P.E.I. Provincial Election Date

Rumor has it that Premier Pat Binns will be making an announcement soon after next week's budget: the prediction is for Monday, May 7th.

I now return to my (temporary, but alas, necessary) non-blogging status. I hope to return soon to deal with some unfinished business in the comments section. Ciao!

So... what's your price?

Perhaps your most deeply held personal convictions are more or less in line with the zeitgeist of today's society. But what if they weren't?

THERE are rumblings throughout the Church in North America about the growing cost of speaking the truth. One of them is the potential loss of the coveted "charitable" tax status the Church enjoys. But to have it means that pastors cannot put forward a political agenda, particularly during elections.

However, as we’ve seen in Canada, that proverbial line in the sand has been eroded by the winds of relativism.

Calgary’s own Catholic bishop, Fred Henry, was threatened during the last federal election by an official of Revenue Canada for his forthright teaching on the meaning of marriage. The official told Bishop Henry that the charitable tax status of the Catholic Church in Calgary might be jeopardized by his vocal opposition to homosexual "marriage" during an election. —Lifesite News, March 6th, 2007

Of course, Bishop Henry was acting fully within his right not only as a pastor to teach a religious tenet, but to exercise freedom of speech. It seems he no longer has either right. But that hasn’t stopped him from continuing to speak the truth. As he once said to me at a college event we were ministering at together, "I could care less what anyone thinks."

Yes, dear Bishop Henry, such an attitude will cost you. At least, that’s what Jesus said:

"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first… If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:18, 20)

THE TRUE COST

The Church is called to guard the truth, not its charitable status. To keep silent in order to maintain a full collection basket and a healthy parish or diocesan budget carries a cost—the cost of lost souls. To guard charitable status as though it were a virtue at such a cost, is truly an oxymoron. There is nothing charitable about hiding the truth, even the hardest truths, so as to avoid losing tax exempt status. What good is it to keep the lights on in the church if we lose the sheep in the pews, who are the Church, the Body of Christ?

Paul exhorts us to preach the gospel "in season and out," whether it’s convenient or not. In John 6:66, Jesus lost many followers for teaching the challenging truth of His Eucharistic presence. In fact, by the time Christ was crucified, there were but a few followers beneath that Cross. Yes, His entire "donor-base" had disappeared.

Preaching the Gospel costs. It costs everything, in fact.

"If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?" (Luke 14:26-28)

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING

The concern of course is a practical one. We have to keep the lights on and the heat or air conditioning running. But I would say this: if congregations won’t give to the collection because they won’t get a tax receipt, perhaps the doors should be closed and the church sold off. I see no where in Scripture where we are urged to give if we get a tax receipt. Did the widow who gave a few pennies, virtually her entire savings, receive a tax receipt? No. But she received the praise of Jesus, and an everlasting throne in Heaven. If we Christians are putting pressure on our bishops such that we only donate when the write-off is agreeable, then perhaps we need to experience a vaccum: the poverty of privation.

The times are coming and are already here when the Church will lose much more than her charitable status. Pope John Paul urged the youth—that next generation of taxpayers—to become witnesses for Christ, and if necessary, "martyr-witnesses." The mission of the Church is to evangelize, said Paul VI: to become authentic Christians, souls who embrace a spirit of simplicity, poverty, and charity.

And courage.

We are to make disciples of all the nations, with or without the government’s help. And if the people won’t rise up to meet the practical needs of the evangelists of our times, Christ’s instructions were clear: shake the dust from your sandals, and move on. And sometimes moving on means lying down upon the cross and losing everything.

Be one a layman or cleric, this is not the time for silence. If we have not accepted the cost, then we have not understood our mission nor our Savior. If we do accept the cost, we may have to lose the "world," but we will gain our souls—as well as other souls at the same time. That’s the mission of the Church, to follow in Christ’s footsteps—not just to Mount Zion, but to Mount Calvary… and through this narrow gate to the radiant dawn of the Resurrection.

"Do not be afraid to go out on the streets and into public places like the first apostles who preached Christ and the good news of salvation in the squares of cities, towns, and villages. This is no time to be ashamed of the Gospel! It is the time to preach it from the rooftops. Do not be afraid to break out of comfortable and routine modes of living in order to take up the challenge of making Christ known in the modern “metropolis.” It is you who must “go out in the the byroads” and invite everyone you meet to the banquet which God has prepared for his people. The Gospel must not be kept hidden because of fear or indifference. It was never meant to be hidden away in private. It has to be put on a stand so that people may see its light and give praise to our heavenly Father." — POPE JOHN PAUL II, World Youth Day, Denver, CO, 1993

"Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it." (John 13:16-17)

[source]

Fingerprinting your steak

THE THREAT:

Since 9/11, the threat of terrorists poisoning our food supply has diverted attention from more ordinary risks, like the dual threats of mad-cow disease and the E. coli bacterium. Food-safety scientists are bemoaning this development. E. coli sickens 73,000 Americans yearly, and in the U.K. mad-cow disease has killed 156 people, whose brains degenerated when they ate meat contaminated with the errant proteins that cause the disease.

