Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Ecce Reliquum Nostrum

Behold our future:



Are those cassocks I see?

Why yes, I do believe they are.

Photo credit:
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/10/call-em-young-guns.html

Sunday, October 7, 2007

I hope God gives the press immunity

"A London Times' reporter interviewed a 23-year-old homicide bomber with knowledge about explosives and a degree in chemistry about his trek to kill Americans.

Ahmed talked with steady self-assurance about his plans to follow in his brother's footsteps, who blew himself up at a drinks stall in Iraq where American soldiers were nearby.

The young man helped his brother get ready for his mission, packing TNT into pouches with some nails and strapping the bomb to his 19-year-old brother's waist. He also slipped wire rings onto his brother's fingers and attached them to a fourth detonator in the palm of his hand, with directions to head towards the American soldiers.

“Go sell them some Pepsi,” Ahmed told him gently. “We will meet in heaven, you and I, and that’s a promise.”

Ahmed says his brother kissed him, turned and walked away without a moment’s hesitation.

Ahmed has a different mission than his brother. He plans to pass through Syria on his way to die in Iraq to kill CIA officers."

So let me get this straight:

This reporter had foreknowledge of an act of terrorism that would kill many people and he did nothing?

How many lives did he just sell out so he could sell newspapers?

In my country, we call that treason. I don't care if he's a brit; we're supposed to be on the same side.

If my son was killed in Iraq by this guy and this reporter just sat and did nothing with people's lives in danger, I would sue the dog $#!+ out of him and the London Times.

Would this same reporter have interviewed Nazi's during WWII before going out to kill british soldiers? Oh, I forgot, the jihadists said they wanted kill evil Americans, not brits. That's ok, then.

This is the same as when Satan's Bible--er, I mean the New York Times--printed classified information about how Homeland Security keeps Americans safe and when that CNN reporter hung out with those terrorists while they were killing American soldiers to get a story. Traitorous scumbags.

I'd love to hear his answer when God asks him why he did nothing to stop someone from murdering his children. Last time I checked, He didn't give a free pass to journalists.

Liberal propagansists (aka 'journalists') in the media are traitors.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299902,00.html

Friday, October 5, 2007

Pope criticizes Islamic intolerance of other faiths

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=483202&in_page_id=1811

"The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries."

In accordance with the Bukhari collection of Hadith (Hadith being collections of sayings and actions of Mohammed), the most authoritative hadith collection among all flavors of Islam, from Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 84, Num. 57 which says:

"Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This seems to contradict Quran Sura 2:256 which spokesmen for CAIR often quote, "there is no compulsion in religion" Going on:

"In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."

Addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, he added: "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God's name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."


The supposed contradiction is for them to figure out. I'd just like the sanctity of life, in accordance with the Natural Law, to be embraced by all people's everywhere. In Saudi Arabia this is especially poignant, where just bringing a bible into the country can land you in jail or worse.

There's also another interesting snippet from the article:

"His latest comments, however, come just days after one of the Church of England's-senior bishops warned that Muslim leaders here must speak out in defence of the right to change faith.

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told Channel 4's Dispatches programme of his fears for the safety of the estimated 3,000 Muslims who have converted to other faiths in this country.

A poll earlier this year of more than 1,000 young adult British Muslims found that 36 per cent believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death."


36%?!

Excuse my language but "tiny minority of extremists" my ass.

I know I just went over how a person has no moral right to false worship. Call me an islamophobe, but isn't the death penalty a little steep for apostasy? I don't like it when people leave the Church but in no way do I desire their execution.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say this poll is somehow skewed and extremists account for only 1% of all muslims. 1% of the popular quote of 1.2 billion is still 12 million people. It only took 10 extremists to kill 3,000 people on 9/11.

All I wish is that the other 64% of muslims who actually believe there is no compulsion in religion stand up and publicly denounce such violations of human life. So far, their silence has been deafening.

Woman awarded $6.1m for stupidity

A McDonald's in Shepherdsville, Kentucky recieved a prank call, the caller saying he was a police officer and asking the assistant maganer to strip search a woman whom the caller said had stolen from a customer.

The assistant manager then handed the phone to her fiancee for him to perform the strip-search. The prank-caller then told the fiancee to perform sexual acts upon the woman, which he did.

The whole thing was caught on surveillence video.

