Quick Thoughts on the new Shooting

Similar to Crude’s. An Islamic terrorist kills a bunch of people. Islamic terrorists hate gay people. Look, water. Water is wet.

Unless we try and kick these people out – which we’re not doing – we’re not going to stop this from happening. In fact, it’s going to get worse. So unless we grow a pair, look over your shoulder, my friends.

Screw the whole “oh noes he owned an assault weapon” angle. Hysterical nonsense that people who know nothing about guns yell about (that is a must-read article, by the way). Assault weapons look scary, but you can kill people just as easily with a flintlock pistol and extra bullets if nobody is trying to stop you. Frankly, I’m leaning towards just banning Muslims from owning guns, period. Sorry, nice Muslims. Life isn’t fair; just ask the 50 dead people in Florida.

The police screwed the pooch big time. I’m not casting aspersions on anyone’s intentions or bravery; I have no clue what the heck happened. I just know that if fifty people have been killed, and over 100 people shot, in a three hour standoff, you’ve failed. Unambiguously. Unarguably. You done fucked up. You didn’t do your job, or not well. That’s inexcusable, and I’m not sympathetic. Maybe to individual officers getting perhaps undeserved scorn heaped on them, but not of the department as a whole.

Maybe you misread it as a hostage situation. Maybe you just didn’t know how to respond to this sort of thing. Whatever. Either way, you made a mistake. A huge one.

I’m currently reading the Tom Clancy novel “Patriot Games”. In it he posits, literally, the first ever terrorist attack occurring on American soil, by an Irish nationalist terror group he calls the ULA (I never bothered to look up if they were real). Reading it now is depressing. One character, a Nam’ vet, is interviewed by the FBI after finding one of the terrorist’s guns – an Uzi – in an abandoned quarry. He says something along the lines of “You mean people are being machine gunned right in the street here? In America? I didn’t fight in Nam’ for that.” You said it, buddy.

This is the world we live in now. This was bad, but we better get used to it. Things ain’t getting better any time soon.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Quick Thoughts on the new Shooting

  1. LorenzoCanuck says:

    A couple of thoughts:

    1) There’s some hay being made of the fact that the shooter was on the FBI’s terror watch list but was removed due to lack of concrete evidence, but also that even being on the watch list would not have prevented him from obtaining weapons and going to carry out his crime. I personally think that simply banning watch list suspects from buying weapons would take care of a lot of issues through the “low hanging fruit” principle, but see point 2.

    2) It seems we are in a catch-22 situation: in order to more thoroughly stop Islamic terrorism, we must grant the state additional tools and authority, but the state is not trustworthy, either, since those tools could easily be turned against, say, people like us who dissent from the majority about the nature of sexuality. Maybe all we can do is endure, since the nation is too divided to make a meaningful response.

  2. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    I have little use for idiots using this tragedy for furthering their own irrelevant goals. You have anti-religious Gnu nutters blaming Christians and Abrahamic religions for what this Jihadist nutter did. You got the gun control lobby blaming assault rifles & the boneheads over at the Daily News blaming the NRA.

    Tedious…….

  3. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    > Frankly, I’m leaning towards just banning Muslims from owning guns, period. Sorry, nice Muslims. Life isn’t fair; just ask the 50 dead people in Florida.

    The Problem with that idea is you have to repeal the first amendment and the separation between church and state and a whole bunch of structure needed to protect civil liberties.

    You would be laying the ground work for America to one day say “Catholics can’t have civil right X because they are Catholic”. You don’t stop hate speech or speech you hate by censorship. You fight it with more speech. Taking away guns from Muslim citizens is not the answer arming everyone else is the answer. After all in Muslim countries the Christians aren’t heavily armed.

    Stopping or slowing immigration from countries where Jihad is active is permissible OTOH.

  4. Crude says:

    You would be laying the ground work for America to one day say “Catholics can’t have civil right X because they are Catholic”.