THE SOLUTION:

To assure consumers that the rib eye they buy comes only from noncontaminated cows, Irish company IdentiGEN has developed TraceBack, the first-ever commercial DNA-fingerprinting technology for meat. The process starts at the farm or slaughterhouse, where cows are tested for pathogens. Once each animal receives a clean bill of health, a worker takes a sample of the cow’s blood, meat or hair, analyzes it for genetic identifiers known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and stores the information in a central database.

Rumor has it the cows have contacted the ACLU over alleged invasion of privacy. Read the rest here.

'Hannity & Colmes' Lists More Than 70 Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Hysteria

“Consider the case closed on global warming,” claimed Time magazine in the February 19 issue.

Not likely.

The March 5 “Hannity & Colmes” showed why. The show brought on Dr. Timothy Ball, one of the climatologists in the new documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” While Ball discussed the new movie and how Al Gore has “got a lot of the facts wrong,” a list of global warming scientists rolled across the screen.

There was only one catch. The more than 70 names “indeed do question” and “are skeptics of this new mad hysteria here” about global warming, according to host Sean Hannity. The list had many prominent names, including three people connected to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climatologists, scientists and noted hurricane expert Bill Gray.

Many of the names might be familiar to readers who follow the issue, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT, and Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental science from the University of Virginia.

The list also included two reviewers and an atmospheric science consultant affiliated with the U.N.’s IPCC. Those three were: Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant; Peter Dietze, an official reviewer and Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer.

Ball summed up the real nature of the current climate debate. “There’s no question it’s political and it’s driven by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a political organization.” Ball went on to point out that the 2,000 people who worked on the recent IPCC report included “bureaucrats” and “political people,” “not 2,000 scientists.”

Even then, co-host Alan Colmes asked Ball if he was “a denier” about global warming. Ball rejected the question and said “the Holocaust connotation is really quite obscene.” [source]

iMass

The wired, wired Church:

ORANGE COUNTY, CA - With the advent of the technological age of man, life has become busier and more difficult. One Church in California decided that it was time to take advantage of the situation and save some souls that were trapped in the torrent of technological despair.

...

“I think what we’ve done has been successful,” said Fr. George, “Our goal is to save the lost sheep correct? We cannot force people to come to mass, and most people don’t know, or care, that missing mass is a mortal sin. Therefore, we must change for the people to win them back.”

The online Church community that has been developed by Fr. George includes all of the St. Bartholomew masses via real-time web-streaming, live web confession with a priest from 3:00pm to 4:00pm on the first Saturday of every month, and those who wish to participate in the Eucharist can have a Eucharistic Minister come to their home after iMass for a nominal fee.

“I love the online confessional,” said Mary Arambula, a parishioner at St. Bartholomew, “You submit your sins in a web form, separating the mortal and venial, you then wait for the priest’s response and advice. After the priest has sent his response, he will then ask you to copy and paste the Act of Contrition he sends along with his response back to him. After that, you can just sit back, relax, and wait for the absolution!”

Read the rest here.

A response to "Anonymous"

What follows is my response to the last "Anonymous" in the comments of my previous post: Homosexual agenda trumps freedom of religion. My responses are slightly out of the original order of his remarks, for better flow.

Anon. said: “It is just so quaint to think you can use terms like "homosexual agenda" like there is some gang of 10 on the grand council of gays announcing the next tactical steps in world domination.”

Your inference – not mine. The word “agenda” is fairly straightforward, and in this case I use it in the second sense of Merriam-Webster’s definition: “an underlying often ideological plan or program.” I have merely noted the obvious: that the plethora of gay advocacy groups (which even a cursory Google search easily demonstrates) are very well-networked and effective lobby organizations, with remarkably similar political goals. In other words, they pursue an ‘agenda,’ as do any other political actors in a democracy.

Anon. said: “What is the Christian Agenda these days anyway? Anyone?”

To proclaim the Gospel – that although all human beings have sinned, and broken the Covenant with their Creator, God sent His only Son to die in reparation for these sins and offered anyone who would believe in and follow Him the gift of eternal life. That’s its mission – to proclaim this truth.

Anon. said: “Lastly, we have freedoms because good people fought for them, not due to the benevolence of the Catholic church. But nice try.”

For the record, I said “the Western Christian tradition” but that's beside the point. If you choose to ignore the role that Christianity has played in the establishment of Western civilization and its democratic institutions, that’s your prerogative. In which case I might hazard to guess that no number of annotated bibliographies attempting to prove the contrary would be make much difference. So perhaps we can just set that issue aside for now.

Anon. said: “As for the magnamous and ever-giving sprit of the universal Christian church, I'll make sure to keep pretending those "God Hates Fags" signs a certain prominent Christian chuch likes to parade around don't actually exist since no Christian group could ever aspire to that kind of behavior. Who was I to trust my lying eyes?”

