Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

Some helpful insights and information here, at St. Corbinian's ursine blog, and of course the always informative The American Catholic. The link between the Feast and the victory at Lepanto is worth a reflection in itself. 

It's Catholicism from a different world.  Sometimes the more I focus on the Mass and the local parish, the more Catholic I feel.  The more I draw back and look at the greater Church, the more it looks like my old agnostic views of the day, and the various secular professors and thinkers who informed those views.

Maybe it's just me, but when you think of the fight to defend Europe from Islamic aggression then, and the speed with which most Catholics will gladly hand Europe and anything else over to Islam (or anyone or anything else) today, it makes you wonder.  Do they even believe any of this anymore?  Are they like Mainline Protestants, who merely see the whole Jesus thing as a thin veneer to stretch over the latest revelations of our ever developing moral and social doctrines?  Because of this, are they just scared?  They don't see anything worth fighting for, so they cover it all in 'but peace and love baby' theology? 

I don't know.  I'm not saying the past was completely beautiful and all.  I'm fine with no wars of religion or burning heretics at the stake.  For that matter, I'm fine with no wars.  But in our zeal to eliminate all the wars and death penalties and any killing that doesn't directly help in satisfying our libidos, I think we may have lost a few things: honor, duty, sacrifice, love of neighbor (that's different than exploiting my neighbor for political expediency).  

When we see things like today's Feast - don't expect a single news outlet to mention it - and compare it to our world today, you can't help but reflect more and more on what we may have lost rather than that inevitable progress we always used to emphasize.  That's what came to my mind at least.  

A Day of Mourning for the Hagia Sophia

A story of monumental proportions that has received very little coverage by the "news media", and even less concern in other circles. Many have dismissed the concerns altogether.  Some no doubt are thrilled.  Neither the US Bishops nor Pope Francis seem to be more than saddened.

This is not coincidence as I've said before.  This is simply the early phases of the world finally taking the steps it feels invited to take.  When the world watches Christians in Europe and America discuss just how much of the Christian and Western traditions need dismantled and disposed of, you can bet others with their own agendas will jump in.

The world of Islam spent most of its history trying at various times and in various places to invade and sweep through Europe.  Each time, in different manners and moments, it was stopped.  Do we really think Muslims just gave up on the dream?  Do we believe our own wicked Government is bent on world conquest and imperialism?  Obviously.  I hear it all the time.  Do we think such is confined to the US?  Some who are foolish and partisan do.  But they shouldn't.

There are other parts of the world that would love to have the upper hand in the world.  And we're about ready to find out what happens when they get it.  Sadly, it will be our children and their children who pay the price.  If there is divine justice, we won't slip by so easily for our folly.

Nonetheless, at least the US Bishops are doing something.  They're posting on the Twitter Account (yuck) a day of mourning for the Hagia Sophia once more being taken over by the Islamic star and crescent.  And for those secularists who mourn this only because it points to some dreaded religious fundamentalism, don't be fooled.  They'd happily see it reduced to a museum as they would see the rest of the Christian world reduced to the same.  For Christians, watching secularists and Muslims debate over what should happen to the Hagia Sophia should put in mind Fay Wray watching King Kong battle the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  There's not much to root for if that is where we put our hope.

Perhaps it's time to rise up and stand firm for our faith.  Who knows?  We might notice a difference in our people and our prospective converts.

More prayers for the Sri Lankan victims of Muslim radicals

I thought I would add this.  I thought of them mightily, my brothers and sisters in Christ who died for their faith.  I thought I would point out that they were killed by Muslim radicals.  Hardly a unique occurrence.  It doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists.  It means that there is a constant ebb of Muslims who are hellbent on killing, among others, Christians.  Just as there are various groups in the world hellbent on killing other groups.  And yet after watching a half dozen news broadcasts covering the killings, the words Muslim/Islamic were only mentioned a combined total of three times. 

Hence, this:

Satan laughs, Jesus weeps.  Prayer for this soul who has turned her back on the sanctity of life and mocks God by thinking we, much less the Almighty, do not see what she has done and why she has done it. 

One of the greatest evils of our time is the idea that human suffering and misery is only important if we can exploit it to attack our ideological opponents.  It takes 'doing it to the least of these' to new levels of low.  The only thing sadder is just how many who would follow Christ have completely devoted themselves to this dehumanizing tactic. 

No, the victims of New Zealand should be prayed for, and awareness of the forces of evil that led to their terrible murders acknowledged.  Likewise, the victims of Sri Lanka should be prayed for, and we should look at the forces of evil that led to their horrific deaths just the same.  This is always true.  Pray first, find ways to prevent next, seek justice after that.  And always do the same in all cases of such horror and human suffering.  Anything else, and you're the mouthpiece of the Evil One. 