    You would think by now that people would realize how little precedent matters. Democrats and Republicans are clawing at each other brutally over this election, salivating at the prospect of getting to name three court justices. Why would they be in such a frenzy if precedent was king?

    It isn’t. It was, once upon a time, when we had a unified country with shared values and goals, and differed largely on how to achieve those goals. We don’t have that anymore.

  5. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    >You would think by now that people would realize how little precedent matters. Democrats and Republicans are clawing at each other brutally over this election, salivating at the prospect of getting to name three court justices. Why would they be in such a frenzy if precedent was king?

    So why help the forces intent on tearing down the republic? Why create a precedent that the State can single out members of an individual religion to take away rights? As long as there are 100 of us we will not submit to tyranny.

    >It isn’t. It was, once upon a time, when we had a unified country with shared values and goals, and differed largely on how to achieve those goals. We don’t have that anymore.

    Fall upon your sword then like a Roman fool and see what it gets you. As a much slandered Scotish Celtic King once said in literature. Why do that when the gashes and wounds look better on my enemies.

    I will not support traitors who wish to rip down the Republic. I will fight to restore it. I don’t know if I will win or not and i don’t care. It is what must be done.

  6. Crude says:

    So why help the forces intent on tearing down the republic? Why create a precedent that the State can single out members of an individual religion to take away rights?

    Because precedents don’t matter. This is a kind of idealistic Christian naivete that gets fed to them by the opposition. Where was the precedent for same sex marriage? There was none. They created it. Where was the precedent for abortion? There was none. They created it.

    Because precedent doesn’t matter. Precedent doesn’t guide the SCOTUS. Political persuasion does. Have absolutely zero precedent for anti-Christian laws but an administration that wants it and a culture that will at least tolerate it. You’re getting those laws, and they will be declared constitutional, because that’s how things work.

    Really, you’d think people would figure this out by now.

  7. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    >Because precedents don’t matter.

    Pretty much it still does. Which is why Obama taking too many powers for himself will not just be for himself but every President that comes after unless someone stops it.

    >This is a kind of idealistic Christian naivete that gets fed to them by the opposition. Where was the precedent for same sex marriage? There was none. They created it. Where was the precedent for abortion? There was none. They created it.

    Which is why it must be countered by restoring a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

    >Because precedent doesn’t matter. Precedent doesn’t guide the SCOTUS. Political persuasion does. Have absolutely zero precedent for anti-Christian laws but an administration that wants it and a culture that will at least tolerate it. You’re getting those laws, and they will be declared constitutional, because that’s how things work.

    Which is why surrender is not an option but fighting to put strict constructionists on the bench is important and taking away the second amendment rights of Muslim citizens is not the answer. Arming everyone else is the answer.

    >Really, you’d think people would figure this out by now.

    But surrender is not an option. To listen to Milo and vote for daddy.

  8. Crude says:

    Which is why it must be countered by restoring a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

    Glenn Beck, ladies and gentlemen.

  9. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    >Glenn Beck, ladies and gentlemen.

    More like Ronald Reagan but so what if Glenn agrees with him? Blind hog=acorn etc…

    And Milo Yiannopoulos, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin,Carly Fiorina, Dr. Ben Carson and on paper Trump.

  10. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    Malcolm,

    I will answer you here & I will avoid taking shots at Crude.

    >How dare you criticize the Popes of the crusades! Since you’re not a member of the clergy, as you’ve confidently told me, that’s not allowed.

    Well if I did that back in their time the odds are high I could be rebuked or arrested. OTOH I have no problems with criticism of the past Popes. They are dead. They no longer lead the Church. Thus they cannot be undermined. The example the Bible gives us pretty much deals with the living and the present. Not the past.

    >Anyway, if you don’t believe the first crusade was justified, you don’t believe in just wars at all. That some people in the war itself acted badly does zero to diminish that.