The reprehensible behavior of Fred Phelps and his ilk (I assume that's the reference) deserve - and have for the most part received - the unconditional condemnation of the universal Christian church and all other people of goodwill. His actions are evil, and contrary to the very faith he claims to uphold. That said, it makes no sense to condemn all Christians for the specific sins of some who claim that name.

Anon. said: “And as for the Catholic Church being this bastion of gay friendliness, is that why the Pope oh-so-recently referred to homosexuality as "intrinsically evil" and constantly threatens good people of democratic countries everywhere of the great travesty that will befall marriage and society if gay citizens are allowed to have their relationships and families recognized under the law?”

If you provide a reference for what you claim the Pope said, I will comment. But my guess is that he would not have referred to homosexual orientation per se as “intrinsically evil.” As the Catechism states:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Actions, however, aren’t usually conflated with the persons who carry them out. Did you ever try to dissuade someone from a particular action because you either a) considered the action wrong, and/or b) you believed that the person considering the act might be harmed in some way? Of course, your advice or caution in that instance (unless it involved, for example, a child whose safety was your responsibility) would carry no compulsion – the person in question would be free to follow your counsel – or not. The Church sees her role in the same way. This was well expressed by Mother Theresa:

“I want very much for people to come to know God, to love Him, to serve Him, for that is true happiness. And what I have I want everyone in the world to have. But it is their choice. If they have seen the light they can follow it. I cannot give them the light: I can only give them the means.”

I consider myself part of a generation of prodigals who, for many years, did my level best to ignore that light. I conveniently ignored the fact that when Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, He did not say, “Now go, and party hearty!” but rather, “Now go, and sin no more.” While I chafed at the Church’s preaching of ‘rules, rules, rules,’ Jesus gradually revealed Himself to me as the incarnation of perfect love. The realization that this Love would always seek my better good led to me become more open to evaluating what actions of mine might or might not be conducive to actually achieving that good. (Of course, this is a work in progress – I’m as prone as the next person to hissy fits over what I think is best for ‘me, me, me’ …)

Which is all to say that the Church continues to follow Jesus’ example, by distinguishing between persons, who are to be loved unconditionally, and actions, which can be deemed either: a) good (not harmful to the person), or b) bad /sinful (harmful to the person). This is why the Church can state in its Catechism (#2357) that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." Not the person, the act. The two are not synonymous. Like any other prohibitions this is stated not to hurt or exclude, but rather, out of love for the person whose freely chosen actions the Church believes would lead them to harm. Yet, no one is compelled to agree with this worldview. As the Church said in Dignitatis Humanae, its Vatican II declaration on religious freedom:

“Truth is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.”

As for the Church’s concerns over the societal implications of SSM – I’m not going to reinvent the wheel, as others, much more erudite than me, have better addressed this and other matters related to the issue. Here’s an answer to the question: “But gay people are a small minority. Allowing them to marry would mean nothing more than a slight alteration to the existing system and would even add support for the institution. What's all the fuss about?” from two McGill scholars, one of whom happens to be homosexual. Nineteen other common objections are addressed in that same article.

I’d also recommend Fr. Dowd’s writings on the issue (in order):

1. The post that started it all: The weakness of the public position of those opposing same-sex marriage
2. Dot #1: Natural family bonds
3. Dot #2: Same-sex marriage is not about equal rights
4. Dot #3: Parental rights and responsibilities

Anon. said: “I try to be open-minded, and I actually work very hard to see the other side, but as a Gay man I cannot accept it when people ignore reality in order to propogate their myths and claim that any other view is a lie.”

“Reality”: this is synonymous with “fact”, which in turn is synonymous with “truth.” I too, believe in these things – as I said before, I’m not a relativist. And because I believe that reality, facts and truth actually exist and can be discovered, the corollary is that their opposites just as surely have a place in our universe. By your statement above, you are saying that you believe you are right, and that others who propose a different ‘reality’ (‘myths’ in fact) are wrong. In a strange way, we’re in some agreement on this.

Anon. said: “I've experienced the homophobia of hateful people (many of them so-called Christians through my whole life - you haven't. So please spare me your sanctimonious explanations about something you do not know.”

It is quite obvious that I have not had your experience. For what it’s worth, I am sincerely sorry for the pain you have experienced in your life. If I’ve added to it by my sometimes flippant attitude in the previous post, I apologize – I meant no insult - the tone is merely an occupational hazard of the hurly-burly of the blogosphere, which often includes, in my case, being on the receiving end of a steady stream of anti-Catholic invective. Given that fact, however, I might be capable of more empathy than you realize.

Homosexual agenda trumps freedom of religion

Pontius-what-is-truth-Pilate is alive and well and living in Britain:

After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the Regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of "non-discrimination".

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified "so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong."

The report says the Regulations will not "prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful," but they may not teach "a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true".

Published February 26, the report says, "We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations."
...

