As George Santayana once said, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”
21st century Man is quick to portray itself as evolved. We argue that more money than ever is donated to humanitarian causes, and that “Save the planet” is the mantra most-heard today. Yet it is important to remember that we are no different as a species than we were just 60 years ago during WWII. Within the past 20-25 years we’ve witnessed Man’s- inhumanity-towards-Man on a scale equaling the brutality inflicted by Nazi Germany. Genocide erupted in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In Iraq the former “president” of the country gassed his own people. And let’s not forget the Islamic terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Why is it important to remember this generation’s evil deeds?
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published an article that indirectly supported Santayana’s warning. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122229545606472921.html) Recently the Kremlin and the Russian state media created an online poll asking their countrymen to select the nation’s top historical figure. The contest’s purpose is to strengthen national pride. To the dismay of many the man who repeatedly appeared at or near the top of the list was none other than mass murderer Josef Stalin.
Alleging that hackers had used automated voting in an effort to start trouble, RTR “corrected” the “inaccuracies”, which dropped Uncle Joe’s supporters from two million to one million (as of last week). Did hackers really inflate the numbers, or was it merely a case of a citizenry longing for mythical “better” times? Who knows? But one has to wonder if the RTR “corrections” were enacted solely to avoid the embarrassment the Kremlin would face globally if the tally was acknowledged as accurate. How many other Russians agree with Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, who said earlier this year “that Stalin, if alive, could solve Russia's problems ‘in one day.’”
Last October I traveled to Moscow to promote a boxing match between Evander Holyfield and Sultan Ibragimov. The company I work for represented Holyfield. It became apparent quickly that the country was split according to the haves and the have-nots. You were either wealthy or poor . . . and clearly there were more of the latter. Many elderly women could be seen begging for money or hustling trinkets to foreigners. Yet, the hotel we stayed in during fight week regularly costs guests $800 per night. (We did not pay this) This year Forbes magazine announced that Moscow is the most expensive city in the world.
Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany at least in part because of the dire economic conditions in post-WWI Germany. When you are forced to spend your life savings on a loaf of bread it becomes very easy to embrace the person who promises you the quickest solution.
The Russian people are demoralized. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the majority continue to live a meager existence. Stalin murdered an estimated 20 million people; yet, he transformed the Soviet Union into a major superpower. When you no longer have to worry about watching your family carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police, it’s much easier to forget history. One worries whether Russia is doomed to repeat its errors.
Donald Tremblay
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Disposable
“If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service." (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29538)
These are the words of Baroness Mary Helen Warnock, “regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher” and often referred to as “the philosopher queen”. Lest anyone accuse her of inhumanity, Warnock spins suicide as altruistic: “There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance." Not surprisingly, Warnock’s views echo those of “prominent voices in Britain's House of Lords [who] continue to advocate for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
This is what passes for morality in our increasingly utilitarian Western culture.
Assisted-suicide supporters argue that suicide is voluntary and hence a personal decision beyond the reach of the state.
But let’s face it: once a human life’s continued existence is viewed as a drain or a nuisance, how long is it before that voluntary act becomes mandatory for the “good of society”? I was reminded of George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm as I read the above Catholic.org article. Farmer Jones mistreats the animals on the farm. The animals revolt and take over. Within no time the pigs take extra liberties for themselves, such as more food, and enlist the dogs to serve as their “muscle”. Ultimately, the pigs become more totalitarian than Farmer Jones ever was. No work of literature better expounds on the capacity of humanity to become that which it abhors, a point ably addressed in the Catholic.org piece.
“German officials in the 1930s instituted a program of mass euthanasia for persons the state considered undesirable, labeling them ‘lebensunwertes leben’: life unworthy of life and ‘useless eaters.’ Among the groups targeted for euthanasia were developmentally disabled people, disabled children, and elderly people suffering from dementia. In Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 programme, in which the gas chamber technology was developed, patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination," were killed by physicians on the grounds that they were a burden to their families and to the state. After the war, the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that about 275,000 people had been euthanised.”
Sound familiar? And for those who argue that today’s assisted-suicide and euthanasia movements are motivated by empathy, be aware that the Nazi’s also tried to portray euthanasia as “a ‘compassionate’ solution for patients and their families”.
