamic future of France and Europe, pray for Marine and Marion Le-Pen for they alone can save the Eldest Daughter of The Church FRANCE!!!!

Anonymous said...

Like him or not Trump talks just like all of us do and wish we can voice our opinions without being called racists, homophobes, and bigots, he is not fake and tells it like it is, he is one of us!! The Democrat Leftists have pushed us into the corner for years and NOW we will fight back we cannot take it any longer, Obama and the Democrat Party HATE America, the military, police, guns, Christianity, and yes even White males, but for some reason they will not EVER EVER say anything negative about Islam. Which to me is strange, because under Sharia Law gays, feminists, actors, animal rights activists, atheists, musicians, Liberal Jews and yes the Democrats would be the first to be put to death by these animals. As Michael Savage has said for years Liberalism is a MENTAL DISORDER!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The Obama administration and his media i.e. ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC AND MSNBC tried for hours to hide and give cover as to who could have murdered the 14 innocent victims in San Bernadino last week. The sound bites last week were just absolutely disgusting such as Erin Burnett on CNN asking could this have been some sort of "postpartum depression" on the part of Tahsfeen Malik? Is this just astounding that we have a media so in love with Islam that they cannot be honest with us or themselves? If these were white Christian males their faces and names would have been plastered all over the media. Friends we are in the fight for our very lives here and it is only going to get worse. France indeed woke up on Sunday and hopefully for good to stop the Islamic invasion once and for all, as Geert Wilders has said enough is enough no more ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Noni Darwish, and of course Geert Wilders have been warning the West for years about the danger of Islam, and it fell upon deaf ears with screams of Islamiphobia and bigotry, yet now the world is paying attention to these brave people who live under death threats, may God protect them!!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

JBS - "Fundamentalism" refers to a misunderstanding of basic teachings. It is not in the least "illogical" to recognize that such misunderstandings exist regarding religious texts, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

Anonymous said...

Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Noni Darwish, and of course Geert Wilders have been warning the West for years about the danger of Islam, and it fell upon deaf ears with screams of Islamiphobia and bigotry, yet now the world is paying attention to these brave people who live under death threats, may God protect them!!

Anonymous said...

Walid Shoebat has news on his website that Muslims have threatened the Pope telling him "Remember there won't be any pope after this one" This is the last one, don't forget what I am telling you. Walid goes on to tell how Islam has the wish to once and for all conquer Rome as they did Constantinople and will never give up.

Anonymous said...

Good Muslims will never be loyal citizens of this country. They will not pledge allegiance to the Flag and for which it stands etc.

They will pretend, perhaps, but since it is OK to lie to the infidel that is just fine. Good luck assimilating them!

Marie said...

I didn't recognize the passages from the "Bible" that the young man supposedly read. Or was the video simply too fast for me? Please correct me, but:

1. Where does it say in the Bible [or did one young man just say it was in the whole book?] that women [not just wives] must be submissive [to whom or what?]

2. Where does it say in the Bible where a woman's hands must be cut off if she dares to help [help whom or what?]

3. Where does it say in the Bible to cut the heads off of two men sleeping together?

Are we sure they were reading from our Bible?

Rood Screen said...

Fr. Kavanaugh,

What you call "fundamentalism" I prefer to call "heresy".

Rood Screen said...


Good questions. I wonder if there was yet another cover beneath the second cover!

Anonymous said...

That is correct Anonymous at 1:29 PM Muslims may "lie" to the infidels, it is written in the un-holy book the Quran. That is the evil that Islam allows to lie, and when we hear well they worship the "same" God as we do, that in itself is an outright lie. They don't believe Jesus Christ is the Lord God as we do, and when you see the Isis videos where they are waving one finger in the air that means they deny the Holy Trinity. Islam must and will be destroyed before it destroys the entire West as we know it.

Anonymous said...

President Trump has just stated he wants ALL Muslim immgration to come to a complete halt until we find out what the hell is going on!!!!!!!! This MAN gets my vote, and by the way Fox News just suspended Stacy Dash and retired Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters for calling Obama a p-ssy and Miss Dash said Obama does not give a sh-t, sorry Father McDonald I tried to be clean.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

JBS - CCC 2089: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

In the case of denial or obstinate doubt, fundamentalists who are not baptized cannot be labeled "heretics." The baptized who misunderstand Scripture by interpreting it literally are, likewise, not heretics UNLESS their error in interpretation equates to "denial" or "obstinate doubt."

Fundamentalism and heresy are not interchangeable.

John Nolan said...

'Fundamentalism', like 'racism', 'sexism', or 'homophobia' is now a catch-all insult. Originally it was used, not as a pejorative expression, by Protestants who countered the modernists' exegesis by maintaining that certain truths as set out in Scripture were 'fundamental' in defining Christianity and could not be argued away. They were not biblical literalists or flat-earthers; many were biblical scholars of international repute.

In her interpretation of Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Catholic Church holds that certain things must be believed de fide - they are fundamental. Quite what Fr Kavanaugh means by a 'Magisterial fundamentalist' is perhaps more obvious to him than it is to the rest of us. If we are going to categorize those whose views we dislike we need to be accurate in defining those categories.