Fr. Tim Finigan, founder of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life and pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic parish in Blackfen, wrote an ominous warning on his weblog that the government's interpretation of the SOR's may represent the end of freedom of religious expression in Britain's schools.

"Make no mistake - this proposal will make it illegal for Catholic schools to teach that the Catholic faith is true," Fr. Finigan wrote Friday. "If the recommendations of the Committee are accepted, it is difficult to see how Catholic schools could continue in Britain."

Fr. Finigan, who teaches sacramental theology at St John's Seminary, Wonersh and is a trustee of Britain's Faith Movement, said the wording of the report was "deliberately muddied". "Our faith does not teach that 'homosexuality' itself is necessarily sinful, it teaches that it is disordered. It is homosexual acts that are sinful."

He points out, however, that the distinction is moot in government circles. "The people who framed this guidance will not accept our teaching that homosexuality is a disorder nor that homosexual acts are sinful."

The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or "orientation", making any criticism of the movement's political goals an offence against persons.

Read the rest here.

Fr. Tim's blog

Muslims too sensitive, says Cardinal Pell

The fearless Cardinal Pell:

MUSLIMS are overly sensitive and are the only migrants to have plotted violence against Australia, Catholic Archbishop Cardinal George Pell has claimed.

Dr Pell said Muslim leaders needed to develop more appropriate responses to criticism.

"In a democratic society, every group is criticised - Prime Minister (John) Howard said quite rightly last year that if Catholics rioted in Australia every time they were criticised, there would be regular riots," Dr Pell said.

"It's not appropriate that Muslims regularly reply to criticism with insults, denigration and evasions while avoiding the point of issue, and unfortunately we've seen too much of this from some Muslim public personalities."

The comments came during Dr Pell's appearance on a panel about Muslims and non-Muslims in Australia as part of the national deliberative poll.

Read the rest here.

Bovine Beano Protocol

Coming soon from an enviro-fascist near you.

Global Indoctrination class

Yet more zombies converts for the Eco-Messiah's cult cause:

THE FOUR STUDENTS and I exit the car to take a photograph.

They laugh at me, then raise their eyebrows.

"We just drove 100 metres to take this picture of us mailing letters to Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper to express our concern with global warming," says Renee Doucet, a Grade 9 student at Dartmouth’s Ecole du Carrefour.

She and Grade 9 classmates Luke Murphy, Miriam Eid and Eric Dow acknowledge they, too, thought the mailbox was much farther from the school.

"We’ll walk back," says Luke, emphatically.

These students and 20 others in the Global Studies class led by teacher Violet Rosengarten have been studying climate change. Violet had shown them the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, starring former United States vice-president Al Gore.

Obviously impressed with the message, Luke spearheaded a letter-writing campaign in which every student in the class wrote a personalized letter to the prime minister.
...

Renee was aware of global warming, "but Gore’s film made it clearer that it’s coming."

Eric agrees. "The film really put it in perspective."

When Renee put fingers to computer keyboard, she stressed to Mr. Harper, "Let us forget about war and money and the army for one second. By protecting ourselves from rising water levels, serious droughts, epidemics, immense heat waves and several other climate changes, we are giving ourselves more time to live. Perhaps not your generation, perhaps not mine, but the following generations."

Miriam says, "It’s very scary to think in 30 years things won’t be the same and we won’t have a chance to do anything about it.

"We want to try to save the planet, to make as many people understand as possible," she continues. "I suggested in my letter that Mr. Harper watch An Inconvenient Truth 10 times. ‘Let it sink in. Let every word change you and make you want to act now,’ I wrote to him."

In his letter, Eric stated, "Imagine the world in which your children will live if you neglected your duties as prime minister to choose ‘greener’ resources and reduce carbon emissions."

Read the Gorey rest here.

A silent genocide

The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders.

They claim that Islamic extremists in Iraq are trying to wipe them out through forced conversions, rape and murder.

The Mandaeans are pacifists, followers of Adam, Noah and John the Baptist.

They have lived in what is now Iraq since before Islam and Christianity.

More than 80% have been forced to flee the country and now live as refugees in Syria and Jordan.

Even there they do not feel safe - but they say western governments are unwilling to take them in.

Read the rest here.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.' [source]

The fearless folks at Channel 4 are, however, bracing for an enviro-jihad:

"It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for." [source]

Ah - such bravery in the face of the Eco-Messiah and his Ecopalyptics...

h/t Drudge Report, SDA

Clinical Study Finding: Catholic Guilt is a Disease

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject of Catholic guilt, I bring you this breaking news as reported by Agnes Daily:

The Center for Social and Mental Heath recently completed its study on the causes and diagnoses of Crimen Catholica, or what is commonly known as Catholic Guilt Syndrome (CGS). The study, lead by Dr. Mark Halloway, set out to determine the various social factors that lead some individuals to succomb to this disease, while others did not.