The death of Western Civilization by suicide

Here.  Even the BBC admits it.  Europe, like America, has taught its children that there is no more evil place in history than the Christian West and its bastard child America.  There alone did evil dwell.  Once they are off the stage, the world can get back to tolerance, diversity, secular liberalism and open sex.  And if they're wrong?  Eh.  It will be future generations that pay the price, not us.  And that's a sacrifice that post-moderns are always willing to make.

Focus on the victims

Not the police brutality.   Not the racism.  Not America's past.  Not religion as a whole.  Not Christianity.  Try those on for size. 

After all, one of the common retorts to 9/11 memorials is that we should focus on the victims, not the terrorists or not Islam.  I'm fine with that.  As always, however, let's keep it consistent, or your hypocrisy and prejudices might show.

I thought of this as I read this explanation for a controversy buzzing around internet media.  I have no idea what's going on, since all the article does is say right wing media is wrong, but doesn't really explain what actually happened or what as actually said.  In the story, we're told that someone, possibly a Muslim given the name, put up counter-posters to last year's memorial, including one saying 'Focus on the Terrorists, not Islam.' 

Fine, as I say, let's do that always, or never.  I'm done with the hypocrisy and double standards that have disguised themselves as principles over the years. 

I don't care what CAIR says

The other big news from the SCOTUS world is that the court ignored political wrangling and ruled that the president can, in fact, protect the country using such things as a travel ban.  America's number one and most referenced Islamic rights group CAIR joined in the outcry. 

Here's my thing.  I don't give a flip what CAIR thinks.  When Bernie Sanders launched a stunning assault on Christianity by suggesting a religious litmus test that would disqualify Christians who believe Jesus is necessary for salvation, that was CAIR's chance.  That was their chance to protest Sanders and say they want a nation where all religions are equal and respected.

But as if to lit its slip show too soon, it joined with Sanders and gleefully aided the chorus of Leftist rage against the traditional Christian Faith.  And why not?  Look at religious minorities throughout the Muslim world.   Not just those in the Middle East or in areas impacted by this or that US policy.  If you look only at those, you can do what the Left does and insist it's all America's fault.

Hmmm, there's some trends there, but I'm having a hard time pinpointing ...

But look across the Muslim world.  Look at how religious (and other) minority groups are treated.  At best, they're made sure they know they're not part of the mainstream minority, with occasional harassment and intimidation trickling from on high.  At worst, it's outright oppression, persecution and sometimes violence.  Very few are the societies where this is not the case, and even in those nations, there is a strong Islamic presence trying to undo the tolerance.

A friend from Africa once said, years ago in the early 90s, that those who don't fear Islam don't live in the shadow of Islam.  The Left, whether honestly or not, has convinced itself and our society (including Europe) that the only thing we have to fear is white, Anglo-American, heterosexual, Christian men.  They have taught that the only true evils of the world came out of the Western Christian tradition and its bastard child America.  Likewise, they have also taught that the rest of the world was always a bastion of tolerance, diversity, women's rights, gay rights, religious pluralism and enlightened peace, love and John Lennon songs. 

Therefore, the Left sees Islam as useful allies of a like mind in the quest to destroy the one religious tradition it truly hates.  Whether Islam sees the Left as useful fools, or tools, or whatever, remains to be seen. For now, CAIR made it clear that its preference is an America in which Christian who profess the traditional faith in salvation through Christ should not be at the same political table as others.  And that's while being a sliver minority barely .001% of the population.  Imagine when those numbers increase. Well, you don't have to.  Just look across the oceans.  Only the fact that we've taught Americans to not care about others, including our posterity, could any sane person not be concerned enough to at least rethinking the Leftist narrative.

Wading into ignorance

Willful or otherwise.

So Mark Shea posted the response from the Antiochian Orthodox Church to Trump's (and, it's worth noting, other countries') actions in Syria.  I wasn't going to bother, except I notice one of the commenters threw a barb at the Orthodox leaders.  Since I have been banned from Mark's sites, this is the best I can do to set the record somewhat straight, at least as far as I understand things.

I won't go into whether or not we should have launched these attacks.  Today it's almost impossible to know what is happening and who is right or wrong.  Nations appeared to be convinced that Syria had launched a chemical attack against its civilians.  Russia, the great threat to our nation since 2016, disagrees.  Or not.  I don't know.  But the countries that concluded Assad had used chemical weapons did what they felt they needed to do, and attacked Syria's capability for using chemical weapons on civilians.

Nonetheless, there is more to it than what Mark has posted.

Before the attack, the Antiochian Orthodox Church sent a form letter around to churches to be signed and sent to President Trump, asking him not to launch the attack.  Since my wife and kiddos go to an Antiochian Orthodox church, they received a copy of the letter.  Here it is:

Dear Mr. President:​​In this Easter season, I greet you with the words "Christ is risen!" 

As an Orthodox Christian, I stand united with my fellow parishioners, many of whom are Syrian and Arab Christians. As you assuredly know, any debilitating action against the Syrian Arab Republic will only enable the enemies of the United States and its allies to prevail amidst the chaos that has been slowly ending. Extremists and terrorists would undoubtedly step in as they did in Iraq, Egypt and Libya, and make a bad situation much worse. The small Christian community in Syria would suffer irreparable damage and death, much the way it did in Iraq. 