The French term for fundamentalist is 'intégriste' and is frequently used to describe the followers of Marcel Lefebvre. Its primary definition is 'adversary of Modernism dedicated to maintaining and defending the integrity of the Faith, of doctrine and of Tradition' So if the Pope is not 'intégriste' (or 'fundamentalist' in the true sense of the word) he is not doing what he is sworn to do.

Anonymous said...

"Comments that are derogatory of the Faith or insulting will not be published"

The FARCE continues. Move along.

Anonymous 2 said...

I have only just discovered this thread, having been somewhat preoccupied with completing a major project for the past couple of days (although I have been posting a bit on an older thread). I will try to exercise some self-restraint in my comment but I’ve just about had enough.

First, how many here have actually studied Islam, I mean properly studied it so as to understand even the basics? If you have not, then upon whom are you relying for your information about Islam? Let me pose some questions (and I apologize in advance for some heavy-handedness here, but what is at stake is too important; we are heading into a very dark and dangerous place in this country—yet again, I might add):

Vox Cantoris: At 6:07 p.m. on December 6 you said that the Qur’an cannot be “interpreted” or viewed in context because Muslims believe it is the literal word of God. Okay. Do you believe the Ten Commandments are the literal word of God? If so, can you tell us what “You shall not kill” means (in the original Hebrew)?

JusadBellum: At 12:09 a.m. you distinguished the Meccan period from the Medinan period of Muhammad’s life. This is a perfectly correct and important distinction that is also associated with the doctrine of abrogation, the extent of which is, however, controverted within Islam. But you also distinguish the Qur’an, the Surahs, and the Hadith. What are the Surahs?

Now, I am the first to admit that I do not know everything there is to know about Islam, and I am learning new things every day. But at least I know that I don’t know and am open to correction and enlightenment from reliable, scholarly sources.

Second, Gene (and others so minded): So, Trump gets your vote? Okay. Please tell us then: How he is going to deport all 11 or so million undocumented immigrants with his Deportation Force? How is he or any other President going to ban all Muslims (including U.S. citizens) from entering the United States (or does he have in mind Congress?)? I assume you do know how President Obama’s extended deferred action program (the DAPA program) is on hold due to legal challenges in the courts. What on earth makes you believe Trump or anyone else would have more success in avoiding legal challenges to the Deportation Force or an entry ban on all Muslims? Why should we not regard this man as a total joke who suffers from a bad case of orificial confusion?

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

I agree with you about there being more fundamentalists in Islam than in Catholicism. And I agree that it is a very legitimate question to ask what it is about Islam that produces such fanatics and terrorists. I think it has to be recognized that there are many verses in the Qur’an and many hadith that can be invoked to justify such atrocious actions (which does not necessarily mean that such purported justifications cannot be challenged, under hermeneutical and substantive standards internal to Islam itself).

But I have been troubled for some time by the following thought: What is our excuse in Christendom and the West for the atrocities we have committed? Has the Bible been invoked to justify such actions? And to the extent is has not, which way does this cut? Is it more, or is it less, of an excuse to have a sacred text to which one can point for justification for atrocious actions (as in “God told us to do it”)? Much as I try to resist bringing up Hitler and Nazi Germany, wasn’t Germany a Christian country? Aren't the Italian mafia members of the Catholic Church (recently called out by the Pope)? What about the IRA?

Anonymous said...

Vote Trump and Le Pen!

Anonymous said...

Fr Kavanaugh, it's very nice that you and the Church are apologetic for wrongs done in Her name, but I don't see any apology forthcoming from those religions who persecute Christians, who cut off their heads, those religious persons who defame Pope Pius XII, those who accuse Catholics of trying to convert them when they were merely saving them from the gas chamber and, in fact, risking their own lives in doing so. What I have read is entirely shameful but there is no apology for that. So, no, I don't accept the kind of PC ideas that you promote which downgrades your own faith while at the same time building up wrongdoers who are no better than those Catholics you condemn. And the Jews are as discriminatory if not more so - tell your selective biased story to those Catholics who couldn't get jobs in Jewish controlled companies. There is no one group any better than the other as far as I am concerned, but at least the Jews aren't running down their own Faith as you do. They have loyalty which you sadly lack. Very bad in a Catholic priest.

As regards literal interpretation of scripture. I would like to know what in scripture you do believe: changing water into wine? the miracle of the loaves and fishes? the virgin birth? the raising to life of Lazarus? walking on water? the resurrection? Perhaps you regard all of these miracles as literal interpretation of scripture to be believed only by fundamentalist Catholics? In that case, I'm a fundamentalist and proud of it. Rather a fundamentalist than a non-believer.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