    That it was a Just War is not at issue. Was it prudent? Was it successful? Should it be done today? Is it necessary to do today? The war was just. So what? Non-Chattlal Slavery is “not contrary to the moral and natural law” as taught formally by the Church in the 19th century, Doesn’t mean we should institute legal non-chattial slavery now does it? Can the Pope in principle call for another crusade? Of course but should he? I say no. Just as I can say “In principle it would not be contrary to the natural and moral law to institute legal non-chattel slavery” but should i do it?

    At this point I can’t make heads or tails of what “meaningful” criticisms the Pope should be making?

    Can you give me some insight? Do you know? Because at this point it’s like pulling teeth.

    Cheers.

    • At this point I can’t make heads or tails of what “meaningful” criticisms the Pope should be making?

      Try this: You keep noting, over and over, that we seem to be giving Popes Benedict XVI and, to a lesser extent, JPII, a pass but not Pope Francis.

      Why? What did they do differently than Pope Francis that makes us like them more?

      Figure that one out and you’ll get our point.

      • BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

        So you can’t tell me either? Because I don’t think there is much of a difference at least none that is in anyway significant to the issue. Indeed the similarities are all quite erie.

        I get the claim the Pope plays the Obama game of ‘Aww, they didn’t do nothing. It’s just extremists who have nothing to do with Islam. Oh and the Christians!’

        When I ask for an example I get this quote ‘Experience shows that violence, conflict and terrorism feed on fear, mistrust, and the despair born of poverty and frustration,” Pope Francis .

        The Pope’s statement is true as far as it goes but I don’t see him claiming anything specific about Islam or that what he said is the sole cause? What is it the Pope is suppose to be saying about Islam that he is not saying? I can’t get a clear answer.

      • How about, bluntly, “Islamic terrorists are the people causing this. As long as Europe keeps bringing in muslim refugees these acts of violence will continue to escalate.”

        Or, alternatively, he can simply just not use his platform to continually criticize and tear down the people who are actually attempting to follow the Church.

      • But see, that’s the problem. You totally don’t understand why people are frustrated with Pope Francis. It’s why you spend so much time bashing “rad-trads”: You don’t get what their issue with His Holiness is at all. You have no empathy for traditionalist Catholics looking for support from their Pope and not finding it.

        I mean, so far his big changes have been:

        – Softening the language on divorce and remarriage so significantly that several theologians believe that a change in Church practice is supposed to result

        – A council on the family that accomplished nothing but softening the language used against unrepentant sinners.

        – Changing a millennium old foot-washing rite in such a way that its meaning changes completely from the one it has held for its entire existence

        – Taking in muslim refugees as a political statement

        All the while dancing around any significant criticism of Islam.

        Do you not understand why people aren’t happy? Hating rad-trads doesn’t make you cool. It means you lack empathy.

  11. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    Malcolm,

    Well (unlike some people) I admire your concise bluntness. It gives me something to work with. That is very refreshing and very helpful. Thank you.

    >How about, bluntly, “Islamic terrorists are the people causing this. As long as Europe keeps bringing in muslim refugees these acts of violence will continue to escalate.”

    That is a political position and as such improper for the Pope to take. Even Pius XI when he condemned Nazi racist ideology didn’t name them directly if only to give German Catholics plausible deniability. In Mit brennender Sorge, National Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are not named in the document.

    >Or, alternatively, he can simply just not use his platform to continually criticize and tear down the people who are actually attempting to follow the Church.

    That charge is comical on the face of it. He has done no such thing. Indeed he is doing the opposite. Since you have proven your skills at being direct I will require at least one example.

    >But see, that’s the problem. You totally don’t understand why people are frustrated with Pope Francis. It’s why you spend so much time bashing “rad-trads”: You don’t get what their issue with His Holiness is at all. You have no empathy for traditionalist Catholics looking for support from their Pope and not finding it.’