“What we found was very interesting,” explained Dr. Halloway, “It seems that there were more factors involved in the development, and nature of the disease. However, even with the complexity of CGS, there are factors that we see repeating in each invdivual who suffers from it.”

In their March 2007 report, the CSMH listed the potential causes in which CGS could potentially develop, as well as the evironmental and situational factors in which someone may display behavior related to the disease. Here are some excerpts from the study:

Click.

Iranian Muslim hijacker converts to Judaism

An Iranian Muslim flight attendant who hijacked an Iranian airliner and flew it to Israel 12 years ago has converted to Judaism, an Israeli newspaper reported Friday.

"Despite the difficulties I have faced obtaining Israeli citizenship, you have warmly welcomed me," Reza Jabari was quoted as telling the Ma'ariv daily. "Morally I feel indebted toward you. For this reason I decided to convert."

On September 19, 1995, Jabari, who was a flight attendant for Iranian carrier Kish Air, hijacked a flight between Tehran and the Iranian resort island of Kish.

He diverted the airplane and its 174 passengers to Israel, where he told authorities that he had hijacked the plane because he was desperate to flee Iran and never had any intention of harming the passengers or crew.

Jabari was arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison, but was released after four-and-a-half years and settled among Iranian Jews in the Israeli Red Sea resort of Eilat.

"I feel as if I was born here ... my sense today is that I am completely Israeli," he told the newspaper. [source]

Waiting for the eclipse...

...it's a clear night, so we might see a red moon within the half hour (click here for animation and times).

If Iran gets the bomb

Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post:

With the Bush administration now happily basking in the glory of positive coverage in The New York Times and enjoying the warm embrace of the James Baker/Brent Scowcroft wing of the Republican Party, it is hard to imagine that it will reconsider its decision to abandon the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine, named after President George W. Bush and most forcefully enunciated by him, eschewed appeasement of terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-proliferating enemies of the free world.

Today, what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refers to as a "diplomatic initiative" aimed at appeasing terror-supporting, and weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Iran, and its terror-supporting, and weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Syrian colony is about to take off in Baghdad. So too, this week, the US began normalizing its relations with the terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-proliferating Stalinist dictatorship in Pyongyang.

Bush's traditional opponents are beside themselves with glee.
...

What is lacking from both the media's reportage of the Bush administration's strategic about-face, and the administration's traditional detractors' praise for that sudden turn is an analysis of the likely downside of appeasing the mullahs.
...

BROADLY SPEAKING, there are three possible scenarios of how Iran would likely behave were it to become a nuclear power.

Read the rest here.

$$Green$$ Gore

Noel Sheppard dishes on the flimflam of the century:

• First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
• Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
• Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
• Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
• Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
• Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

Get all the Gorey details here.

Abortion: the #1 killer of African Americans

Racism surrounding the abortion rate must be recognized and stopped, said Day Gardner, president of National Black Pro-Life Union. “The eugenic policies of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, appear to be alive and well and still directed at black women,” she charged in a press release.

Gardner was responding to a Feb. 26 press release on Reproductive Rights and African-American Women issued the previous day by abortion advocate Ipas. In addition to discussing the history between blacks and abortion, Ipas listed reasons for black American women to take part in the abortion movement. It claimed the high rate of abortions among black women was reason enough to warrant their greater involvement and support.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, more than 90 percent of all abortion providers are located in metropolitan areas. Planned Parenthood, America’s leading abortion promoter and provider, identifies its core clients as young women, low-income women, and women of color.

According to Gardner: “The abortion industry purposefully targets the African American community. The question is why? The abortion industry places abortion clinics in our minority and poor neighborhoods to “coax us” into thinking abortion is the best answer — the only answer to an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy — and we ask why?

Read the rest here.

Why is Cardinal Biffi preaching about the Antichrist?

After posting "The Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist" and noticing quite a spike in traffic, I did some surfing and realized that Cardinal Biffi's little retreat for the Pope & Co. was generating more than a little buzz around the world. So, here's some background on the Cardinal and the Antichrist, courtesy of the always informative Sandro Magister:

Why does Cardinal Biffi want to bring [Russian philosopher and theologian Vladimir Sergeyevich Soloviev's last book he wrote before his death in 1900: "The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist"] back to everyone's attention today? Because – he writes – "Soloviev announces with prophetic clarity the great crisis that afflicted Christianity during the last decade of the 20th century."

In the figure of the Antichrist as described by Soloviev, Biffi sees "the emblem of the confused and ambiguous religious identity of the times we are living in now." He sees the singling out and criticism of "principled Christianity," an emphasis on "openness," obsession with "dialogue" at all costs, "in which there seems to remain little of the unique and incomparable person of the Son of God who was crucified for us, rose from the dead, and is now alive. It is the situation that Fr. Divo Barsotti denounced in an extraordinary, and extraordinarily true, statement, when he said that in the Catholic world of our time, Jesus Christ is too often simply an excuse to talk about something else."