I should perhaps make the thought in my last post a little clearer: To the extent our Western atrocities are not justified, or justifiable, by reference to the Bible or accepted religious teachings, and indeed may even be contrary to them, then aren’t they arguably even_less_ excusable than when someone sincerely (albeit erroneously) believes they are doing God’s will? I don’t have an answer but I am troubled by the question.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, I was wondering where you were. It's not so long ago that I told you the videos showing the violence of Muslims was coming to a place near you and it has - and there will be more. I suggest you go peddle your apology for Islam to the families of all those Christians who have been beheaded, to the families of all those that lost their lives in 9/11 and in Paris, to the wife and child of Lee Rigby in the UK and all places where these attrocities have been committed and see how you fare. Better still, if you think Islam is so great, put your money where your mouth is and go and immigrate to one of their countries and see how you fare - not much better than those who went to help and even converted to Islam and were beheaded I suspect. They say there is one born every minute and you certainly fit the bill. Trump may not have all the answers but he's certainly way ahead of Obama, although that wouldn't be hard. It looks as if Obama wants to try and guns - a good idea but he forgot to mention the pipe bombs, didn't he? The latest CNN poll before the San Bernadino massacre shows over 60% of Americans don't want Obama's immigration plan. The USA will be a safer place without more Muslim immigrants and good on Trump for saying it. Someone has to fight back against all this PC rubbish that couldn't even admit what was obvious to everyone that San Bernadino was another terrorist attack by Muslims. No one picked apparently that these two would go on a murderous rampage so how can you speak for the rest of them? You just don't know.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

One should never blame the Jews for the Holocaust, but there was a resentment towards the Jews that was of religious and secular motivations both of which are quite intertwined and fed off of each other. On the secular side, there was great resentment of the Jews in controlling many business interests and sometimes these Jewish business men as are non Jews were/are very corrupt. Just think of the corruption and greed and graft that accompanied the collapse of our economy a few years back. There was great resentment of the Jews in Europe both secular and religious and Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and other fascists took advantage of that resentment to set out to exterminate the Jews. These men were despots, criminals and used their ability to manipulate the masses through the cult of the personality to put forward their agenda, which started slowly.

Donald Trump scares me as the fear of fascism and fear of the cult of the personality that stirs up the worst in humanity was instilled in me by my mother who lived through the Fascism of nationalism in Germany and my father who fought in North Africa and Italy to put it to an end.

While Islam might be the problem, Muslims should not be treated with common contempt as the Jews were in Europe prior to the Holocaust.

Catechist Kev said...

It’s really funny to see how progressives in the Church seem to always fall back on that word “fundamentalism”. As if *they* are not.

Can one can be “fundamentalist” in their traditionalist view of the Church? — New Catechism? “Naw.” New Mysteries of the Rosary? “No way.” New Mass? “Not on your life.”

Can one can be “fundamentalist” in their traditionally-mechanical view of the Church? – Study the Catechism? “Naw.” Pray the Rosary? “That’s for nuns, right?” Assist at a TLM? “Isn’t there just one Mass anyway?”

Can one be “fundamentalist” in their progressivist view of the Church? – Study the Catechism? “No, I read Chittister.” Pray the Rosary? “That’s just vain repetition for old timeys.” Assist at any Mass during the week? “No thanks, got mine out of the way Saturday night with Sr. Groovy presiding.”

Yet, if one simply wants to be *obedient* to Holy Mother Church on what she teaches on faith and morals (and what she proposes for belief), on disciplines, and on correct worship of Almighty God… and defend them, suddenly *that Catholic* is a “fundamentalist”!

Go figure.

Catechist Kev

Anonymous said...

Father, I agree that no one group should be treated with common contempt as you say the Jews were but the Jews never committed the atrocities that Muslims have committed and are committing and that has happened down through the centuries without a doubt, nothing has changed. Unless these people are prepared to accept the law of the land of the countries they choose to immigrate to then I think they shouldn't be admitted. But that is not the case as has been shown in Britain and in France where Sharia law is permitted in a number of places and so the rights of women, etc, are trampled upon. There are several states that have sharia law in parts and Texas is one state that recently refused.

Someone like Trump is gaining in popularity because of what has happened to America since Obama became President. There has to be more of a reason for electing someone than the colour of their skin or that they are a woman. I have to say that Obama appears to me to be the weakest President the US has had - even worse than Jimmy Carter. There has been a lot said against George W Bush but I am sure I would feel a lot safer under him than the current encumbent who simply doesn't appear to know what to do. Even Hillary is distancing herself from him to a degree. And Putin is making a joke of Obama and gaining in popularity. Who would have thought people in the free world would be championing him before the President of the US? And goodness knows what will happen now that Obama has allowed Russia to get the upper hand in the Middle East.

Rood Screen said...


It must be admitted that the military and para-military forces inspired by Mohammed were conquering and holding Christian lands for centuries prior to Grenada and Lepanto. The renewed killing of thousands of Christians for Moslem purposes is a reality in our own time. In this situation, it does not seem reasonable to insist that one undertake an advanced study of the religion in question before commenting upon its readily apparent threats.

The best thing we can do in response is to announce the Christian Gospel of repentance and conversion.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Gene, you make my point. It was the stereotype that all Jews were coniving, greedy and took advantage of people, especially in the business world as well as the misplaced guilt on current Jews that they killed Christ that led to a fanatic like Hitler to murder 6 million of them, starving most of them to death, as well as 6 million gypsies, homosexuals and people with physical and mental disorders, not to mention experiments of the most heinous kind carried out on them.

Now you have Donald Trump, a celebrity quite familiar with reality shows, turning our presidential race into entertainment and people eating up everything he says and supporting his ignorance of the facts and how statesmen are to function in the modern world.

He could easily become another Hitler because yes, a few stereotypical Muslim chopping off heads is a bit more serious than the stereotype of Jews exploiting others in the business world. He is a fascist. Beware of him!

Gene said...