    You forget my age Malcolm. I have seen the Radtrads bitching since the time of St John Paul II. I have heard their whining over how the Vatican “rewards disobedience and dissent” yet they are so obtuse as to forget how they got the St Pius V Mass back. For the most part their complaints today are the same as yesterday if only turned up too 11. I will never have sympathy for a bunch of holocaust denying, geo-centricist, anti-democracy, monarchy believing whiners. They spend just as much capital bashing “conservative” Catholics as they do modernists and liberals. They are hardly the picked on minority. Rather they are the minority that want to be the majority that picks on everybody else.

    >I mean, so far his big changes have been:

    > Softening the language on divorce and remarriage so significantly that several theologians believe that a change in Church practice is supposed to result.

    No theologians believe this who have read Amoris carefully (as the Pope instructed0 or with the mind of the Church and Tradition as Bruke recomented(& was condemned by the radtrads for it). Any who do, assume a change has been made and they read into Amoris what they want to be there. Francis Bashers ironically give cover to liberals by actually agreeing with the liberal distortion. If only to justify their attacks on Francis.

    >– A council on the family that accomplished nothing but softening the language used against unrepentant sinners.

    Nope, that claim can’t be justified by the text.

    > Changing a millennium old foot-washing rite in such a way that its meaning changes completely from the one it has held for its entire existence.

    Sounds like what the Radtrads said when St John Paul II allowed altar girls? Or when he added the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary. Which neither you nor they are mandated to pray but the Radtrads still went ape shite. Anyway such changes in discipline are not changes in doctrine.

    >Taking in muslim refugees as a political statement

    Seems he did it out of charity not politics. Also the Lesbos incident was not his idea but his aides.

    >All the while dancing around any significant criticism of Islam.

    Making political statements about it you mean? His condemnations of terrorism are enough. Islam like all other religions is presumed to be false as far as it is not Catholic.

    Pope Francis approved a decree recognizing the martyrdom of Flavien-Michel Malké, a Syriac Catholic bishop who was killed in 1915, amid the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against its Christian minorities. He was killed for not becoming a Muslim.

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/syriac-bishop-will-be-beatified-on-the-100th-anniversary-of-his-martyr

    But Pope Francis is this big supporter of Muslims according to the conspiracy theories of some.

    >Do you not understand why people aren’t happy? Hating rad-trads doesn’t make you cool. It means you lack empathy.

    Rather you lack experience. I can have little sympathy to schismatics & dissidents on the right as well as the left. These people are not happy because they choose not to be. Bruke reads Amoris and sees it’s in line with the faith and exhorters people to read it with the mind of the Church. The clowns over at OneLutherFive bitch endlessly because of the use of the term “irregular unions” and the fact the word adultery isn’t in it. Geez that is like complaining Divine person isn’t found in a particular writing but Divine Relation is. It’s the same thing. Tedious.

    Peace.

    • Well, I don’t have a ton of time now, but quickly:

      Sounds like what the Radtrads said when St John Paul II allowed altar girls?

      Not for nothing, but that was one of the worst changes made since Vatican II.

      • BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

        In truth it is trivial. Minor orders are a 4th century Church invention. Allowing adolescent boys to serve as opposed to adult men is a change made in the middle ages. Changes sometimes major changes have been made all the time. It is un-remarkable.

    • The Deuce says:

      That is a political position and as such improper for the Pope to take.

      Bullshit. Blaming Islamic terrorism on “poverty” is also political. Calling for more open immigration of Muslims is just as political as warning against the dangers of it would be. The little passive-aggressive swipe at Trump was political. Calling for changes in gun policies and condemning gun merchants for stoking violence is political. Softening the language on divorce is political. That changing of the foot-washing rite was plainly political.