A society’s responsibility is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Judging by the “philosopher queen’s” comments we have lost sight of this.
Donald Tremblay
These are the words of Baroness Mary Helen Warnock, “regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher” and often referred to as “the philosopher queen”. Lest anyone accuse her of inhumanity, Warnock spins suicide as altruistic: “There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance." Not surprisingly, Warnock’s views echo those of “prominent voices in Britain's House of Lords [who] continue to advocate for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.”
This is what passes for morality in our increasingly utilitarian Western culture.
Assisted-suicide supporters argue that suicide is voluntary and hence a personal decision beyond the reach of the state.
But let’s face it: once a human life’s continued existence is viewed as a drain or a nuisance, how long is it before that voluntary act becomes mandatory for the “good of society”? I was reminded of George Orwell’s classic Animal Farm as I read the above Catholic.org article. Farmer Jones mistreats the animals on the farm. The animals revolt and take over. Within no time the pigs take extra liberties for themselves, such as more food, and enlist the dogs to serve as their “muscle”. Ultimately, the pigs become more totalitarian than Farmer Jones ever was. No work of literature better expounds on the capacity of humanity to become that which it abhors, a point ably addressed in the Catholic.org piece.
“German officials in the 1930s instituted a program of mass euthanasia for persons the state considered undesirable, labeling them ‘lebensunwertes leben’: life unworthy of life and ‘useless eaters.’ Among the groups targeted for euthanasia were developmentally disabled people, disabled children, and elderly people suffering from dementia. In Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 programme, in which the gas chamber technology was developed, patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination," were killed by physicians on the grounds that they were a burden to their families and to the state. After the war, the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that about 275,000 people had been euthanised.”
Sound familiar? And for those who argue that today’s assisted-suicide and euthanasia movements are motivated by empathy, be aware that the Nazi’s also tried to portray euthanasia as “a ‘compassionate’ solution for patients and their families”.
A society’s responsibility is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Judging by the “philosopher queen’s” comments we have lost sight of this.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, September 22, 2008
Novus Ordo or Nothing
Novus Ordo or Nothing
Last year Pope Benedict XVI released "Summorum Pontificum”, which stated that the Tridentine Mass “should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” Not surprisingly, many bishops and pastors have ignored the papal directive. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804776.htm)
“’We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board,’ said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.”
Traditional Catholics should expect this intransigence to continue. After all why would the same bishops who allowed, and in some cases even encouraged, the destruction of the Latin Rite be eager to welcome it back?
Sacrosanct is how post-Vatican II changes in the Church are viewed by many in the episcopate. This is particularly true in the case of Novus Ordo. Many bishops battle opposition to Novus Ordo the way they would combat Aryanism or some other heresy. When it is not silenced by the powers-that-be, criticism about Vatican II’s implementation is met with the lame explanation that choices were made in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
The Spirit of Vatican II. How is that for an amorphous concept?
Novus Ordo is not doctrine, nor is it consistent with the liturgy as it was celebrated for many centuries prior to Vatican II. It can and should be changed. Am I advocating the complete elimination of our current liturgy? No, I do not believe that going back to the Latin Rite as it was is the answer. Even those who supported the Tridentine Mass in the first half of the 20th century acknowledged that changes to the Mass were necessary. But the refusal of many clergy to offer the Latin Rite is an indication of how little interest the current generation of bishops has in hearing the concerns of those who do not believe that Novus Ordo sufficiently honors the Lord.
Sadly, Traditional Catholics will have to wait for these bishops to retire or pass away before Pope Benedict XVI’s directive is honored worldwide.
Donald Tremblay
Last year Pope Benedict XVI released "Summorum Pontificum”, which stated that the Tridentine Mass “should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” Not surprisingly, many bishops and pastors have ignored the papal directive. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804776.htm)
“’We're only looking at one calendar year, and we know that in the church these things take time. But the problem -- dare anyone say this? -- the problem is the bishops. Because you have bishops who aren't on board,’ said John Paul Sonnen, an American Catholic who lives in Rome.”