No, Fr, my point is that the behavior of Jews was very different from the behavior of Muslims. There is ample basis for the stereotype of Muslims; not so much for Jews. In today's world, anyone with testicles and a spine is labeled a Fascist. Why don't you get of that wagon. The function of "statesmen" brought us Pearl Harbor, two world wars, Korea, Viet Nam, and 9/11. Maybe some pre-emptive action would be nice.

Jusadbellum said...

Let's be careful with our words people.

Fascists believe in an all powerful central government which rules and regulates via a robust police surveillance state/party apparatus. Fascist states are one-party regimes.

Fascists don't believe in the private ownership of firearms. They don't believe in NGOs or Churches or anyone else except and until all is brought to heel under the overlord ship of bureaucracies.

Trump building a wall isn't about keeping just Mexicans out but everyone else seeking to illegally enter the country via that porous border including drug runners, human traffickers and Non-Hispanics (like Asians and Middle Easterners.)

Trump freezing visas isn't Fascist. FDR did far worse after Pearl Harbor; freezing all travel Visas from Italy and Germany as well as putting 5% of the US German population into internment camps, forbidding them from owning short wave radios etc.

But of course Democrats can never, EVER, be wrong when they do things, right? So when Rahm Immanual in Chicago runs a black site prison complex where random African Americans are being arrested and warehoused without due process, why that's just grand, no problem there! But let someone with an R behind their name do the same thing and we'd never hear the end of it.

The double standard here is really galling. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ all lie us into war but that's OK - serves the greater good you know. But let a Nixon go to China or Reagan bring down the USSR and it's non-stop bickering and complaining and character assassination in history books.

Tell me more about how "statesmen" are supposed to act. Is Obama a "statesman"? Was Clinton a statesman? Was Carter a statesman?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Kev - Fundamentalism refers not to an attitude that holds to the Traditions of the Church or some other faith, but to a particular way of interpreting sacred texts, whether those are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other.

A Catholic who believes in the Immaculate Conception, pray the rosary, study the catechism, etc., is not a fundamentalist. He/she is simply "Catholic."

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John Nolan - I think Fundamentalism arose as a reaction against modernity in general, with a particular focus on modern biblical criticism. Some saw this new way of interpreting Scripture as a threat which, in their view, would undermine the authority of the Scriptures. So far, so good.

As Catholics, we are, properly understood, Biblical fundamentalists. We want to know the fundamental meaning of St. Paul's teaching on grace, of the references to "divine vengeance" in the Old Testament, and to the parables used by the Lord to teach. Again, so far, so good.

But, at least in the United States, though I suspect elsewhere, fundamentalism has morphed into "Scriptural literalism." Not so much concerned with maintaining belief in fundamental truths, this literalism requires a rejection of not only the historical-critical approach to interpreting the Scriptures, but also to such things as modern science (read: Darwinism)and modern understandings of gender roles, among others.

The Scriptures do not require this. A literalist approach to understanding them does.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fundamentalism in Christianity is a concoction of reactionary voices in Protestantism as a result of liberal Protestantism taking its direction from the Enlightenment or modernism corrupting Christianity with a new method of interpreting Scripture that went beyond the historical/critical method and literary criticism to denying the truths of the Faith. Jesus was stripped of divinity and Scripture of its Divine Inspiration and all became symbols of this, that or the other but nothing tangible.

Fundamentalism came into full force around 1920 and liberal Protestantism has continued his dissent into oblivion ever since and it continues to do so especially as it regards the liberal expressions of Presbyterianism, the reformed Churches and the Anglican communion.

Catholic fundamentalism is a bit different, but not entirely. It fears the embrace of the world of Vatican II and see some correlation between it and Protestant liberalism of the late 1800's. It is a reactionary movement but does not deny what the Church taught except when it comes to papal authority and ecumenical councils--it thinks it knows best--Marcel Lefebrve certainly has some critical insights into things in the 1960's but reacted so much that he disobeyed the pope and set out on his own. It was a schismatic act on his part deserving of automatic excommunication.

Catholicism can prevent schism in her midst by excommunicating the schismatic. They are still there but clearly independent of the true Church. No such mechanism in Protestantism though as it is born of schism.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I should add that I was trained in the historical/literary critical method and we as a Church were walking down the same path as liberal protestants of the 1800's although we were doing it in the late 1960's. Pope Benedict took a fine razor to all of this in his books on Jesus. It does not pose the same threat to us today as it did then when the bodily resurrection of Jesus was called into question, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the incarnation, the virgin conception and birth as well as miracles. It was a rationalism that tried to explain everything apart from the supernatural. It almost destroyed the Church but unless it rears its ugly head again, it is gone for now and Pope Francis does not strike me as a modernist when it comes to the truths of the Creed.

George said...


"Much as I try to resist bringing up Hitler and Nazi Germany, wasn’t Germany a Christian country? Aren't the Italian mafia members of the Catholic Church (recently called out by the Pope)? What about the IRA?"

Russia, up to the second decade of the Twentieth Century, and even somewhat after that, was also a Christian country. I suppose it could be claimed that it was ostensibly so, and subsequently came under the chastisement of God. The same with Germany. The Nazis were neo-pagan and the Communists were and still are atheistic. Both stood in contravention and opposition to Christianity. Members of the IRA and the Mafia (other than those who left these organizations and repented) are nominal Catholics, if that. The terrorism that we have seen in Europe and the U.S. would be easier to explain if those who perpetrated the atrocities could be shown to be Islamic apostates and in fact considered themselves to no longer be members of that faith.

