You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Uncategorized' category.
We are all relieved to know that Mikey Pfleger, the Catholic priest at Saint Sabina’s on Chicago’s South Side (what is it about the South Side of Chicago?) who had a little hiccup calling America “the greatest sin against God” and making fun of Hillary (which is fine generally) for being white, I guess, has now been returned to his duties after a short hiatus, with a brave pledge to utterly avoid repentance or introspection. In the Chicago Tribune, Pfleger was reported to say:
“I want to say one thing today. The Tribune asked, can you be Catholic and an activist? I say, absolutely. Absolutely. You cannot be Catholic and not be an activist. That’s the Gospel,” he said.
Really? That’s the Gospel? Wow. Have I ever been misinformed.
Right now a “trial” is underway in British Columbia before a “human rights commission” in which some Muslims who were offended by a Mark Steyn article in Maclean’s magazine have brought a complaint to have the article declared hate speech. This would be laughable in America. Unfortunately, in Canada this is serious business. Dean Steacy, a Canadian “human rights commissioner,” said, in essence, that what we call freedom of speech is merely “an American concept” and of no importance to him. More important is the right not to be offended. Articles and books are under attack for “encouraging hatred,” or that are ”likely to cause contempt” … for anything apparently. National Review Article Fortunately this is getting a lot of press in Canada and there is finally some backlash appearing. The law giving the commissions the power to decide these things is under attack. But in the meantime, churches have been fined for saying things that offend homosexuals (have they ever charged a Muslim imam?), a church group was punished for refusing to rent its facilities for a lesbian wedding, and all sorts of ridiculous stuff.
And now an article critical of Islam — well, actually probably more critical of the West’s response to Islam — may be criminalized if a bunch of bureaucrats think it is “likely to cause contempt” for Muslims. Which raises a question. Have the commissioners read the Koran?
Mao Tse Tung may have considered himself a philosopher but, whatever you think of that, he was certainly a keen observer of politics and human behavior. His observation that “political power flows from the barrel of a gun” is a prime example of Mao’s insightfulness, and as concise a summary of the multitude of reasons for the Second Amendment as I can imagine. Although, surely, Mao didn’t mean it that way.
Simply stated, it’s this. If, as is no doubt true, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, then if a society wants political power to be consolidated, it should limit the right to own and carry weaponry to the fewest number of persons possible, preferably those people with an interest in or under the control of the Consolidating Power. Think Europe. If, on the other hand, a society prefers that political power be as diffuse as possible, then the right to own and carry weaponry should be as widely available as possible. Think Second Amendment.
This is one of the reasons I keep saying that the American Revolution was a true revolution the like of which the world had not seen before and has not seen since. The French Revolution consolidated power in an elite; the Russian Revolution concentrated power in the “Bolsheviks,” the “majority” that was really a tiny minority, and Communist Revolution in China the same. Sure, they overturned the existing power structure but merely replaced the people in the structure — not the structure. The American Revolution replaced the structure. One of the things it took from the English was the notion of widely available arms; although in England this right was constantly shifting. First only nobility, then Protestants but not Catholics, and so on, were recognized as bearing this right. The American Revolution recognized the right but replaced the structure. This right was now available to every free citizen (a category that has continually expanded) regardless of affiliation.
Again, this is one of the reasons that American conservatism is, in fact, true radicalism.
I believe in evolution but if you don’t or just want to explore interesting stuff about alternatives, here’s a great site: Design of Life
Evolution as a scientific theory doesn’t bother my religious side at all. Of course, if it’s wrong, that would be interesting, too. I don’t think it is, but there appear to be a lot more questions out there about it than we may be being told.
“Black” liberation theology is in the news these days thanks to Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, but liberation theology in general goes back to the 1960s or slightly earlier and was popular among “radicals” in South America for many years where it was known without the “black” prefix. In any event, James Cone’s iteration of BLT gives you the nub of either formulation:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
To understand South American liberation theology, you just delete “white people” and insert “wealthy land owners and multi-national corporations,” and substitute “indigenous poor” for “black.”
The defect — and it is a defect — in this theology is that it turns the relationship between the human “worshipper” (being generous) and God upside down. God exists to serve the political and emotional needs of the human theology professor. The professor “accepts” or “rejects” God. The professor directs God to participate in this or that activity. This is entirely upside down and displays a self-centeredness of amazing proportions.
This is not a global warming blog, but I suppose this stuff fits under the Order’s “facts are facts” principle. Anyway, the following three paragraphs are from a recent news article:
A newly released survey of climate scientists reveals that while a majority believes humans contribute to global warming, a majority also feels that climate change is not the planetary emergency some global warming activists claim.
The survey for George Washington University of nearly 500 scientists belonging to accredited organizations found only 41 percent felt global warming poses very great danger in the next 50 to 100 years. Forty-four percent rate it as only moderately dangerous — 13 percent see relatively little danger.
One thing virtually of them agrees on: They do not trust the media. Only 1 percent rated either broadcast or cable news about climate change as “very reliable.”
99 percent don’t trust the media on this issue. Who said scientists were stupid?
I’ve been looking at a blog that is now linked in the blogroll called Brits At Their Best. Read it. There’s a ton there. It says most everything I’ve been thinking about putting here.
A very, very brave man. Fire on Quran.
This is apparently a Muslim in Iran who is burning Korans to protest the regime’s human rights abuses. Of course, if I were an Iranian official and wanted to catch this guy, I’d keep my eyes open for someone who buys a lot of Korans. But anyway, here’s another Hero of the Order.
I also read today that conversions to Christianity among Muslims world wide is huge — estimated at 16,000 per day. The reason the religion is growing is not principally conversions, but simple birthrates.
Geert Wilders’ movie “Fitna” was pulled from LiveLeak because of threats to employees and the company. Gee. I wonder if that proves Wilders’ point? Well, you can find out just what Wilders’ point was, and judge for yourself.
Update: LiveLeak has restored Fitna. Good for them.
The Once and Future Christendom
This is part of what this Order is intended to be about. Fascinating articles. The second calls itself “a blueprint” for a new Christendom. In the true categories of architecture, I would call it a “conceptual schematic,” not even nearly a blueprint.
Still, the concept is intriguing .
I thought maybe this site could be all sort of serious and thoughtful and reflective and like that. Problem is, I’m not serious and thoughtful and reflective, so this isn’t working out how I thought. I figured I’d put all the “fun” stuff over on Bacon and Beer (see link above) and this site would be “inspiring” or something. Inspired yet? Me neither.
Anyway, so the name of the Order is Montjoie. What the hell is that? It’s a French word that means “Mountain of Joy,” and it’s the name of a hill outside of Jerusalem where the warriors of the First Crusade first saw the Holy City (don’t you just love when the news media call every city in Iraq “the holy city of Podunk?”). I may do a later piece on the hill of Montjoie. It is a foundational place in my philosophy. But that is only my philosophy. This is a place for yours as well.
OH HEY — Osama Hussein Bin Laden or his stand in released a new tape today complaining that the West is engaging in impolite warfare. No really! And the worst thing we’ve done? Mohamed cartoons! Oy vey.
The Order of Montjoie was established in 1180 Anno Domine, after the Liberation of Jerusalem in the First Crusade, to protect Christian Pilgrims in the Holy Land from random bandits doing their random bandit thing, as well as from Muslims doing, as appears obvious now, their Muslim thing. The Order was disbanded in 1221, and re-established in 2008.