Traditional Catholics should expect this intransigence to continue. After all why would the same bishops who allowed, and in some cases even encouraged, the destruction of the Latin Rite be eager to welcome it back?
Sacrosanct is how post-Vatican II changes in the Church are viewed by many in the episcopate. This is particularly true in the case of Novus Ordo. Many bishops battle opposition to Novus Ordo the way they would combat Aryanism or some other heresy. When it is not silenced by the powers-that-be, criticism about Vatican II’s implementation is met with the lame explanation that choices were made in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
The Spirit of Vatican II. How is that for an amorphous concept?
Novus Ordo is not doctrine, nor is it consistent with the liturgy as it was celebrated for many centuries prior to Vatican II. It can and should be changed. Am I advocating the complete elimination of our current liturgy? No, I do not believe that going back to the Latin Rite as it was is the answer. Even those who supported the Tridentine Mass in the first half of the 20th century acknowledged that changes to the Mass were necessary. But the refusal of many clergy to offer the Latin Rite is an indication of how little interest the current generation of bishops has in hearing the concerns of those who do not believe that Novus Ordo sufficiently honors the Lord.
Sadly, Traditional Catholics will have to wait for these bishops to retire or pass away before Pope Benedict XVI’s directive is honored worldwide.
Donald Tremblay
Friday, September 19, 2008
Empty-Handed
I was disturbed this morning by an article I read on the “Inside Catholic” website. (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4514&Itemid=48) The Rich He Hath Sent Away proposes that “there is much to celebrate in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch”. Lest readers believe he holds a vendetta against these former corporate behemoths, author Jeffrey Tucker explains why the current financial crisis is a benefit to everyone: “It shows the impossibility of holding onto wealth and power in a free society that is always in flux. And this is as it should be.” To support his argument he adds a theological dimension, quoting a section of the Magnificat and suggesting that we are witnessing its fulfillment:
"He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. The rich he hath sent away empty.”
My first complaint with Tucker’s assessment is theological. To cite Mary in this context is to misunderstand her confession. In the Magnificat she praises God for exalting those who are poor in spirit, those who approach Him as a child would. “Mighty” and “rich” refer to those whose pride is great and who either feel disinterest towards God or who refuse to approach him in a child-like manner.
My second complaint is economic. I’m sorry, but regardless of whether it is Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, or any other conglomerate, the rich will hardly “walk away empty”. Ever hear of the Golden Parachute?
Golden Parachute: A clause in an executive's employment contract specifying that he/she will receive large benefits in the event that the company is acquired and the executive's employment is terminated. These benefits can take the form of severance pay, a bonus, stock options, or a combination thereof.) (http://www.investorwords.com/2201/golden_parachute.html)
Neither will the rich investors who did business with Lehman and Merrill walk away empty since odds are they diversified their portfolios, insulating themselves from financial ruin. The current crisis will adversely affect the wealthy, but it is a wild exaggeration to refer to them as “empty”.
However, there are some who will walk away empty. The Lehman employee who earned corporate stock options as a reward for his years of service is one example, as is the mid-level investor who wasn’t wealthy enough to diversify her portfolio. No, Mr. Tucker, it is the working “grunts” who leave empty-handed, not the wealthy.
Case in point: my neighbor and his wife were born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. Thanks to his success as a broker, the couple bought a house and settled in a NJ suburb. Recently he sold his home and moved back to Brooklyn to rent an apartment. Why? It is difficult paying a mortgage and property taxes when you’ve just lost $160K in stock options and other benefits because your firm, Bear Sterns, has tanked.
The rich may lose more money in pure numbers, but when you calculate the percentage of a person’s total assets that are lost in this type of financial disaster, the impact to the mid-level employee and investor is much greater.
Perhaps a better biblical analogy to explain the effects of the Lehman/Merrill disasters can be found in Mark 11: 41-44
“And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.”
Donald Tremblay
"He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. The rich he hath sent away empty.”
My first complaint with Tucker’s assessment is theological. To cite Mary in this context is to misunderstand her confession. In the Magnificat she praises God for exalting those who are poor in spirit, those who approach Him as a child would. “Mighty” and “rich” refer to those whose pride is great and who either feel disinterest towards God or who refuse to approach him in a child-like manner.