I also urge your Administration to fully investigate any claims of attacks within Syria and to properly identify their perpetrators so that the U.S. can avoid a wrong, unjust response. Therefore, I implore you not to bomb Syria, but rather to insist the Syrian government and U.S. allies bring lasting peace and healing to war-weary civilians.  

Yours in the Risen Christ,(Person's name, church, city)

Note the respect that is so lacking in Shea's treatment.

Here's the point as best as I can tell.  The reason they fear an assault on Assad is likely because, at the end of the day, they fear the toppling of the Assad regime.  Why would they fear that? Do they deny that Assad is a brutal dictator? No.  But it seems they would prefer a brutal dictator that brutalizes the people across the board, to a Muslim tyranny that singles out Christians in the same way that happens around the Islamic world.  We'll get to why in a minute.

From East to West, almost every Muslim majority nation treats religious minorities poorly.  In some cases minorities are mildly intimidated and harassed.  In others they are treated as second class citizens. In a few it can spiral into outright persecution and death. As a friend of mine from Nigeria said years ago, those who don't fear Islam don't live in the shadow of Islam.

The reason we don't hear this when the issue is discussed is that it flies in the face of American liberalism's take on the issue.  First, you'll note that almost no oppression or persecution of Christians in the world is brought up by America's progressive outlets unless they can somehow point the finger back at the US.  The fact is, Christians live in oppression and persecution around the world, in many places that have nothing to do with US policy.  There's almost something creepily wrong with people who only focus on human suffering that benefits a particular agenda.  But then, as Black Lives Matter and other recent Leftist movements have shown, we've become particularly adept at ending our concern for the sanctity of life when it no longer benefits the cause.

The other reason this is important, however, is that it destroys the 'Islam is the Religion of Peace' narrative.  This isn't to say all Muslims are murderers who are out to destroy the Church.  They're not.  Far from it.  Most Muslims are like most anyone.  Most are just trying to pay bills, raise kids, find the car keys and choose the best cable package.  But that's been the case throughout history.

What so often happens, however, is that those gentle 'most' people will be drawn into the currents of history that are going on outside their window.  Inevitably, 'most' become the foot soldiers for whatever power that rises and oppresses.  And for now, in the Islamic world, the best of Muslim majorities would barely pass the fundamentalist label here at home. That is the current of history going on outside their windows.

I think that is why most of the Syrians at my wife's church support - Assad.  The reason was given to me by a fellow I'll call Ned.  Ned explained that most of their friends back home are Muslim.  They get along well enough. But they know that, if the situation changes, those same friends could turn on them in a heartbeat.  They've already seen it with ISIS.  Not all ISIS fighters were born that way.  Many were just like the little Nazis in Germany.  Remember how I've pointed out the underlying theme of Universal's The Wolf Man (see here)? Remember how the point was that those murderous Nazis slaughtering Jews had, in many cases, grown up playing with those same Jews or going to movies with them or working next to them?  Same with ISIS.  Same with other Islamic terrorist organizations.  Many of those fellows were playmates with the same people they've spent the last few years slaughtering.

And I believe that's what they fear will happen if Assad is removed.  Just as it has happened in other parts of the Middle East.  They may not like a brutal dictator who will attack his own population, but they'll take that over an Islamic one that will zero in on them like a laser and move to terrorize them in the same way Christians are, to various levels, terrorized around the Islamic world.

Why?  Because they can't help but notice that, here at home, we don't seem to care about Christians oppressed or marginalized by Muslims unless we can score points against our own government.  At least with Assad there might be a push to step in and peacefully get him to behave himself.  With Assad, there could be hope that outside nations will pressure him or in some way get him to stop without turning the reigns over to an Islamic government.  Since it's not a Muslim majority causing us to focus on Muslim things, we can all be outraged and demand the world do something.

Let Muslims take over and begin oppressing Christians on their own?  Their guess seems to be that too many Americans and Europeans will turn a blind eye.  After all, that would destroy the 'Peaceful Muslims who are victims of evil Islamaphobic Christians' narrative that is so crucial to the modern Left.  If it becomes a case of calling out a Muslim majority, any hope of intervention to improve their situation might just fade away like wisps of PC narratives in the face of inconvenient truths. As one of them told me at a fellowship meal a year or so ago, for being so sensitive to things like America's past sins, we seem awfully tolerant of the world's current sins.

The fact that Christians in the Middle East might be willing to accept life under a brutal dictator, because they feel life under a brutal Islamic regime would be ignored by their brothers in Christ in America due to the lack of political capital that comes from calling out Islamic oppression, is quite damning if you think on it.  But it looks like that's the reputation we've help build over the years.  Well done us. Anyway, that's the part that Mark and his commenter failed to point out.  I might not have everything understood as accurately as those I've talked to might say, but I don't think I'm too far off the point.