Anonymous 2 said...


”They say there is one born every minute . . .”

I agree. They are called Trump supporters. The man is a charlatan peddling snake oil. He whips people up and promises the moon. He cannot deliver on what he promises—at least not without suspending the Constitution. Wait a minute . . . .

Anonymous 2 said...


“[T]he Jews never committed the atrocities that Muslims have committed and are committing and that has happened down through the centuries without a doubt . . .”

Do an internet search under “Jewish Religious Terrorism” including, in the United States, the Jewish Defense League.

So, do we blame all Jews? Of course not.

Jan, there is something dark and ugly inside all of us. It is the result of The Fall and Original Sin. If that dark force gains the upper hand, it will use whatever it can at its disposal to do and to justify terrible things. Often the tool is religion. Here is a history of terrorism:

Jesus had to confront it. I don’t mean Roman state terrorism. Remember the Zealots?

Jusadbellum said...

Anon 2, it is no constitutional crisis for the federal government to halt visas as no foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the US.

It's not unconstitutional for the federal government to build a wall from Brownsville TX to San Diego, CA.

Here's the deal: if you truly believe "moderates" make up the overwhelming majority of Muslims and ISIS et al are apostates, then putting a freeze on all Muslim immigration and visas would put the onus on these moderates to take out the trash on their own terms.

If they genuinely are moderate. If by "moderate" they are genuinely, religiously set against the interpretation of the Koran of ISIS, then they will have no ideological or theological reasons to NOT take on the hardliners. But taking on radicals is tough and most people will take the path of least resistance. Shutting off US may give them an incentive to put on their big boy pants and take out the cause of trouble in the world.

Anonymous 2 said...


My point is that people in the West/Christendom have done terrible things too, even though their religion tells them they shouldn’t. So, we do terrible things or support those who do terrible things even when we believe God and religion have told us not to (this includes all those good Germans who were good Catholics and Protestants and supported Hitler anyway—he was elected into power as the “savior of Germany”) (By the way, to those who have been so critical of the German people for going along with Hitler and the Nazis, I have always said: Don’t think it cannot happen in other countries, including the United States. No-one is immune to the seducing Siren voice of those who promise security, economic recovery, and greatness. Sound familiar? But I digress).

So, which is worse? To do terrible things because you sincerely believe God has told you to? Or to do terrible things even though you know God has told you not to? Or are they equally bad? I honestly don’t know. Do you?

Anonymous 2 said...


Sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, noncitizens have very little right under the Constitution to enter the United States as initial entrants. But consider this case: A U.S. citizen, a Muslim say, marries a noncitizen, another Muslim say, and wants to bring that person in to the United States to join him or her. Are you seriously suggesting that a ban on the admission of the noncitizen spouse would not be challenged in the courts, alleging denial of substantive (and perhaps even procedural) due process, denial of equal protection, and denial of the First Amendment freedom of religion? And isn’t it likely that at least one court somewhere will find the challenge meritorious, at which point it might all have to be put on hold just as the DAPA is on hold (in this case a Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court decision and we anticipate that the Supremes will hear the case next year)?

In any event, Trump suggested banning the return of Muslim citizens as well, although he is thinking about those in the military last I heard.

And what about the millions of undocumented immigrants he wants to round up in his Deportation Force? Just round them up and take them to the border? What the heck is this actually supposed to look like? The lawyers are just sitting around watching it all happen I suppose. No constitutional challenge (let alone statutory challenge – the current procedures don’t allow it)? Really? Think about it.

Believe me--Trump is full of it (I teach Immigration Law too, by the way).

Good grief, talk about Pope Francis running his mouth irresponsibly. Pope Francis is positively OCD compared to Trump the Chump. Believe me—Trump is full of it (I teach Immigration Law too, by the way). He is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, and of course everyone knows it.

As for big boy pants, let me know when the Republican candidates put some on, instead of swaggering around the playground comparing the size of their political genitalia (Carly is exempted from this image =)).

Anonymous 2 said...

Sorry, my editing fell short. I think I wrote “Believe me--Trump is full of it (I teach Immigration Law too, by the way).” I got carried away. I know, many people here probably wish I was carried away. =)

Anonymous 2 said...


One more thing on big boy pants. We wouldn’t_be_in this mess if George W. Bush had worn big boy pants instead of swaggering . . . well, you get the point.

I know many people here hate to be reminded of this, but as Santayana said . . . .

Anonymous said...

If you have a president like Obama then you will get the rise of someone like Trump. While I may not agree with everything he says or does he appears at the moment to be the kind of leader America needs to get them out of a situation where Americans believe Putin is a better commander in chief and leader. That means the rest of the world reads that and America is seen as weak in the eye of the world.

The following answers myopic people like Anonymous 2:


Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history."

Anonymous said...

Fr Kavanaugh and Anonymous 2 would do well to take a visit to Syria and find out what the word "fundamentalist" really means. Their eyes will finally be wide open as their heads hit the sand. Awful to contemplate but so true ...

Anonymous 2 said...