      It’s impossible to avoid ever being “political,” and this Pope is a lot more political than most. The Pope’s job is to speak the truth, whether it’s politically palatable or not. What you’ve got here is a Pope happy to make political dog-whistles that play to the sensibilities of the dominant liberal narrative to the extent that he can, but who leaves the struggling faithful in his flock who most need his support hanging and demoralized, with mealy-mouthed ambiguity in place of doctrinal clarity, and what appear to be political dog-whistles dissing them in a way he would never do to, say, Islam. Because, you know, having correct priorities here wouldn’t be popular with the dominant liberal narrative, which would make it “political.”

      • BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

        Too bad the example I gave pertained to countries and peoples going to war. Or political neutrality in the wake of a looming threat (such as the rise of the Nazis). There is no equivalence.

        >Blaming Islamic terrorism on “poverty” is also political.

        The Pope has not said only poverty is to blame for terrorism. Please cite his actual words before you bore me.

        >Calling for more open immigration of Muslims is just as political as warning against the dangers of it would be.

        Again cite his actual words and don’t bore the s*** out of me with your tedious Eisegesis.

        >Calling for changes in gun policies and condemning gun merchants for stoking violence is political. Softening the language on divorce is political. That changing of the foot-washing rite was plainly political.

        Condemning arms dealers who make a profit off of selling weapons in the middle east conflicts and war profiteering is a moral issue. Claiming he was talking about gun manufacturing in the USA is silly & further proof Francis bashing trash are liars and servants of the evil one.

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2015/06/pope-francis-condemns-arms-dealers-duh/

        > Softening the language on divorce is political.

        But nothing in essence has been changed & nothing has been “soften” in terms of Law. Sure it is “softer” to call a Protestant a “separated brother” then it is to call him a “heretic” but both mean the same bloody thing. An adulterous union is an irregular union and thus illegitimate.

        >The little passive-aggressive swipe at Trump was political.

        Again deal with what the Pope literally said(something Crude is genetically incapable of). Francis made no swipe against Trump. He answered a loaded, leading and bias question in a supremely fair manner. I saw the press conference by Trump the day after. Even he said after he read the Pope’s actual words he thought “they where not so bad as what they reported”. Showing his harsh response to the Holy Father was a knee-jerk reaction to what he was told. As per usual for Trump he practiced his ready fire aim weakness that gets him into trouble and if he doesn’t watch out will put Lady MacBeth in office God forbid! Maybe we should have gone with Cruz?

        Anyway Deuce as diverting as your machine gun non-specific polemics are I would prefer to deal with specifics. Pick a topic above, point to some documentation of the Pope’s actual words and make your argument. Do otherwise and you will bore the s*** out of me and not even approach making a case. And nobody wants that.

      • Too bad the example I gave pertained to countries and peoples going to war.

        Bullshit, Ben. You’re just moving the goalposts now. First the problem is that the Pope isn’t supposed to get political; now the problem is that the Pope isn’t supposed to say that the problem here is *specifically Islamic terrorists*.

        Once again, what I’m seeing here is that you have zero empathy for traditionalist Catholics. Catholics in JPII’s time had a point. Traditionalist Catholics in Pope Paul VI’s time had a point. The Church is dying in the west. That middle ages Church that called the crusades and created all those hard line traditionalist doctrines? Yeah, that church was in MUCH better shape than our Church.

        You mentioned Mit Brennender Sorge. Where is this Pope’s Mit Brennender Sorge? I’m not asking him, even, to necessarily issue it – I’m just saying that pointing out another Pope issued such a document is not helping your case.

        Look, Ben, I have a lot of slack for you, but let me be clear: You’ve commented here a long time. But so has Deuce. It’s my blog, not yours; whether or not you find his responses “boring” is not my concern. I’ll be the guy who says if he’s allowed to respond in a certain way or not.

  12. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    >Bullshit, Ben. You’re just moving the goalposts now.

    Not so I am clarifying. The example I gave was Pius XI and the Nazis and Deuce then made an equivocal argument. It’s like bring up St John Paul II pro-Israel stance vs Blessed Paul VI anti-Israel one out of left field.