The prank-caller was aquitted of the charges brought against him. The assistant manager was fired and was convicted of a misdemeanor. Her fiancee is now serving 5 1/2 years in prison for the incident. The "victim" sued McDonals'd for $200m and recieved a victory and $6.1m.

Did she run out of the room screaming rape? No, she went along with the whole thing, it's on the video. Did the thought ever cross her mind that a perfect stranger is not allowed to strip-search her? I guess not. How about the absurdity of a cop telling said stranger to have sex with her? Nope. Is she mentally retarded or handicapped in any way? No, the article would have said so. Is she a young impressionable girl? No, she's 21 years old, fully responsible for her actions.

Now, I'm not saying that the prank-call, nor the actions of the guy who strip searched her was an upright moral decision; The guy was obviously taking advantage of the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, there is basically two kinds of sex as far as the law is concerned; consentual and rape. This woman was definitely not raped, she went along with the whole thing. And it's hard to say she's not smart enough to see the absurdity in the whole thing.

Here's what it boils down to: an opportunistic pig of a man had consensual sex with a willing woman. The media gets a hold of it, embarasses the crap out of her, she feels stupid and wants to get back at people. She doesn't sue the guy who she had sex with, she doesn't sue the assistant manager, nor does she sue the prank-caller. No, she sues the person with the deepest pockets; McDonald's.

A pervert gets 5 1/2 years in prison and the 21yo woman he had consensual sex with skips away with $6.1m paid to her by a company who had no fault in the incident. All because she felt stupid. That's obviously sexist. I won't defend what he did, but having consensual sex and one person getting 5 1/2 years in prison with the other walking away with $6.1m is rediculous and sexist of the worst kind.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct05/0,4670,StripSearchHoax,00.html

Monday, October 1, 2007

Connecticut Bishops and Plan B

There's a lot of discussion over the Connecticut's Bishops decision to allow the contraceptive pill Plan B in Catholic hospitals.

The current policy from the USCCB is thus:

"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum [n. 36]."

But what about Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae?

According to Jimmy Akin, contraception is condemned in those documents during conjugal intercourse. There is no provision for rape. That's the loophole.

The pertinent part of the bishops' statement is this:

"Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened. "

As far as I know, and I'm no doctor, Plan B functions by preventing an egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. No egg present, no pregnancy. The debate comes in whether or not Plan B causes the same effect on a fertilized egg. At this point no one knows.

I would assume so, but a fertilized egg is very chemically different than an unfertilized egg, so I don't know.

As we read above, the USCCB mandates that before administering a potential abortifacient that an ovulation test must be performed to determine the possibility of pregnancy.

The Connecticut bishops maintain that since the abortifacient potential of Plan B is unknown, that an ovulation test is unnecessary. They say an FDA-approved pregnancy test is sufficient.

Again, I'm no doctor, but it is my understanding that a pregnancy test can only detect a pregnancy after eight or so weeks. If a woman is in the hospital immediately following a rape the test will obviously not show a pregnancy.

Second, those bishops are being very irresponsible here; they forego the ovulation test due to the uncertainty of the abortifacient potential of Plan B. The responsible thing to do would at least continue to test for ovulation precisely because of that uncertainty. Better safe than sorry.

Third, just because the USCCB found a loophole doesn't mean it's morally licit. If a woman can get contraceptive medication from a violent act that is missing the component of love, then any women can do the same after a non-violent act equally without the component of love.

One act was done out of violence and hate, the other out of lust and indifference. Either way it lacks the integral component of love. Same thing.

The most glaring point of all this is that if there is no evidence of ovulation, meaning there is no threat of pregnancy, why bother administer the contraceptive medication at all?

And lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a woman's right to not be sexually assaulted was violated doesn't mean we can go ahead and violate a potential human's right to exist. (I say potential because I'm talking about ovulation and that it could possibly be an embryo.)

Onan was struck dead by God for spilling his seed upon the ground to avoid pregnancy. Here, this drug causes a woman to spill her seed on the ground to avoid pregnancy. How is it different?
This situation isn't as complicated as people make it out to seem. There is a definite moral answer to this.

This is the first step on a slippery slope. I hope Rome deals with this soon.

Info taken from:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/09/bad-news-in-c-1.html
and:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/09/bad-news-in-con.html