I am well aware of these verses and teach about them in my course. The book we use devotes three chapters to the topic of war and jihad. We also study how these verses have been, and can be, contextualized, even on the working premise that they are the eternal word of Allah and how they relate to the more peaceful verses stemming from the first period in Mecca. In fact, I was just looking at them again last night. I am also well aware of the evil actions of ISIS and do to need to travel to Syria to find out. So, sorry, but no myopia and no cigar!

Where did you get the passage from? At least it acknowledges that many Muslims relativize/contextualize these verses but then somewhat perplexingly goes on to miss the implications of this critical point by apparently dismissing its significance.

And now for a radical proposal: We must put on our big boy pants at home and abroad and act counter-intuitively. Regarding actions in our home countries, our natural instinct is to distance ourselves from Muslims. This is due to fear. Our reptilian brains are now being engaged big time (in fact in the United States they have been engaged for 14 years due to incessant daily reminders about terrorism). We need to face these facts and our fears and actively reach out to the Muslims in our midst. Catholics can take the lead here in this Year of Mercy. This is how we will defeat ISIS at home. If we don’t do this but separate ourselves and alienate Muslims, this nefarious jihadist ideology will spread more rapidly because we will be feeding the ISIS narrative about us. At the same time we must be vigilant and report reasonable suspicions. Regarding our military actions abroad, we must be very careful how we proceed. Ill-considered violence will only feed the beast and it will grow even stronger. We are dealing with evil forces and must recognize them in all their forms.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. For some reason the editing alert on my computer does not work – “do not need to travel to Syria”

George said...


The political-social-religious environment in many Islamic countries is so alien to what we experience in the West. Here one can freely worship at a mosque if one chooses to do so. One can freely publish and carry around a copy of the Koran or any other Islamic text. Contrast that with Saudi Arabia or Iran where Christian churches or missionaries are not allowed, nor are worship services(at least publicly) nor is publicly wearing a cross or crucifix nor is carrying around a Bible. Christianity is not the only belief system that is suppressed and persecuted either.
The construction of churches, synagogues, or other non-Muslim places of worship is illegal. Certain Christian congregations, however, are able to conduct large Christian worship services discreetly and regularly. Discreetly is the operative word.

The following are just a few examples of why Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and other similar Islamic countries are so alien to what we take for granted in the West :

Raif Badawi, a young Saudi Arabian blogger and activist for reform was charged with apostasy. Eventually, after months of court proceedings, he was convicted of the lesser charge of “insulting Islam,” sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, and given a penalty of 1000 lashes. What he had done was simply speak his mind about his country, his government, and his religion. Badawi remains a prisoner of conscience, jailed for his beliefs and for speaking his mind. On September 1, the Jeddah Court of Appeals affirmed a May judgment that Ra’if Badawi had violated Islamic values, violated sharia, committed blasphemy, and mocked religious symbols on the internet. Originally sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes in July 2013, the appeals court sentenced Badawi to a 10-year prison term and 1,000 lashes . The government does not legally permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services. Entry restrictions in the country made it difficult for non-Muslims to maintain rregular contact with resident lay clergy. This was particularly problematic for Catholics and Orthodox Christians, whose religious traditions require they receive sacraments from a priest on a regular basis. Catholics and Orthodox are part of the foriegn work force in Saudi Arabia.

According to government policy, non-Muslims are prohibited from being buried in the country. The ARAMCO oil company was allowed to have a
private cemetery for their employees.

I know that compared to ISIS, Saudi Arabia could be considered to be moderate, but this doesn't give us who value religious and political freedom in the West much comfort.

According to the US State Department:
Since 2004, Saudi Arabia has been a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

Anonymous 2 said...


Saudi Arabia is definitely not moderate. They are not to be counted among moderate Muslims. Who do you think is responsible for propagating the fundamentalist (though not necessarily violent) Salafist Islamic ideology throughout the world financed by petrodollars?—Saudi Arabia. Please do not take Saudi Arabia as typical of the Islamic world. The House of Saud made a deal with the extremist Wahabi clerics—you support us and we will promote you and your extremist version of Islam. The Saudi rulers have tried to move in the direction of reform but it is difficult for them. For one thing they protect the holy places of Mecca and Medina, and it was a main grievance of Osama bin Laden that they allowed American troops to be stationed on their soil. Of course, we have just given them a major arms deal (purportedly “precision” bombs) so they can fight the Iran sponsored Shiite rebels in Yemen more effectively (the Saudis are Sunni and are Iran’s major political competitor in the Middle East), probably as compensation for reaching a deal with Iran.

So, thanks George (Bush, not you) for upsetting the balance of power when you got rid of the Sunni Saddam, who kept Iran (not to mention the Sunni elements that have morphed into ISIS) in check. Now Iran supports rebels in Yemen and, more importantly perhaps, Assad, another Shiite, in Syria, and also exercises great influence in Iraq, while ISIS fights both the Shiite Assad and the Shiite majority in Iraq. You see how horribly complicated it all is. Why on earth couldn’t we leave well enough alone? But no, we had to swagger around in our ignorance and our arrogance demonstrating our military genitalia. And now we reap the whirlwind and have made Europe suffer too.

And people wonder why I counsel caution and criticize the Republican candidates for more swaggering!

Anonymous 2 said...

Remember Colin Powell—you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it, and boy do we own it!

