All Lies Matter, II

David Warren: Confronting evil with joss sticks -- "...
The French president said it [the brutal murder by Moslems of a Catholic priest at the altar of a Catholic church where he had been officiating the Mass] was an attack on all French citizens, which presumably includes the citizen Islamists; our pope called the violence “absurd.” I find these lies in extremely poor taste. It was not an attack on all Frenchmen, but symbolically on a Catholic priest. And it was not absurd, but purposefully directed to that end. Father Jacques Hamel was martyred during the morning Mass. His throat slit, then by some accounts, beheaded; two nuns and two others at prayer also seized and tormented; and another throat slit; while a rant was delivered from the altar, in Arabic.

I am truly disgusted by remarks from Rome that we hope the elderly priest is at peace, and that we condemn “every form of hatred.” This reduces the teaching of Our Lord to the asinine. Reference to Islam was carefully avoided.

One wonders what atrocity the Islamists must commit, to make their point more explicit.

I really don’t care if they hate us. That is their opinion, and none of my concern. I do care that they are trying to kill us, on the basis of verses plausibly cited from the Koran. Would it hurt their feelings if we called them on this?"

A previous pope popularized (and, so far as I know, coined) the phrase "culture of death" to describe the suicidal direction that the post-Christian Western cultures have deliberately taken since turning their backs on the heritage, and religion, of their fathers; the current pope appears to have to have made his peace with the "culture of death" and to have dived headlong into it.

I'm so glad that as a Protestant and a Christian (*), I don't feel any need at all to contort myself defending that fool (nor the French one, for that matter).



(*) Yes, I went there. And, as Warren says of Moslems hating us, "I really don’t care" that (some) Catholics will get their panties into a twist -- hypocritically, in every case -- because I distinguish between Catholicism -- a bureaucracy which claims to own Christianity -- and Christianity itself.

While not claiming any "word from God" nor gift of prophesy, it certainly appears to me that the time is upon us when Catholics will have to choose: do you stand with Christ, or do you stand with the self-anointed "vicar of Christ"?

Power vs Authority

David Warren: An authoritarian writes --

Power, that is the thing. It is what I have been reading about, all through this summer: the use of Power to destroy a magnificent civilization. Power, verily in opposition to Authority. For it is Authority that holds a civilization together, Power that blows it apart.

I’m afraid this truth is little understood, in our age of Power Triumphant. Little Man has stood against the gods, & in the euphoria of his hubris, declared them to be overthrown. Henceforth Little Man will make the rules. He will no longer answer to Authority, to the philosophia perennis. By Power he has usurped the Authority, & need not listen to it any more. Henceforth, words will mean whatever Power will choose them to mean, in our looking-glass world. (Take for instance a term from time out of mind, such as “marriage.”)
...
And in the end, Authority is restored; the truth is vindicated by an accident of Nature; Humpty Dumpty tumbles from his Wall. For here is a mystery: that in despite of Little Man, the universe is held together by Authority.

The thing is, Authority protects the "Little Man" from the abusive Power of the "Big Man" ... and yet, the fool is *always* willing to listen to the would-be "Big Man", who always promises, and always fails to deliver: "If only you will give me unlimited Power over your life, I will *free* you from the shackles of Authority; I will free you from your father and from God."

The test before us

David Warren, Perrywinkle:

I'm not saying the generation of wealth should be the sole purpose of human existence. I am saying it is one of the purposes, and further, that by politicizing economic activity we actually mire ourselves much deeper in materialism than we would ever do by just going out and earning a living.

The Texas model works, and the California model fails. Quite apart from whether anyone in the States should vote for Rick Perry, they must choose between these models.

America has been playing footsie with leftism and socialism for a good century; the time to choose, once and for all, between the ever-promised leftist Utopia and our own natural tradition, is now upon us. It is not enough to vote Obama and a few Democrats out of office next year; if the nation does not decisively, once-and-for-all, reject the leftist Obamanation, then the leftist puppet-masters of the "liberals" and "progressives" will try again in just a few years.

To "compromise" with that which is wrong is simply choose to become oneself wrong ... and to set the stage for the next "compromise".

[Mind you, neither Mr Warren nor I are saying "vote for Perry"]

Where all this sophistication has got us

David Warren, Perrywinkle:

Observe, where all this sophistication has got us.

There are some issues that are too simple for intelligent people to understand. Most moral issues are like that. The problem isn't distinguishing between right and wrong. That is not always as plain as day, but usually it is. The problem is finding a way to justify doing the wrong thing. And once you think you have found it, the people still arguing for doing the right thing may be dismissed as "simplistic."

Exactly. The "problem" in moral issues is not that it is so difficult to know the right from the wrong, but rather that so many people want to do what they know is wrong while still calling themselves "good people".

Tax on breathing

David Warren: Tax on breathing -- Gentle Reader shall surely want to read it entirely.

But, it was a shakedown

In reference to this development of the BP Gulf oil spill -- Republican forced to apologize for BP apology Texas' Barton called deal with Obama a 'shakedown, isn't alone in GOP -- alleged-President Obama *did* run a shakedown of BP. Mayor Daley and Jesse Jackson would be proud of this astute student of the Chicago Way.

But, the question must be asked: Where does even a real president have the Constitutional authority to do what That Man (*) did to BP ... and does to all of us?

Were I of a mind to be in politics, I'd never be allowed to play with "the big kids," for I refuse to apologize for speaking truth. This refusal to back down when the truth one has spoken offends others (who may be more powerful) ... this refusal to lie about oneself ... seems to be a family trait -- hell! my little sisters have bigger balls that most Republican politicians display in these all-too-common run-ins with the Democrats.

Anyway, here is a column from the excellent David Warren on the matter -- Shakedown


(*) 'That Man' ... is a common way of speaking about a person one does not wish to name. I think that in the future Americans will collectively curse Obama for the injury he and his fellow leftists are intentionally inflicting upon the nation; and that we may have all sorts of names for him while only infrequently using his name.

'Compassion' and Justice

I mean someday to post an essay on the relationship -- and inevitable tension -- between 'justice' and 'mercy.'

While that is not his focus, in the 'Grave injustice' essay, David Warren makes some good points in that regard. And, specifically, he draws attention to the (modern "liberal") project to substitute 'compassion' for both justice and mercy, which project must always pervert both justice and mercy and increase injustice.

Concerning the release of the Lockerbie terrorist --
David Warren: Grave injustice
David Warren: Sophistications