Happy Easter, Part II

المسیح قام! حقا قام!

That's "Christ is Risen!  Indeed he is risen!".  I'll leave you to figure the language. 

Today we'll be going to the Eastern side of the tracks for the second round of Easter services.  Or Pascha, as they prefer. 

Things have been crazy the last few weeks, hence the drop in posts.  I learned that when it comes to insurance companies paying up after an accident, it's not as easy as just giving them the information and waiting for a check.  Even now, I'm jumping through hoops trying to get things sent through and hoping for the best.

Nonetheless, spending two Holy Weeks back to back is a good way of grounding your feet in more important things. 

I was going to post the differences I notice between the Catholic/Western traditions and those over on the Orthodox side of the tracks.  Unfortunately, see the struggles with life above.   Nonetheless, I will say that, contrary to popular belief, Orthodoxy is not simply Catholicism without a pope.  There are actually quite a few theological differences between the two, not to mention the cultural and liturgical differences. 

Yes, there are many similarities.  And in terms of the basic framework traceable back to the earliest years and centuries of the Faith, you can see the common roots.  But there are quite a few significant differences. 

One main difference I notice is that the Orthodox do not come at the Faith lived out from the perspective of power.  Catholics, and to a degree Protestants, enjoyed centuries of being the official religion of the dominant civilization.  Orthodox have spent centuries living under the thumb of somebody - the Tsar, the Communists, the Ottomans. 

An interesting little tidbit.  They say that last week - their Palm Sunday - is the big attendance day in Antiochian and similar Middle Eastern centered churches.  Usually in the West we talk of Easter/Christmas Christians.  They have Palm Sunday Christians.

Why?   Because in most places across the Islamic World, despite media propaganda to the contrary, Christians live in varying degrees of oppression or discrimination or at least marginalization.  In some areas, it's common for the local authorities to put extra burdens on the churches at key times, such as Easter.  They do this to make it tougher on the believers.  So rather than fight it, the Christians in question learned to move their special days, at least the ones they hope will get those stragglers, to other days that won't be targeted. 

So Palm Sunday, rather than Easter Sunday, becomes the big 'holiday day' for the year where you'll see people you don't see the rest of the year.  I thought that was worth pointing out, since our propaganda ministries go out of their way to portray the Islamic world as one of love, joy, peace and the perpetual singing of John Lennon songs.

Nope.  It's safe to say that the goal of the Islamic world has never been to live and let live on an equal setting.  Live and let live based upon its own standards and qualifiers, sure.  But not as we here in the West imagine it.  And we imagine that, in large part, because of the very Christian heritage we in the West are working over time to eliminate.  Go figure. 

Good news for Europe

If there is any good news to be had.  Apparently Muslims, who are coming into Europe in higher numbers than ever, are also converting to Christianity in impressive numbers.

Yes, it's true.  Europe owes its existence to the Christian Faith.  Once that is gone, Europe as a civilization will be gone.  Europe of the last century barely held on to its Christian roots.  It has spent the last fifty years actively trying to eliminate them.  The result has been demographic suicide.

We in the States have done the same.  And, ironically, without immigration we'd likely be paying the same demographic price.  Thankfully, many of those immigrating to our nation are Christians themselves.  No, I'm not saying America is or ever was a "Christian" nation.  But Christianity was the cultural canvas upon which our enlightenment government was painted. 

For all its warts and failures - which are the same in all human societies - ours had a unique combination of bravado and humility, willingness to reconcile with strong sense of self.  Taking away our Christian roots has upset that equilibrium.  The same for Europe.  The result has been a societal malaise and lack of care about sustaining the civilization we inherited.

If Muslims were to come in and convert, their passion and zeal for the Faith, mixed with the appreciation for a new culture that immigrants often bring, might just be what Europe needs to avoid slipping into being the northernmost corner of the Islamic world. 

We'll see.

Meanwhile the Telford Child Sex Scandal continues to pick up steam

You can be forgiven if you haven't heard of this.  I'll admit I hadn't heard of it until a month or so ago.  Unlike the Priest Abuse Scandal, which saw the media descend on the Church like soldiers hitting the beaches at Normandy, and occupied headlines, front pages, special broadcasts, weekly series, A-list Hollywood productions, and endless lawsuits, this has remained under the radar.

Cosmic coincidence no doubt. Whether the Left really believes or doesn't believe its own propaganda, that only the Christian West and America are evil and everyone else is lovely, I don't know. If Leftists think that, once they've ground Christian civilization to dust, they'll just turn on the next monotheistic bad guys and do the same to them, I'm not sure.