    >Once again, what I’m seeing here is that you have zero empathy for traditionalist Catholics.

    Why should I show a class of people who themselves have zero empathy any empathy? Malcolm I am a conservative. I don’t care about people’s feelings. I don’t “feel” bad when Radtrads unjustly bash the Pope. I judge their actions unjust with my intellect and argue accordingly. Anger is more properly the will to Justice not a mere base passion of discontent. Emotions are for liberals.

    >Catholics in JPII’s time had a point. Traditionalist Catholics in Pope Paul VI’s time had a point.

    But they took it way too far & they have not learned from their mistakes. Some to the point of extremism and schism and undermining the Faith. Time to call them out. They can’t profess to be the chief critics of the Pope and not have their criticism subject to critique.

    >The Church is dying in the west. That middle ages Church that called the crusades and created all those hard line traditionalist doctrines? Yeah, that church was in MUCH better shape than our Church.

    I believe it is a fantasy that “yesterday” was so much better then today. I am a realist & I know they both really sucked.

    >You mentioned Mit Brennender Sorge. Where is this Pope’s Mit Brennender Sorge?

    It was in the last two years of Pius XI’s 17 year long reign and you are comparing that to Francis’ less than 3 year reign? I don’t blame you. My generation too suffers from the desire for instantaneous gratification.

    >Look, Ben, I have a lot of slack for you, but let me be clear: You’ve commented here a long time. But so has Deuce. It’s my blog, not yours; whether or not you find his responses “boring” is not my concern. I’ll be the guy who says if he’s allowed to respond in a certain way or not.

    Yes and no. It is your blog and if you wish to block or remove my posts or ask me to leave because you don’t personally fancy it then I am gone. You have the perfect right. But I will tell Deuce what will convince me and what will not as I am the owner of my own person & intellect and you are not. You merely own this forum.

    Also I can’t make Deuce not devolve his posts into tedious machine gun polemics & a litany of unspecific charges. If he wants to ignore me I can do nothing. But it will not produce any meaningful argument & I will call him out on it. Surely you see my point? If OTOH you want me to be nicer to him. If you ask I will do it. I don’t have anything against him.

    I remain Malcolm at your connivence.

    PS I did take a slight jab at Crude & I said I would not & for that I apologize.

    • I’m not saying “Feel like they do”. I’m asking you to try to understand why they feel the way they do. So far you seem to believe that they’re all horrible people who hate all the modern Popes for…well, no good reason I guess. This is – as you’ve brought up Crude (thank you for the apology, but I’ll use it ass a bit of a springboard if you’ll permit me) – I would surmise the reason Crude got so frustrated with you; it’s why I’m frustrated, though not (yet, at least) to his extent. You seem to believe that not only are traditionalists wrong, but that they have no reason to believe the Church is in worst shape than the past, no reason to be frustrated at all with the post-Vatican II Church.

      I believe it is a fantasy that “yesterday” was so much better then today. I am a realist & I know they both really sucked.

      I get what you’re saying here and agree – to a point. But on the flip side I think it’s foolish to say that no period of time or place wasn’t better than any other. The Church was in much better shape back then; it just was. The rise of Christianity in the wake of the fall of Rome brought forth more peace than was seen in hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Centers of learning, the first universities, sprang up all around Europe. People were treated better than they ever were under Rome.

      But Christianity is dying now, throughout Europe at least. Obviously I agree with you that it will never actually die, and I certainly am no sedevacantist by any stretch of the imagination. But I think you’d need to be blind to deny that the Christians in Europe are failing, badly, and we need to discuss what we’re doing wrong – because it’s SOMETHING.

      • BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

        >I’m not saying “Feel like they do”. I’m asking you to try to understand why they feel the way they do.

        Fair play but I do understand and I have some sympathy. I would be the first to say every parish should have at least one Latin Mass or more.

        > So far you seem to believe that they’re all horrible people who hate all the modern Popes for…well, no good reason I guess.