My second complaint is economic. I’m sorry, but regardless of whether it is Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bear Sterns, or any other conglomerate, the rich will hardly “walk away empty”. Ever hear of the Golden Parachute?
Golden Parachute: A clause in an executive's employment contract specifying that he/she will receive large benefits in the event that the company is acquired and the executive's employment is terminated. These benefits can take the form of severance pay, a bonus, stock options, or a combination thereof.) (http://www.investorwords.com/2201/golden_parachute.html)
Neither will the rich investors who did business with Lehman and Merrill walk away empty since odds are they diversified their portfolios, insulating themselves from financial ruin. The current crisis will adversely affect the wealthy, but it is a wild exaggeration to refer to them as “empty”.
However, there are some who will walk away empty. The Lehman employee who earned corporate stock options as a reward for his years of service is one example, as is the mid-level investor who wasn’t wealthy enough to diversify her portfolio. No, Mr. Tucker, it is the working “grunts” who leave empty-handed, not the wealthy.
Case in point: my neighbor and his wife were born and raised in Brooklyn, NY. Thanks to his success as a broker, the couple bought a house and settled in a NJ suburb. Recently he sold his home and moved back to Brooklyn to rent an apartment. Why? It is difficult paying a mortgage and property taxes when you’ve just lost $160K in stock options and other benefits because your firm, Bear Sterns, has tanked.
The rich may lose more money in pure numbers, but when you calculate the percentage of a person’s total assets that are lost in this type of financial disaster, the impact to the mid-level employee and investor is much greater.
Perhaps a better biblical analogy to explain the effects of the Lehman/Merrill disasters can be found in Mark 11: 41-44
“And Jesus sitting over against the treasury, beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.”
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Free Will and Death
Free Will. We use it to marry and have children, to accept or reject employment, even to elect public officials. Our life is a series of choices determined by the use of our Free Will. But should that same Free Will decide our death?
Since the appearance of “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian in the 1980s, the chorus of those supporting doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia has grown markedly. Below is a definition of the two terms:
· Doctor-assisted suicide: The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841)
· Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
The difference between the two is determined by who is the person administering the death act. If it is the patient, it is assisted-suicide; if it is by someone other than the patient, it is euthanasia.
Many argue that if we have Free Will in all other aspects of our lives, shouldn’t we also have it with respect to our deaths. In their view suffering is inhuman and an insult to the dignity of Man. “I shouldn’t have to suffer; nor should any of my loved ones have to suffer.”
The Church’s response to this plea for control over death is a resounding “No”.
A few days ago Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in Lourdes to honor the 150 year anniversary of Mary’s apparitions to a 14-year-old girl and future saint, Bernadette Soubirous. The Mass was well-attended by the infirmed, who hoped to be cured by the site’s miraculous healing waters. During the Mass the Pope took the opportunity to speak out against assisted-suicide and euthanasia, making it clear that death can only come at “the hour chosen by God”. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/798631.html) Many will accuse the pontiff and the Catholic Church of insensitivity. The Church will be labeled antiquated and will be accused of ignoring Man’s pain. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Man’s plight in this fallen state is one of suffering. We are racked by Sin and are confronted with daily crosses and trials. On most days we want to raise our fist to God and scream, “You don’t know what I’m going through.” But we can’t because we are Christians. Unlike any other religion that has existed on this earth, Christianity teaches the Incarnation. God became Man to live as a man. He experienced all the sufferings, temptations, and trials we undergo daily. And ultimately, he suffered the greatest indignity an individual can undergo: torture and abuse followed by murder at the hands of evil people. Yes, a Jew or a Muslim can accuse God of ignorance of Man’s condition, but we Christians cannot. Christ’s life, and most importantly his death, proves that our Lord understands our suffering first hand.
Perhaps nobody better understood how we imitate Christ most when we suffer than did Pope John Paul II. The final years of his life were spent battling Parkinson’s syndrome. With each day it became more difficult to control his movements and constant shaking. Nevertheless, he continued to travel, to meet the flock, and to be filmed by the media. Many cringed at the sight of the stricken pontiff, openly questioning whether he had any dignity. “Isn’t he embarrassed” they would ask?