Whatever it is, Muslims can do and say and advocate almost anything and receive barely a wrist slap from the Left.  Most often, the Left bends over backwards to avoid discussing or even speaking of such things.  Sometimes they'll just turn things upside down and find a way to blame the Western Christian tradition. True, technically the Left joins various rights organizations in condemning the manifold human rights violations across the Islamic world.  But in a strange twist, it sees no  connection with Islam as a whole, and seizes upon any movement in a positive direction as proof that nothing needs to be said or done.  Islam rocks.

This isn't to say that Muslims are all rapists or that Islam is about raping girls or conquering the world.  Most Muslims, when weighed ounce for ounce, are like most Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or anyone else.  They wake up in the morning, get ready for the day, hope the best for their kids, go to work, get stuck in traffic, have to mow the yard, pay bills and go to the ball game.

FWIW, so did Nazis.  We're all human, but some can be rather bad.  And even if the bad ones are a minority, that minority can sometimes dupe a majority that is too concerned with college loans and wedding dates.  But even the good ones don't all see the end of the human game in the same terms.  And it's the height of arrogance mixed with ignorance to believe everyone in the world wants a nice, post-Western, post-Christian secular Leftist socialist vision of the world once the dust settles.

Which is why, perhaps, when stories like this happen, they receive so little attention.  As has been demonstrated time and again, when various 'designated minorities' run afoul of the narrative by being murdered, attacked, raped or whatever, by other 'designated minorities', then that's when they are also swept under the carpet.  Just ask yourself, if this was equal in every way, but was connected to the Catholic Church, or some other European Christian sect, do you think you'd hear so little about it?  Do you really think so?  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but there's a point when credulity just can't withstand the overwhelming evidence.

Trump to blow up the world

Soon, real soon.  So Trump did what some previous presidents said they would do but didn't.  In typical form, Trump throws out the common wisdom of the day that says we must stay the course, even if the course has gotten us nowhere fast. 

For most of the world, the best approach to the Middle East is to give the various Arabic peoples what they want.  I think the world sees Israel as an artificial imposition on the Arab states, and so defaults to their sensitivities when it comes to finding ways to bring peace.  All of this assumes, of course, that the Arab states really want peace.

Imagine, for a moment, that the Arab states were really the United States.  How many people, especially left of center, would accept the notion that the United States had ulterior motives about the Israel question?  Yet to suggest that about the various Middle Eastern countries is to be met with charges of racism and Islamophobia.

Nope.  Just noticing that the world seems to think that if anything bad is brought to the table, it's from the pro-Israel side, and that the path to peace rests in giving the Arabic/Islamic people what they want. For my whole life, that approach has typically brought us full circle back to where we were to begin with in terms of violence and conflict.

Maybe it's just me, and perhaps that's an area where I agree with President Trump, but if something has been tried and failed multiple times for decades, I'm OK with looking for an alternate approach.   Just like North Korea.  If the same strategy yields losses and failures time and again, heck, let's go crazy and try something else.

What will happen remains to be seen.  I see even Pope Francis has sided with the international community and called on Trump not to make this move.  We'll see. 

On this day in Islamic history

Christian Europe was saved at the Battle of Lepanto. The Ottoman Turks, perhaps the single most successful Islamic Empire, had already smashed through southeastern Europe, destroyed what was left of the Byzantine Empire (the effects of which are still felt among Orthodox Christians today), and marched its way toward establishing a foothold in Europe.

It was hardly the first Muslim force to attempt the conquest of Europe.  Almost from the beginning, Constantinople was a goal of Islamic conquest.  And throughout the subsequent centuries, several attempts by Muslims to seize Europe met with varying levels of success. 

In the Iberian Peninsula, Muslim forces successfully conquered the Christian Visigothic kingdom (something a Muslim scholar on a recent PBS special was quite proud of), but were thwarted at the Battle of Tours.  Throughout the next several centuries, Muslim forces would conduct raids along Europe's Mediterranean coasts, even establishing a foothold in the Italian Peninsula and Sicily.  Eventually European interests would reclaim both of these.

It's worth noting that even when I was in college, Europe's conquest of those Muslim footholds were focused on - not the fact that Muslims had conquered them in the first place.

Following this, the rise of the Seljuk Turks and their aggression against both Christians in the Holy Land as well as pushing against the floundering Byzantines would set of the chain of events leading to the Crusades.  Though no gains were made against European territory, as Muslims would have to unite in a defensive conflict to regain territory against the Christian Crusaders, it drew Europeans into a campaign that would have far reaching ramifications for centuries to come.

It was the Ottomans, however, who were the most successful at fulfilling that Muslim dream of seizing the European continent.  One success after another brought Ottoman forces to the front door of modern day Austria.  It was the Ottoman Empire that conquered Constantinople.  Had Vienna fallen, there is little to suggest that Muslim forces wouldn't have marched unopposed until they reached Prussia, or even Paris. 

The Battle of Lepanto itself involved an Ottoman attempt to swing through the Mediterranean and seize Cyprus.  There were strategic reasons centered around the Ottoman's ultimate focus on the Italian Peninsula and Malta's role as a base for raids.  A good rundown of the battle, its details and its importance can be found here.