Anonymous said...

Exactly so, George, and just a few months ago a priest told us in a sermon that he has relatives who are quite high up in the diplomatic corps in one of the Muslim countries. They can only go to Mass every so often at the embassy because otherwise they would be attacked, so no public Mass allowed. I mention this priest is somewhat on the liberal side but at least he wasn't afraid to tell the truth of a situation he knows of.

Like others, I certainly think Trump is right when he says there should be a prohibition on Muslims entering the US - or any country for that matter - until things are sorted out.

Anonymous 2 I would say rather than "do not need to travel to Syria" you would be far too scared to travel to Syria and the reason for that is obvious. Also, they say charity begins at home - mercy too for that matter. Better to show mercy to one's fellow citizens and give them as much protection as possible rather than allow in a group of people known for their violence, who have shown it in the countries that they have immigrated to. No one was able to pick that the people in the most recent terrorist incident in San Bernadino were radicalised and no more can you say with any certainty that the people you know aren't radicalised and don't have their homes filled with pipe bombs as well.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

To paraphrase Luke: "For if you show mercy those who show mercy to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners show mercy to those who show mercy to them."

Anonymous 2 said...


If Trump’s proposal is such a brilliant idea, how do you explain that it has been roundly condemned not just by “liberals” but everyone else as well (including his fellow Republican candidates and Speaker Paul Ryan) except for his apparent supporters, including those on this blog? Oh, and ISIS of course—they love it. Indeed, they love it so much that Trump is now viewed, including by the Pentagon, as a threat to national security, which of course he is.

And you do realize, I hope, that if we ban Muslims from entering the United States, even temporarily, then other countries are very likely to retaliate by banning Americans from entering theirs because they cannot accept that their own citizens (French, German, British, etc.) are excluded by the U.S. in this manner.

By contrast with such insanity, the Congress is moving forward with very sensible legislation to modify the visa waiver program to require visas interviews of those French, German, British, etc. citizens who have visited Syria. Now if we could just get Congress to agree that terrorists should be prohibited from purchasing guns . . . But, of course, the NRA would never give them a permit to do that.

Scared to travel to Syria? You bet. And so many Syrians are scared to remain in Syria. They are called refugees. Thanks again, George, for the world you have given us. But at least he was smart enough to say we were not at war with Islam, which we are not and shouldn’t be, although this may change if people like Trump get their way (thus causing even more joyful celebration in ISIS).

“Better to show mercy to our fellow citizens?” So, we have no fellow citizens who are Muslims? Or are they not eligible for mercy either?

“No one was able to pick out that [they] were radicalized” – well, let’s just wait and see as the evidence come in. I think it will be very illuminating to investigate the interactions at Farook’s workplace, for example.

Jusadbellum said...

Trump's idea IS brilliant precisely because both the RNC and the DNC are in full panic mode about it.

It's totally legal as per current US code. Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Jimmy Carter used precisely this law to stop all visas from Iran during the hostage crisis (but of course, being Democrat that's OK because shut up we'll be explained).

Now, why shouldn't the Syrian refugees not find aid and comfort in Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or the emirate states? Why ship them all the way to Germany or the USA?

Why not house them in a temporary basis and then wipe out ISIS so they can be quickly re-patriated?

Why the urgency to flood the US with a permanent population of Muslims? Because it's a religion of peace? Because they're awesomely awesome folk?

Why the bleating about how it's impossible to allow Christians to flee but super duper easy for Muslims?

I just think this is another one of those crazes that we get proposed to us in a panic, a crisis, that we're told we MUST ACT ON and the Church is used as a tool to promote as though it's some sort of super-duper act of charity to flood the country with orphans from Honduras and whole Muslim families from Syria rather than solve the problems driving these mass human migrations in the first place.

It's very curious that as a global Church we get nothing about the Church in Mexico taking in the Latin American refugees.... we get nothing about the Church in Asia coming to the aid of the persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

Quite frankly, Anonymous 2, I think that many - including those in the GOP - are too scared to speak out. Trump has actually put himself on the line and they are not prepared to and nor are you. When America has the next terrorist attack, which it surely will, many more people are going to be agreeing with Trump. It is said that in reality he has read the mind of the American people as the majority do not want more Muslim immigrants

A Bloomberg Politics poll taken this week found that a majority of Republican primary voters agree with Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration and more than a third said they were more likely to vote for Trump because of it.

Other polls on Muslim immigration:

"The AP-GfK poll also found that 53 percent of Americans opposed the Obama administration's plan to accept 10,000 refugees from Syria into United States, with just 23 percent saying they were in favor. Majorities of both Republicans (78 percent) and independents (54 percent) opposed letting in the refugees, while Democrats were more likely to be in favor than opposed, 41 percent to 32 percent.
Both Americans in general and Republicans in particular were more likely to say the United States is allowing too many immigrants from the Middle East than to say so about other regions of the world, including Latin America.

In the poll, 54 percent of Americans, including about three-quarters of Republicans, about half of independents and over a third of Democrats, said the United States takes in too many immigrants from the Middle East."

When America has the next terrorist attack, which it surely will, many more people are going to be agreeing with Trump. It is said that in reality he has read the mind of the American people as the majority do not want more Muslim immigrants.