No. He wasn’t. And he was teaching us that we shouldn’t be embarrassed either. Suffering is a part of the human condition, and as Pope Benedict XVI noted in his Lourdes Mass, “Dignity never abandons the sick person.” If suffering were de-humanizing then Christ would never have accepted crucifixion. His acceptance not only freed us from Sin, but provided us with an example of how we must accept suffering as redemptive. Yes, it is painful to suffer and to watch others suffer, but we must always remember: we did not give ourselves life; therefore, we cannot decide when that life should end. Only He who is responsible for life can decide the hour of death.
Donald Tremblay
Since the appearance of “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian in the 1980s, the chorus of those supporting doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia has grown markedly. Below is a definition of the two terms:
· Doctor-assisted suicide: The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841)
· Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
The difference between the two is determined by who is the person administering the death act. If it is the patient, it is assisted-suicide; if it is by someone other than the patient, it is euthanasia.
Many argue that if we have Free Will in all other aspects of our lives, shouldn’t we also have it with respect to our deaths. In their view suffering is inhuman and an insult to the dignity of Man. “I shouldn’t have to suffer; nor should any of my loved ones have to suffer.”
The Church’s response to this plea for control over death is a resounding “No”.
A few days ago Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in Lourdes to honor the 150 year anniversary of Mary’s apparitions to a 14-year-old girl and future saint, Bernadette Soubirous. The Mass was well-attended by the infirmed, who hoped to be cured by the site’s miraculous healing waters. During the Mass the Pope took the opportunity to speak out against assisted-suicide and euthanasia, making it clear that death can only come at “the hour chosen by God”. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/798631.html) Many will accuse the pontiff and the Catholic Church of insensitivity. The Church will be labeled antiquated and will be accused of ignoring Man’s pain. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Man’s plight in this fallen state is one of suffering. We are racked by Sin and are confronted with daily crosses and trials. On most days we want to raise our fist to God and scream, “You don’t know what I’m going through.” But we can’t because we are Christians. Unlike any other religion that has existed on this earth, Christianity teaches the Incarnation. God became Man to live as a man. He experienced all the sufferings, temptations, and trials we undergo daily. And ultimately, he suffered the greatest indignity an individual can undergo: torture and abuse followed by murder at the hands of evil people. Yes, a Jew or a Muslim can accuse God of ignorance of Man’s condition, but we Christians cannot. Christ’s life, and most importantly his death, proves that our Lord understands our suffering first hand.
Perhaps nobody better understood how we imitate Christ most when we suffer than did Pope John Paul II. The final years of his life were spent battling Parkinson’s syndrome. With each day it became more difficult to control his movements and constant shaking. Nevertheless, he continued to travel, to meet the flock, and to be filmed by the media. Many cringed at the sight of the stricken pontiff, openly questioning whether he had any dignity. “Isn’t he embarrassed” they would ask?
No. He wasn’t. And he was teaching us that we shouldn’t be embarrassed either. Suffering is a part of the human condition, and as Pope Benedict XVI noted in his Lourdes Mass, “Dignity never abandons the sick person.” If suffering were de-humanizing then Christ would never have accepted crucifixion. His acceptance not only freed us from Sin, but provided us with an example of how we must accept suffering as redemptive. Yes, it is painful to suffer and to watch others suffer, but we must always remember: we did not give ourselves life; therefore, we cannot decide when that life should end. Only He who is responsible for life can decide the hour of death.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
With Friends Like These...
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had full diplomatic relations since the early 1930s. Each year the two nations exchange billions of dollars through trade in goods such as oil, machinery and transport vehicles, food and live animals, etc . . . (http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi.htm) During the Gulf War (1990-1991) the Saudi kingdom allowed the U.S. (and its coalition partners) to use its territory as a military base to deploy forces against Saddam Hussein. In 2006, the NY Times reported that the U.S. “maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world,” and that one of the three biggest buyers was Saudi Arabia.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thank You, Camille
Finally one of them has admitted it. At last an abortion supporter acknowledges reality: “’I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.’” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html Wow! Camille Paglia’s confession in a recent Salon.com column must have set the ears of our nation’s pro-abortion lobby ringing.
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