Suffice to say, the Ottomans were defeated for the time being.  It wasn't over by a long shot.  Long after Jamestown was settled, long after the Pilgrims had their famous feast, the Ottomans were still attempting to push into Europe.  It would be toward the end of the 17th Century before the ability of the Islamic world to threaten Europe was curtailed.  And that was largely due to the growing technological revolutions occurring that gave Europe the upper hand in the military and navigational races so crucial to establishing empires.

If the Europeans seemed eager to rush out and conquer, we must forgive them to a point.  After all, it wasn't only Muslims who threatened them throughout most of Europe's history.  But the threat from the lands of the Mohammedans was always real and in the back of the European mind.

Today, of course, some say a new invasion is under way.   Just as Vikings were striking north as Muslims were invading south, so they contend that Europe is under two invasions today.  One, by way of immigrants, is changing the culture and priorities and resolve of Europe to even want to survive.  The other, secular liberalism, is eating away at its values and its very identity.  Whereas Malta survived the Ottomans, can it survive the secularists?  Whereas Europe stood fast against the sultans, can they survive the inflow of immigrants?

The long term designs that Muslim immigrants have for their new lands are up for grabs.  As we noted here, when Bernie Sanders suggested believers in the historic Gospel have no place in our modern state, Muslims had a chance to stand in solidarity with all religious believers.  Instead, silence at best, or support for Bernie's call for discrimination against Christians at worst, was the result.  What that portends for the long term is hard to say. That the Left doesn't care as long as the last shards of Christian civilization are swept away means half of Western Culture will be glad to see anyone triumph over the West, as long as it's not Christianity.  We'll just have to wait and see.

Brave Democrats maintain the narrative

By staging a sit in at Capital Hill.  Surrounded by security and air conditioning, they insisted that we must do everything in our power to avoid the stinking obvious about the Orlando attacks, and exploit this issue to ram through gun legislation we've been chomping at for decades.  Note, again, that I'm not saying there is no room for debate about gun regulations and requirements for gun ownership. After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or sacrifice virgins on pagan alters, though we have protected speech and religious freedom.

Of course the big problem here is that those very facts, about the qualifications of our First Amendment rights, are being exploited by a growing segment of the Left essentially arguing against those very rights.  Since we already limit religious freedom or speech, so the argument goes, why not do it more when it comes to things like mandated contraceptive coverage or speech deemed offensive to the right people?  Since no small number of people who are approaching the First Amendment that way seem also to want to approach the Second Amendment that way, it makes sense that gun rights advocates, who also include a healthy dose of traditionalists who value traditional rights under the Constitution, are somewhat leery.

Especially since all of this is in the wake of an Islamic terrorist attack that happened, like several others in the last few years, in a place where the attacker was known, if not liked.  That should, of course, be the main focus.  As should the rise of Islamic terror strikes in the US.  But no.  That violates the liberal narrative.  The important thing is to preserve the narrative, and the second most important thing is to continue down that path of permanently rewriting our concepts of liberty and freedom.

Orlando shooter transcripts released

The man's a mystery.  Just what could have motivated him is still sending our best and brightest to the cubicles, trying to figure out why he did what he did.   I haven't been able to find the full and complete transcript yet.  So far, I've heard two things that, if true, would be interesting.  First, I've heard that his references to Allah were still changed to 'God'.  On one level, that might not mean a thing.  But on another, it could mean quite a bit.

The second is that at no point in all of his calling did he reference gays, the gay community, homosexuality, or anything else.  What he seemed to reference was his devotion to Islam, ISIS, and shooting in retaliation for America's actions in Iraq and Syria.  If true, that would be interesting because, with what little I've been able to piece together since so much of our time is spent trying to avoid linking Islamic terrorists with Islam, there seems to be a trend.

At least a few of the more notorious attacks by individuals who were coincidentally Muslim involved areas and communities with which they were known, if not well known.  The Fort Hood shooter, the San Bernardino terrorists, the man who beheaded a coworker, and apparently this.  If the stories hold true, it seems that he frequented this bar for some years, and was known by others to be a semi-regular.  If that holds up, then it keeps with other cases, where the attackers didn't just go to some random location, but actually targeted places where they were known, and even liked.

We could look into that in more detail of course.  But right now, the Left is trying desperately to maintain the anti-Christian West narrative, so looking at little things like what could prevent future attacks has to take a back seat.

Two Christian Responses to the Orlando Shooting

One from Pope Francis.   One from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America.

Note that the statement by Pope Francis is not much different than similar statements by various Catholic leaders across the board.  Beyond the obvious call for prayers and comfort for  those afflicted, he clearly places the bulk of the responsibility of  the shootings at the foot of gun availability and calls for it to be checked in order to prevent further violence.  While I don't think he is limiting the charge to guns in the US, he focuses only on that one problem by name, and avoids use of the word terror at all.