What is Pres. Obama doing to ban pipe bombs????

Anonymous 2 said...


Yes, I agree, Trump’s idea is brilliant, but not for the same reason you suggest. It is brilliant because he is hogging all the media attention through these outrageous statements. The media spotlight is on him and not his competition.

Anonymous 2 said...


I predicted some weeks ago that it will only take one or two bad terrorist attacks in the United States and then it’s all she wrote as far as the election is concerned. Trump or someone like Trump will Cruze to victory. I know this country, having lived here for almost four decades. I have observed very carefully how the right plays the terrorism card just like the left plays the race card. It is very easy to herd the American people into the pen now. We have been softened up by incessant daily talk of terrorism. The neural pathways have been fundamentally altered and the “security ethic” rooted in the reptilian brain thoroughly primed to respond when the trigger is pulled. Of course, AL Qaeda and ISIS know this very well and are no doubt delighted at how easy it has become to terrorize us, even without doing anything, let alone doing something. Indeed, we do most of their work for them by terrorizing ourselves. And as I said before, they would be even more delighted to have a Trump as the Republican nominee or, better yet, as President because, far from being their worst nightmare as he so bombastically claims, he is their Godsend. And we are too stupid to see it. Sheeesh!

But I don’t blame the people so much as the opportunistic politicians and the mercenary media. People are understandably scared, especially after all the priming. Moreover, they have been betrayed by those whom they elected as their public servants (how quaint that phrase sounds today) and the big money interests that own them (Trump was completely candid about his own part in this). They work harder than ever for less while the hyper rich become even richer. And maybe I blame the educators like myself for not doing more to help people learn critical thinking skills so they can resist the shadows projected by the puppet masters onto the wall of our cave.

Let’s test this with a few examples. First, what was the question asked in the poll? Did it make it clear that the administration is proposing to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees, not the 250,000 trumpeted by Trump (like so much of what he says, another apparent lie that doubtless went viral very quickly)?

Second example—Do you have any idea how many people, Republicans especially, continued to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks years after the event, because this was a narrative “planted” in the collective American psyche by Dick Cheney and others to manipulate people into supporting their misadventure in Iraq, even though Saddam had nothing to do with it? Check it out.

Third example—Apparently we are moving to government by opinion poll. I don’t think this is what the Founders had in mind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, you're kidding, right? You think Americans and the rest of the world are scared because of being primed. You don't think that seeing the Charlie Hebdoe massacre, seeing Christians being beheaded on a beach, seeing Lee Rigby run down in broad daylight and then an attempt to hack of his head while he lay injured on the ground had something to do with it? You don't think the recent Paris attacks or the San Bernadino attack had anything to do with it? You don't think that the news that the latest Muslim attackers had 5 pipe bombs at home had anything to do with it?

The position is that after what we have witnessed, no matter what questions the poll asked, the majority are going to say, no, to more Muslim immigration. Just one more, let alone 10,000 is one too many in the present climate of threat and unrest in the Middle East. Even Clinton is starting to wake up to the fact that Americans - and the rest of the world - know that they can't be protected by the government. At best President Obama appears weak and ineffectual as if he doesn't know what to do.

It seems sensible to put immigration on hold until a better system of vetting, etc, can be put in place. As things stand no one knows where these people have come from. You only have to look at the faces of most of these terrorists to see they appear to be quite normal looking every day people who don't look like nutters or people who would commit the terrible crimes they have done. There is just no way to tell who these terrorists are. Perhaps Trump has played the trump card?

Anonymous said...

As far as I am concerned, Anon. 2, after I saw this video of what happened to soldier Lee Rigby that was totally the end for me - only one man but such a cold-blooded massacre means I will never ever support Muslim immigration - one is one too many. Watch it if you have the stomach for it:

Jusadbellum said...

Jan, it's useless. Anon 2 is a Dhimmi already. He's convinced that it's wiser, or 'better' to be "Red than dead". That in the face of social terrorists or physical terrorists, the path of least resistance (capitulation, submission, paying the protection racket) is the moral path and that those who disagree are warmongers because only war will save the innocent from the savages.

And in his mind, war is the ultimate evil. Not abortion. Not sodomy. Not the millennial rape of formerly Christian homelands... no, war is the be all and end of all evil (but only when waged by the icky West who has no right whatsoever for self-preservation). Now, let a hundred Eastern countries wage war of the most barbaric kind, or pollute, or abuse women and minorities, well, so what? At least the are victim countries and not the EVIL Tea partiers or something!

Anon 2 does not believe submission to either communists or Islamists is a grave and permanent threat. I mean with $20 trillion in debt while running permanent budget deficits of $1 trillion, it's not like our military is unsustainable or anything! It's not like packing the officer corps with LGBTQ zealots and women will undermine morale and lower overall effectiveness or anything! No, we are so superior to all human beings in all ways that we can afford to undermine every wall, sabotage every check and balance, import any amount of hostile cultures into our own and nothing will result in chaos and calamity.

It's breathtaking how people can be so blind as to how delicate civilization and Catholic faith and morals is. How countries can (and have!) lost the faith entirely and been destroyed, removed from the map. "It" can indeed happen here and we're fools to think we can import tens of millions of strangers into our culture whose only governmental system has been strong man dictatorships and it won't have a negative impact on our body politic.