        It is the squeaky wheels get the grease. It’s not the sober charitable critics of Francis that merit my ire rather it is the vocal disrespectful extremists who draw my fire.

        >This is – as you’ve brought up Crude (thank you for the apology, but I’ll use it ass a bit of a springboard if you’ll permit me) – I would surmise the reason Crude got so frustrated with you; it’s why I’m frustrated, though not (yet, at least) to his extent. You seem to believe that not only are traditionalists wrong, but that they have no reason to believe the Church is in worst shape than the past, no reason to be frustrated at all with the post-Vatican II Church.

        Well I do bristle at people who harsh on the Pope in an unkind and unjust fashion and then
        look surprised when it is returned to them in kind. Like the Gnus who are assholes to believers and when someone like Crude or myself pimp slaps them into next week they cry and bitch over our lack of ‘Christian kindness”. The reactionary Trad crowd is for the most part or at least in the beginning their own worst enemy. I find it impossible to listen to them complain about altar girls & then post slanders of the Talmud or geo-centric weirdness on their websites or downplay the serious scandal of that appearing in a Trad Catholic forum but expect outrage from me when confronting liberal Catholic scandal. It is just so tiresome and i am old and tired and to rip off Dr Who I used to have so much mercy….

        >I get what you’re saying here and agree – to a point. But on the flip side I think it’s foolish to say that no period of time or place wasn’t better than any other. The Church was in much better shape back then; it just was.

        i would say some things where better and some where worst. Today what was worst is now better and some things that where better are now worst. It is tiresome but that is life.

        > The rise of Christianity in the wake of the fall of Rome brought forth more peace than was seen in hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Centers of learning, the first universities, sprang up all around Europe. People were treated better than they ever were under Rome.

        This is true BUT the Church still screwed up some things. I would discuss them but they are WAY OFF topic.

        >But Christianity is dying now, throughout Europe at least. Obviously I agree with you that it will never actually die, and I certainly am no sedevacantist by any stretch of the imagination. But I think you’d need to be blind to deny that the Christians in Europe are failing, badly, and we need to discuss what we’re doing wrong – because it’s SOMETHING.

        Europe is going down the toliet but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight extinction.

        We shall not yield to kiss the ground at young Malcolm’s feet! (not you the idiot English puppet who took King MacBeth’s throne). Damned be him who cries hold! enough and so forth.

        Anyway my son is begging for the computer so I will leave you too it.

        God bless.

    • The Deuce says:

      Also I can’t make Deuce not devolve his posts into tedious machine gun polemics & a litany of unspecific charges.

      Goodness Ben, I’m sorry I have so grievously wronged you by assuming that when you said the Pope should not comment on political matters, you were trying to say that the Pope shouldn’t comment on political matters.

      No, clearly what you really meant all along was that the Pope shouldn’t comment on political matters where it pertains to people going to war, or of looming threats, unless it’s ALSO moral issue, such as when they are arms dealers, or mafiosi, or Communists (in the case of JPII), or presumably any other not-yet-mentioned exceptions (but not Muslims or Nazis, which don’t constitute moral issues, because otherwise the Pope would address them!) that might lead one to conclude that Francis is being political and inconsistent.

      How uncharitable of me not to pick up on your clear meaning. Boy, imagine how difficult this conversation would be if you were just moving the goalposts as convenient using ad-hoc rationalizations!

      Again cite his actual words and don’t bore the s*** out of me with your tedious Eisegesis… Again deal with what the Pope literally said(something Crude is genetically incapable of).

      So taking you at your literal word instead of what you “really” meant is uncharitable. Taking the Pope for what he clearly meant rather than what he “literally said” is uncharitable. Except for when what the Pope “literally said” is problematic, in which case I need to look at what he “really meant,” which can only be gleaned by “interpreting it in the light of [insert document that he didn’t mention in his remarks and which neither he nor his audience are likely familiar with here].”