The Greek Archdiocese, on the other hand, lashes out directly at terror more than once.  While also praying and seeking to console, it leaves no doubt where it places the responsibility for the carnage.

Here's my thing.  The Pope, almost every major Catholic leader, and a bulk of American Protestant leaders, all have pretty much responded the same way.  Prayers.  Help for the victims and their loved ones.  Pray for peace.  And almost no mention of terrorism, much less Islam or Islamic terrorism.  Not that they haven't been shy about casting blame.  Some, such as Bishop Lynn, have joined Pope Francis in focusing on guns.  Some, like Bishop Lynn, have made it about homophobic bigotry, religious bigots, and racism in America.

And yet they all have something in common with me.  None of us (that I know) have lived under the dominion of Islamic culture.  For us, Muslims are a barely noticeable minority who currently wield almost no significant power or influence in our culture, at least on an official level.  I can't help but notice that the one public statement I found that actually avoids the "homophobic religious gun nut American racist" template happened to be linked to the one Christian tradition that hasn't enjoyed ministering to the top of the most powerful cultural empire in world history.  Rather, its history is one of subjugation and oppression by the same Islamic culture that none of the others want to discuss.

Call me silly, but if I hear rumors that there is a really horrible, violent household in the neighborhood, I'll ask people who are next door to the house to find out if they're true.  I won't ask people who live on the other side of town to see what they know.  If I'm really plucky, I might try to ask people who live in the actual house what is going on.  If the people on the other side of town just wave their hands and dismiss the rumors as some form of grudge against the family or the neighborhood, but those living closest speak of all manner of screams and violence from within the house, who do you think I'll be inclined to believe?  Who would common sense and prudence suggest I believe?

Yeah, exactly.  Not that the Archdiocese doesn't have views on gun control or immigration.  Most Orthodox Christians I know are against any sweeping immigration bans.  And it isn't a huge difference, the inclusion of a single word.  But I can't help but feel in my gut that it's a significant difference.  Out of the gate, a strong condemnation of terrorism by a tradition from a completely different relationship to Islam, when so many others seemed to go to great pains to avoid the term, or accept narratives that seem to contradict the actual events, has to get your attention.

CORRECTION!  It looks like the basic prayer release of Pope Francis did not mention guns.  The Vatican apparently added guns to the list at a later time.  So my bad on that.  Though the piece itself, apart from that, still stands.  But please note, Pope Francis himself did not bring up the gun issue in his initial prayerful response.  My bad on that.

Yep

What more can you say?  We live in an age that tells it like it ain't.  The more stupidity, the better.  That something this obvious could be seen as bigotry or hate shows why, if we lived in 1941, it's likely the European National Socialist State be duking it out with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for global supremacy.  

Anything but Muslim

In which we find out anything and everything about the Orlando shooter that has nothing to do with his religion.  We should find out about his past, his violence, his mental stability, his racism, sexism, homophobia, crime record, pets, favorite foods, video game preferences, sports heroes, favorite clothes, where he was on August 13, 2002, the grades he got in 4th grade math, where he worked, if he owned a riding lawnmower, if he wrote 7s with that annoying line through the center, if he went to college, if  he ever visited Minneapolis - basically anything but his links to ISIS and Islam.  If that is all that is left and seems to be the main source of the problem, then expect the story to be over within a week.

Gun control, of course, is as good as always.  The Left has a yearning for controlling things, and guns are just one of many things that the Left sees in its dossier of regulated activities.  Exploiting the death of innocents, with a strong dosage of self imposed stupidity, will help the gun control flank of the Big Brother dream of modern liberalism.

Otherwise, like all things in the Church of Washington, politics must prevail and become the dominant concern.  Politics, not religion, is the source and summit of our redemption.  Even now, Catholics will join in and mock the idea of prayer as efficacious when set against the true gospel of liberalism.  And again, if all that is left are ties to Islam and junior varsity terrorist groups, assume that next week at this time we'll be hearing all about Trump, or Trump, or possibly Justin Bieber.  You know, the important things.

John Allen on Pope Francis and Islamic Dialogue

As usual, Mr. Allen comes in with some balanced and fair insights regarding the recent meeting between Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb.

I only have one thing to add.  The question of what el-Tayeb meant when he said the violence in the Middle East is not really a Christian problem, but a general problem.  There has been speculation on that, and several I've read have been wondering how he could miss the obvious.

Again, I don't know for sure, but I have been reading up on Islam for the better part of last year.  Including actually reading the Koran.  That doesn't make me an expert or scholar, but I have picked up on a few things.  The main thing I notice is that, like most of the non-Western world, Muslims  generally don't spend their time hashing, trashing, and re-trashing the re-hashed trash of their own heritage.  Like Asia, like Japan and China, like India, like many Latin American cultures, Muslims don't deny problems in their past, but they don't dwell on them.  And they aren't afraid to blame others if they have to get too deep into discussions about their own culture's foibles.