In Soloviev's tale, the Antichrist is elected president of the United States of Europe, acclaimed as emperor in Rome, takes possession of the entire world, and finally imposes his command even over the life and organization of the Churches. But what Cardinal Biffi calls to attention is not this series of events, but rather the personal characteristics of the Antichrist. Here follow a few passages from his essay, which deserves to be read in its entirety, in which the cardinal summarizes these personal traits and explains what lesson they hold for the Church of today. [Read the Cardinal's The days are coming, and are already here…]

As for the Antichrist of Soloviev's narrative, if he were alive today I think he might find something like this more than a bit congenial.

"The Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist"

Some days, it's just too much fun being a Catholic:

The Antichrist is the reduction of Christianity to an ideology, instead of a personal encounter with the Savior, says the cardinal directing the retreat which Benedict XVI is attending.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, retired archbishop of Bologna, delivered that message during a meditation Tuesday, drawing on the work of Russian philosopher Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov.

The cardinal's meditation came during the weeklong Spiritual Exercises being attended by the Pope and members of the Roman Curia. The retreat ends this Saturday. The Holy Father suspended his usual meetings, including the general audience, in these days.

According to Vatican Radio's summary of his preaching, the cardinal explained that "the teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the center of being a Christian is, in fact, the personal encounter with Jesus Christ."

Quoting the work "Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History," Cardinal Biffi told his listeners that "the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist."

He will convoke an ecumenical council and will seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions, granting something to each one. The masses will follow him, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants," he said.

The cardinal added that Solovyov says in that work: "Days will come in Christianity in which they will try to reduce the salvific event to a mere series of values."

In his "Tale of the Antichrist" Solovyov foresees that a small group of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants will resist and will say to the Antichrist: "You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ."

For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: "Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection."

The 78-year-old cardinal said that if Christians "limited themselves to speaking of shared values they would be more accepted on television programs and in social groups. But in this way, they will have renounced Jesus, the overwhelming reality of the resurrection."

The cardinal said he believes that this is "the danger that Christians face in our days … the Son of God cannot be reduced to a series of good projects sanctioned by the prevailing worldly mentality."

However, "this does not mean a condemnation of values, but their careful discernment. There are absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty," Cardinal Biffi said. "Those who perceive and love them, also love Christ, even if they don't know it, because he is Truth, Beauty and Justice."

The preacher of the Spiritual Exercises added that "there are relative values, such as solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature. If these become absolute, uprooting or even opposing the proclamation of the event of salvation, then these values become an instigation to idolatry and obstacles on the way of salvation."

Cardinal Biffi affirmed that "if Christianity -- on opening itself to the world and dialoguing with all -- dilutes the salvific event, it closes itself to a personal relationship with Jesus and places itself on the side of the Antichrist." [source]

h/t Spirit Daily

More Muggeridge

Posterity (assuming there is one), is likely, in my opinion, to see liberalism and all its legislative and social consequences as the working-out of a collective death-wish. They will not otherwise be able to account for the fact that, in its name, the essentially Christian foundations of European civilisation were systematically undermined, its strength dissipated, and the moral, social and political order it had evolved irretrievably shattered. Public benevolence can never be a substitute for private virtue; it is more important, and more difficult, to check one outburst of temper, however trivial, than to engage in any number of public demonstrations against collective brutality and injustice.

Malcolm Muggeridge
Jesus Rediscovered, 1968

*

Lent: tis the season to annoy Christians

Yes, just in case we're getting rusty in the 'turn the other cheek' department, we can always count on a steady supply of anti-Christians volunteers to challenge even the most charitable amongst us. A few recent examples:

Dog/Filmmaker Bites Man/Christianity!

Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for "Homophobia"

Walter Cronkite endorses Campaign to Force Christianity out of U.S. Public Life

And now Time magazine manages to turn 4 "pilfering priests" into a Church-wide CRISIS.

Which leads me to ponder the question, "What would Jesus blog?"

Nuns take on WNBA dress code

It's just not challenging enough to play in shorts and a jersey.

*

h/t Spirit Daily

The unpredictability of war

Ynetnews' Ron Ben-Yishai:

The intelligence assessment presented to the government Sunday conveyed a message that features an inherent contradiction: Top intelligence officials warned that Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah are rapidly accumulating advanced weapons, improving their modus operandi, undertaking extensive preparations for a wide-scale confrontation, and continuing to resort to and encourage terrorism.

However, the same officials said, despite the worrisome information, all signs show that the leaders of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah have no intention to initiate full-scale hostilities against Israel in the near future. Therefore, the officials concluded, the likelihood of war in the coming year is low.

This assessment is problematic, to say the least, and should be approached with much skepticism. Most wars in the modern era, both abroad and in our region, broke out at an unexpected junction and surprised the parties involved.

Only a relatively low number of wars in the past century and this one were the product of initiative and advance planning by one of the involved parties. For example, World War II, initiated by Nazi Germany, the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s initiated by Saddam Hussein, and the second Gulf War, initiated by the United States.

