The magazine which they worked for was a pathetic rag run and staffed by anti-religionists who took no prisoners when it came to religion. Their attack on Our Blessed Lord, His Mother, the Pope is reprehensible, the difference is we don't read their garbage, we turn away in disgust or indifference and maybe we say a prayer.
The fundamental problem is that most people in Europe and the the rest of the West have turned against the Christ and have found another god. Europe has lost the ability to defend itself (and we are next) because it has forgotten its roots; we have forgotten who we are and where the truth is.
Islam is evil. Not all Muslims are evil. There are good Muslims but it is not because of Mahomet and the Koran it is in spite of it.
Until the Church and all of us proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified to everyone, including and especially these poor Muslims trapped in a lie, there will be no way out.
We must aggressively defend our lands from these evil men and at the same time, we must proclaim Christ.
4 comments:
Bull's eye! The French Revolution has bred the dung heap upon which Mohommedanism is feeding.
With your permission, I'll cut and paste something I just wrote on another blog. A commenter there wrote:
Western culture imposes such a choice upon believers: we are either apologists for blasphemy or apologists for murder. No matter how much we condemn the terrorist attack, until we also embrace the cartoonists’ blasphemies we will be condemned.
To which I replied:
If you’re correct that “western culture” imposes the choice (and I think you are), then so much the worse for western culture.
But if we step outside the Overton Window, other choices open up to us. Mohammedans are aliens to western culture with unassimilable beliefs and cultural expressions, apt to breed violence even unto the third or fourth generation, and are often net consumers of welfare-state largesse. There is no reason whatsoever to allow them into western societies in significant numbers.
In the absence of large Mohammedan populations prone to regular outbreaks of horrific “religious” violence (and countless examples of more quotidian antisocial behaviour), we would not have to make the choice you mention. In such a society, bans or social sanctions against blasphemy would not be craven capitulation to an alien and false religion under threat of violence (as we see in the left’s response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre), but an expression of respect and gratitude to the faith of our fathers.
The first step is to immediately end all Muslim immigration, apart from strictly temporary student or work visas. That measure alone would send a clear signal about the limits of our patience with Mohammedan savagery, but if that was found to be insufficient, we could follow up with anti-sharia laws, bans on mosque construction and the public practice of Islam, or in the extreme, paid deportation: “Here’s $20,000, go open a barbershop in Lahore.” But as long as we accept the presence of a large population of hostile barbarians in our midst, we will continue to suffer these outbreaks, followed by these sterile “celebrate blasphemy or celebrate murder” arguments.
Interesting that you stand on the Cross as the answer yet you defame your brothers and sisters who also stand on the Cross as the answer. "A house divided..."
Dear Thin Places,
This is the second time in the last few days that you've left a judgmental and hypocritical comment. Did you remember what you wrote last -- that you "look forward" to my judgment?
What kind of Christian are you?
If you don't like my writing that is your choice, may I suggest that you do what I would do with Charlie Hebdo --- pass on by rather than issue your snarly little drive-by's.
This blog is obviously becoming an occasion of sin for you, please move along.
Post a Comment