      Got it. This is all perfectly obvious.

      The rest of your post I likewise agree with, and won’t bother commenting on, because it’s all just admission that the Pope IS political, together with attempts to justify it by arguing that political issues are often also moral issues, which was my point all along.

      • BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

        >Goodness Ben, I’m sorry I have so grievously wronged you by assuming that when you said the Pope should not comment on political matters, you were trying to say that the Pope shouldn’t comment on political matters.

        The Pope called the Jihadists attacks on Europe the beginnings of “piecemeal” of world war III. That is a different type of Politics then Crude’s silliness regarding donations and commie crosses(which I will brutally fisk if the mood suit me). The Pope’s did not in recent times openly take sides in such conflicts to work behind the scenes. With a coming war between Jihadists and the West he is being prudent. That is why I compared it to Pius XI and you brought up irrelevant petty nonsense.

        >No, clearly what you really meant all along was that the Pope shouldn’t comment on political matters where it pertains to people going to war, or of looming threats, unless it’s ALSO moral issue, such as when they are arms dealers, or mafiosi, or Communists (in the case of JPII),

        Condemning arms dealers is non-specific and actually non-political. War profiters selling arms do not equal Muslim governments with power over Christians. The Pope must be prudent with the lives of others and with his own life. Since a terrorist assassination of the Pope can damage & confuse the Papal succession if a significant number of voting Cardinals are taken out too. My Pius XI and Pius XII analogies hold. It is the job now of Trump and responsible western leaders to deal with the Islamic threat with the sword. The Pope will only weld the sword of the Spirit in this matter. This is as it should be.

        >or presumably any other not-yet-mentioned exceptions (but not Muslims or Nazis, which don’t constitute moral issues, because otherwise the Pope would address them!) that might lead one to conclude that Francis is being political and inconsistent.

        Francis is consistent with Pius XII and Pius XI. The Commies didn’t really suicide bomb. They don’t want to destroy the world to bring about Allah’s Kingdom. They want the world intact to create a “workers paradise” or some such unrealistic crap. It is not the same threat.

        >How uncharitable of me not to pick up on your clear meaning. Boy, imagine how difficult this conversation would be if you were just moving the goalposts as convenient using ad-hoc rationalizations!

        Oh stop your blubbering. I was not knocking your charity towards me. I don’t f***ing care. I want an intelligent argument from you. Nothing more. So far apart from Malcolm (& I am not saying this to be kiss arse since I don’t mind getting banned) I have not been getting that.

        >So taking you at your literal word instead of what you “really” meant is uncharitable.

        Don’t be silly I am here now & can be questioned. If you have the Pope’s phone number then call him and ask point blank does he hate Trump. Baring that information I can only go by the evidence. I looked at what he literally said and my opponent at the time refused to deal. Floating some speculations about some hidden subtext was his only response which was lame. I don’t do conspiracy theories they are for the weak minded.

        > Taking the Pope for what he clearly meant rather than what he “literally said” is uncharitable. Except for when what the Pope “literally said” is problematic, in which case I need to look at what he “really meant,” which can only be gleaned by “interpreting it in the light of [insert document that he didn’t mention in his remarks and which neither he nor his audience are likely familiar with here].”

        If you would like to give me some literal words the Pope said and then give me some evidence and good reason why he meant something other than he said go for it. But make an argument already. You are already boring me.

        >The rest of your post I likewise agree with, and won’t bother commenting on, because it’s all just admission that the Pope IS political, together with attempts to justify it by arguing that political issues are often also moral issues, which was my point all along.

        Saying the Pope is “political” is trivial and equivocal. Like saying Zeus is divine and YHWH is divine. Yeh….they are not the same thing and not divine in the same way.

  13. BenYachov(Jim the Scott) says:

    Malcolm shouldn’t you have a separate Francis thread vs a Shooting thread. I kind of feel bad sucking up the oxygen on this hot topic of the day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s