Depending on the Islamic author, the acknowledgements have ranged from a brief mention before moving onto the awesomeness of Islam, to spending a little more time unpacking certain dark periods, but always with an eye to how Islam is the antidote for such abuses, and it was only by ignoring the Prophet that such problems or catastrophes happened.  Nonetheless, the accounts typically moved on to regale the reader with tales of the awesome contributions Islam made to the world despite any unfortunate actions on the part of misguided Muslims.

For us Christians, especially in the Western post-Reformation era, it's almost impossible to fathom that there are other cultures that don't routinely beat themselves down, blame themselves and their ancestors, and hold their very religious and philosophical traditions to blame for the world's problems. Because of this, we sometimes seem shocked to find others, like Muslim leaders, reluctant to do what we would do in a fast heartbeat.  In fact, I believe to date there only have been about three confirmed cases of violence against Muslims in America since 9/11.  Violence based upon them being Muslim that is.  And yet, to hear Americans talk, mostly liberal and in the media, you'd think we had death camps and Muslims were dying by the millions every day.  That's because it's what we do; partly because of the revolutionary tendency the Left has of wanting to drag our traditions into the street and beat them to death, partly because of our Christian heritage of confession and penance.  We can't go a day without blaming ourselves, blaming ourselves for slavery, genocide, imperialism, bigotry, sexism, racism, homophobia, nuking babies, death camps, environmental destruction, you name it.  Heck, many Americans blame us for 9/11.

But when we see other cultures or nations, like Japan or China or the Islamic world seem reluctant to point out the obvious, we become confused.  I'm sure there's a balance there.  I'm sure there's a way we Christians, and Americans in particular, could come around and stop beating senseless everything to do with our heritage.  Likewise, we could be a little more forthright about insisting others, like Muslims, don't think they can get away with 'Hey, Christians are to blame, Americans are to blame, but Islam is never to blame.'  Time will tell I guess.

Anyway, that's my take on the good Imam's statement.  Islam isn't to blame anyway, so the obvious reason why Muslims are dying more than anyone simply goes to show that it has nothing to do with Christianity either.  If we accept all of the other premises Islamic leaders insist upon, I see no reason to disagree with him now.

If you have seven or eight hours to kill

Then go to John C. Wright's website and read through this post.  Here, he takes on the notion that the media is absolutely fair and balanced when it comes to covering Islam and the modern terrorist culture that has arisen from that one primary source in the world today.

In the post, Mr. Wright links to multiple cases where various pundits, politicians and journalists have done what seems to be a double-step to avoid, at least initially, linking Islam to anything negative.  Which always makes me think of this.   It's a long list that he's compiled, though I'm sure it's by no means exhaustive.  I know in our own neck of the woods, an Islamic immigrant attacked a Jewish business owner but, at no point, was the obvious link dwelt upon or even mentioned more than in passing.  So read away.  It will take some time, but it's worth it, especially when coupled with other sources of non-liberal same think.

Did Pope Francis really say that?

The Washington Post is reporting that Pope Francis, in a way common throughout liberalism and liberal Protestantism, suggested that one could see the Great Commission as nothing other than an alternate version of conquest not unlike Islam's proclivity toward conquest.

I know, I know.  It could be and, on some level, it is.  After all, we're saying that there is only one Truth and we need to proclaim that truth and the world needs to embrace it.  Muslims, atheists, liberals, secularists, Christians, all believe the same thing when it comes to proclaiming their truth claims.  On one level.

But as often as not, when understood through a post-Christian, liberal prism, they mean that the Christians are no better than the Muslims since, in the end, Christianity is no truer than Islam or any other religion.  Basically saying all religions are right is a backhanded way of saying all religions are ultimately wrong.  Or at least pointless.  No more important than having a preference on what type of topping you put on a pizza pie.

I have no clue what Pope Francis actually meant.  Charity suggests he isn't equating the Great Commission to Jihad.  Nor does it allow me immediately to assume he's saying that our call to spread the Gospel is no different than the Islamic call to subdue the world since, well, they're all the same anyway.

Exactly what he meant will, once again, be the subject of debate and we'll have official and non-official interpreters rushing out to say what Pope Francis really meant.  Which, if nothing else, is a problem I have with Pope Francis.  The Office of Explaining What Pope Francis Really Said is almost an institution unto itself.

It isn't as if people are more stupid, or more partisan, or more prone to twist things than they ever were. It's that, at the end of the day, if we take everything he's said at face value, then he comes off as a somewhat traditional Latin American Catholic who embraces social liberalism and Marxist inspired economic theories, along with various elements of the secularist liberal interpretations of doctrine and theology and social justice.  That's how he would look if we take the catalog of his statements at face value.  If we don't want him to look that way, are not ready to accept it, or don't know what to do with the idea that if he isn't those things, he appears to have no competent way of conveying his ideas, that's when we turn to the Official Interpreters of the Pope to explain why so often that does seem to be the case, but in reality, it is not the case at all.