| August 3rd, 2005 |
|
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy... For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
- Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:7, 46-7
Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
- Koran 48:29
|
|
The Curt Jester laments the poor catechesis these young people received. Whose fault do you think that is? Baby Boomers: Worst. Generation. EVAR. The Greatest Generation may have defeated Hitler and the imperialist Japanese but they really dropped the ball with their children. Case in point: this Baby Boomer priest laments the rise of "Neocaths." I am shocked and outraged that he left me off of the list. I am seriously shocked and outraged that a Catholic priest could write something like this:
John Paul II thus bypassed and reached over the heads of the educated baby boomers, influenced by Vatican II, in order to address an audience who were a tabula rasa, and to communicate to them a world view that the Vatican II generation would find problematic on many points. His tactic recalls that of Mao in China.
Words like "neocon" and "liberal" are inappropriate when discussing the faith. There are only two kinds of Catholics: orthodox and heterodox. There are some political issues that good Catholics can disagree on such as the death penalty or whether the Nanny State is the best way to help the poor. Cafeteria Catholics though... well, I'll let Nicol D of The War Room speak for me. ( Read more... )
|
|
You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, "You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment." But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother "Raqa," will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says "You fool," will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
- Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:21-22)
When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens... As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, he will not allow their works to perish.
- Koran 47:4
They may not be Muslims but British cops still have to keep the faith. CAIR is upset that a radio talk show host said something about Islam that's true. By the way, some of you have expressed interest in the Koran. My favorite version is the Penguin translation by N.J. Dawood, available in English only or English with side-by-side Arabic text. The U.K.'s shadow defense minister has some tough words.
Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, last night told The Scotsman that extremist Muslims who see the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathisers during the Cold War. His remarkable claim shatters the tri-party consensus which Michael Howard, the Tory leader, sought to make with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats.
Here's the Telegraph's editorial about it.
Closer to home, George Soros got pwned. Again. Polipundit has more.
|
|
This started out as a comment in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) dingodonkey's journal but I thought I'd repost it here. Somebody once asked me what was the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy of governance; conservatism is a way of life. Thus it is possible to have libertarians who are either prudes or libertines in their personal lives.
I think of rights in terms of positive and negative. Liberals generally believe in positive rights: a right to a house, a job, an education, a living wage, etc. We have a right to something. I disagree with this idea of rights because by implication and in practice it usually involves coercing someone to give you those things. Conservatives generally believe in negative rights: party A does not have the right to take money from party B and give it to party C. The State does not have the right to deprive us of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The people in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) liberal often get upset with me because I don't believe the federal government ought to be involved in things like education or housing. If you can pin them down they sometimes admit that they believe it is immoral for the feds to not do those things. Some have gone so far as to call me a Catholic in name only because of my strong fiscal conservatism. I find that a very strange charge for them to make. Apparently it's fine to impose Christian morality through the State if it's to provide welfare or raise taxes but it's not fine to, say, outlaw abortion. Similar is their charge that if you oppose abortion but favor the death penalty, that means you're a hypocrite. Why does this not flow in the opposite direction? If the issues are genuinely linked, then aren't people who favor abortion and oppose the death penalty equally hypocritical, for exactly the same reason?
|
|
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by LiveJournal.com |
