For updates to this site, click on this link: Updates To The Catholic Me
Many Americans, and probably non-Americans around the world, arose this morning expecting to wake up to the news that Hilary Clinton has been elected to be the first woman President of the United States. It was a forgone conclusion – preordained by the irresistible onslaught of the culture of death, made attractive by the likelihood of a female running the White House.
Instead, they woke up, turned on the news and descended into the valley of shock – some in despair, some in anger, some in relief. For some, just plain numbness had set in.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. The forces of culture were in command and the tidal wave of anti-Catholic/Christian rage was carrying the the fleet of destruction to it’s “final” victory over the forces of life and religious liberty in the united States of America. The final nail in the coffin of ancient superstition, slavery of guilt and rule by old men over the lives of women victims around the world would finally be driven, guaranteeing that the moral free-for-all that has become the hallmark of post Christian culture will be safeguarded forever.
Here’s part of what was about to become of America…
Refer to Clinton’s speech at the Women of the World summit:
Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.
This quote is taken from a Snopes article stating that she said it, but it was taken out of context.
Gone are all references to education, domestic violence, and the mortality rate of women in childbirth — not to mention the international scope of the subject matter — so what remains could be misrepresented as a direct threat to pro-life Christians in America. That was clearly not the original import of the passage.
I’m sorry, you can put all of the context you want in there, but the statement that “religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” seems pretty clear. It translates to “Catholic Church, you will change your teaching to align with what we say is right. Or else…”
Combine that with the emails from her staff stating that infiltration of the Catholic Church with the intention of changing Catholic teaching. Here’s a sample:
Together with the attempts to force Catholic institutions (as well as other organizations and people) that have moral objections to providing access to services which go against their consciences and beliefs, and this adds up to a direct attack on religious liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
And there is the question of constitutional rights for the unborn and when the killing of that child should be made illegal:
And, of course, there is the demand that the tax payer pay for abortions by revoking the Hyde Amendment. And the proudest moment of Planned Parenthood CEO, Cecile Richard, being the forcing of Christians to pay for abortion…
All of these things, and more, were intended to come into full force against the Church, as well as other Christian assemblies and even non-religious entities which object to attack on these moral principles.
(And don’t fall for the lie that Abortions make up only 3% of the “services” Planned Parenthood. Click here for an explanation of how they come up with that figure.
These attacks were about to be guaranteed to persist with the new Clinton administration, with the intention of forcing compliance or removing the targets from the scene altogether.
She promised them.
And it all came to a jarring halt a little after 3:00 AM Wednesday, November 9, 2016.
I think it can be explained in four words:
The same tactic was applied here in the United States over the past several weeks, indeed over the past many months. And during the past week, or so, applied continuously thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of times. And not just in the US, around the world.
Our weapon of choice. With a fifty round clip. And we know how to use it.
And it worked again.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
One of the memes – the unconscious, uncritical, lazy thoughts that spreads from person to person like a virus – that has been particularly virulent during this ground-zero mosque controversy is that Christians have no standing to criticize the violence of Islam, given a supposedly violent Christian history. And no one event is more often invoked as an example of Christian hypocrisy than the so-called “Crusades” (so-called, because no one who fought in them called them that).
The latest and most appalling example appears in the NY Times, courtesy of a Nicholas D. Kristof. Among the many absurdities one can find in this column, including definitive claims as to the intentions and desires of Osama bin Laden, Kristof writes,
Remember also that historically, some of the most shocking brutality in the region was justified by the Bible, not the Koran. Crusaders massacred so many men, women and children in parts of Jerusalem that a Christian chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres, described an area ankle-deep in blood. While burning Jews alive, the crusaders sang, “Christ, We Adore Thee.”
What could be more logical, more pertinent, more relevant, than to invoke thousand-year old wartime excesses as proof that Christians have no grounds to criticize Islam?
One can go the route of modern liberal Christianity and make statements about how either a) the Crusades were a “mistake” and never should have occurred, or perhaps b) that while they may have been justified at the time, Christianity has undergone sufficient “reforms” to prevent such things from happening again, while Islam has not.
I totally reject the first notion, and I will explain why I don’t really agree with the second either. But let’s start with the first: that the Crusades were an example of unjustifiable religious violence on the part of Christians, moreover one that can be constantly invoked to equivocate Christianity and Islam as religions that are both prone to violence.