Almost all other wars across the globe, ranging from World War I to the India-Pakistan war in the 1970s, broke out by surprise as a result of a combination of regional instability and events that nobody had control over and could not be predicted, or because of hasty moves and decisions by the leaders of one of the warring sides.

Read the rest here.

The Cutting Edge: Will Israel Bomb Iran?

Australian documentary airing Tuesday, February 28th, 8:30 p.m., Channel SBS - just more hype?

The openness of discussion here about possible attacks on Iran's nuclear sites is striking. This is no "rumour has it" piece about what Israel might be planning, with silhouetted interview subjects.

Those interviewed include former Israeli prime ministers and bigwigs in scientific research, the armed forces and national security.

Presumably they're all doing this film to show the Iranians they mean business if that country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, looks like making good on his threat to "eliminate" Israel.

The Israelis have already shown they are happy to go it alone. In 1981 they destroyed Iraq's nuclear sites before it was able to make a bomb. Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak says the strike was internationally condemned at the time but later seen as far-sighted, the suggestion being that what has been done once may need to be done again.

The ex-security chief puts it this way: "We cannot wait and count the days until it will happen." Scary stuff. [source]

Catholic guilt

Ah - Lent - the season that absolutely excels at inducing guilt in all but the most devout and well-catechized Catholics. Am I praying enough? Should I have given up blogging for Lent? Is eating an entire solid chocolate Easter Bunny in one sitting on the first Friday of Lent a sin (could you just walk by that gigantic Wal-Mart display?!) and if so, is it a venial one or a mortal one? Well, fear not - Agnus Daily is all over it - guilt, that is:

As a follow-on to the recent article regarding Gwen Stefani’s “Catholic Guilt”, we at Agnus Daily have decided to continue our investigation of this chilling phenomenon that’s plaguing so many people today.

Catholic guilt seems to have affected many of those who have either left the Church, or have lapsed in their regular observance of the Catholic Faith. “I can feel my pastor looking at me through the eyes of God,” said Lisa Weinrich of Wellsdale, NJ,”every time I do something ’sinful’ I can hear him saying, ‘Lisa remember what I taught you in catechism class, stealing your neighbor’s personal information and using it for the down payment on your house is a sin! You need to go to confession.’ Seriously, who is he to judge me?”
...

Catholics argue that the guilt that many feel is simply the reaction that comes with breaking the natural and moral law. However, many believe that the guilt is a product of social indoctrination that is geared toward keeping members of the Church in-line with it’s moral and ethical beliefs.

Dr. Phillip Gorman, a Psychologist from the institute of Social Mental Health explained that, “Many in the Church argue that the reason many fallen away Catholics feel guilt is because they know that what they’re doing is an objective moral evil. However, studies have proven that it’s mainly a chemical imbalance that is brought about by the constant bombardment from the pulpit regarding things like, sin, the reality of demons and the devil, and other ridiculous claims.” Rev. Kenneth Sims denies this by asserting that, “I, or any other priest or bishop I know, have never preached a sermon on sin, hell, demons, or the devil in within the last 40 years. Obviously the good doctor is mistaken.” In fact, in a recent poll, only five percent of Catholics even knew what a demon was. [source]

h/t The Curt Jester (who wonders, given the preponderance of news article mentioning "Catholic guilt", whether or not it is listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.)

For another (more serious) take on the subject, see The Goodness of Guilt.

Little Cell in the City

Not coming to CBC anytime soon...

He is a 31-year-old Canadian-born Muslim who disavowed the mosque to fit in with his neighborhood friends, then rejected that life to practice traditional Islam. Later, he used his stature in the Muslim community to infiltrate a suspected terrorist cell, and then helped expose it — an act that alienated him from many in his own circles.

Shaikh's struggle with identity and loyalty is part of a larger conundrum confronting Western nations with edgy and diverse Islamic populations. He thought his ability to straddle worlds was the answer to quelling the homegrown terrorism that has stunned London, Madrid and now Toronto. But it has only raised more questions.

The suspected cell's plan, prosecutors said in June, was to explode three truck bombs in front of Toronto police and intelligence headquarters and Parliament Hill, then take politicians hostage and behead them one by one. The group of 18 had acquired 3 tons of what it thought was explosive material when police moved in, authorities say.

To some, Shaikh is a hero, acting to protect not only Canada but Islam. Others charge that he enabled the plotters instead of acting to stop them, betrayed his brethren and reinforced the image of Muslims as terrorists in this country where more than half a million practice Islam.

Now he faces death threats, which he doesn't take seriously, and glares and cold shoulders in the mosque, which he does. As preliminary hearings for the suspects begin, the anguished questions revive: Did he do all he could? Was it necessary? Will he survive it?

Read the rest here.

Fun-da-mental hypocrisy

You know the world's going to hell in a hand-basket when you're not sure if what you're reading is real, or a recent feature at The Onion. Case in point:

A radical rap singer who has been accused of glorifying terrorism has been invited to speak and perform in Oxford by the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford.

Aki Nawaz, of Fun-da-Mental, whose album All is War (The Benefits of G-had) has provoked calls for him to be arrested under anti-terrorism laws, is due to visit the city on Sunday.

HMV and Virgin record shops refuse to stock his music because of the controversy.

Dr Taj Hargey, chairman of Meco, said: "I think it's important for the people of Oxford to listen to alternative voices. We need to look at anti-establishment views to have a balanced perspective about issues regarding terrorism and the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

"Aki Nawaz definitely has something to say and will give us much food for thought.

...

"Music has always been used as a vehicle for people to express their political alienation. John Lennon and the Sex Pistols did it. Why should Aki Nawaz be singled out and not allowed to?

"That's why we have called the event Let Me Sing, Let Me Speak. They want to silence him, we want to hear him, and people have every right to disagree."

Dr Hargey, an Oxford University academic, who lives in Headington, is a campaigner for racial integration.

Songs by Fun-da-Mental that have caused controversy include Cookbook DIY, which has lyrics about how a suicide bomber makes his bomb. It also has a verse about how a White House scientist makes his bomb - equating the two.

Mr Nawaz, 43, a married father of four, who lives in London, says his music is designed to expose the hypocrisy and contradictions of conventional democracy and free speech. [source]

No, you are the hypocrite, Nawaz: while you gleefully scorn and heap abuse upon Western civilization, you continue to reap its benefits. Take a look in the mirror: there's your Parasite.

The mental fashions of the age

Mental snobbery might be defined as the uncritical acceptance of beliefs merely because they are modish, and it is undeniable that for every man whose disbelief in miracles or whose belief in evolution is the outcome of examining the evidence, there are a hundred whose views on these questions are determined by the mental fashions of the age in which they live. But perhaps snobbery is too harsh a word. Our lives are crowded, and a range of amusements unknown to our forefathers crowds out our leisure moments. We have very little time to read and still less time to think. It is simpler to take our views about these high matters from the experts, and since the so-called experts whose views reach the public through the medium of the popular press or the wireless are still under the influence of Victorian secularism, it is not surprising that Strube's "Little Man" should be losing the uncritical faith in Christianity which consoled his grandfather and acquiring in its place no less uncritical faith in the dogmas of scientists.

- Arnold Lunn
Within that City, 1936

*

Neofeminis Hystericus

'There is a vast difference between a feminist and a Neofeminist, just as there is a huge philosophical gulf between an old-style liberal and a Neoliberal. Like pornography, a Neo(New)feminist is difficult to define but you'll know one when you see one. She's the one wearing the 'CHRISTIANS ARE A__WIPES' T-shirt while screaming that you're judgmental. She's the one calling you a woman-hater yet she has a bumper sticker on her car that reads 'IF WE CAN SEND A MAN TO THE MOON, WHY CAN'T WE SEND THEM ALL THERE?' While she snivels about 'gender discrimination' and 'misogyny,' a Neofeminist refuses to use the word 'woman' because it is derived from the word 'man.' She uses instead the words 'wimmin,' 'wymyn,' or 'womyn.' Some Neofeminists despise men so much that they dehumanize them with such descriptions as 'pentapods.' Anyone who personally knows a Neofeminist realizes why she is so desperately unhappy and bitter. She is struggling pointlessly to become the very person she loathes so passionately: A man.

'For her there can be no rest or peace. Neofeminis Hystericus is a driven creature. It seems that much of the pointless and fruitless anger and unrest in this society is caused by women who want to be men (and, to be fair, men who want to be women). In summary, a Neofeminist is an illogical, emotional creature bursting with contradictions, double-standards, and demands, all of which cause an unbearable tension within her (or, occasionally, him).

'For a true feminist, injustice means that women and men are treated unequally. By contrast, the injustice for the Neofeminist is being a woman (in a world dominated by men).' [source]

A note on the word 'feminist': there are conservative women who identify themselves as feminists, 'equity feminists' to be precise. But there is a world of difference between them and neofeminists (also known as 'gender' or 'radical' feminists) as described above. See this article for more info.

"A willful act of collective delusion"

As Caroline Glick writes, what's the point of negotiations if there's nothing to talk about? Especially if this slavish adherence to jaw-jaw merely facilitates the enemy's ends:

Iran has an interesting take on international law. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, the UN Security Council's Chapter VII resolution from last December requiring Iran to cease all its uranium enrichment activities is illegal. As he put it Wednesday during a friendly visit in Turkey, "We were against [the resolution] for being illegal and politically motivated."

Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with international law should recognize that Mottaki's statement is not merely incorrect. His rejection of the legality of Security Council Resolution 1737 is an expression of contempt for the very foundations of the law of nations which have been almost universally adhered to since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

What comes across most clearly in Mottaki's statement is that little has changed in Iran since the Khomeini revolution in 1979 brought the current regime to power. Back then, in their first stab at international diplomacy, the mulla