atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#2397: Which religion is actually the strong one?

Via the Anchoress there's this post titled "Homily for November 14, 2010: 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time."

Ms. Scalia blockquotes this chunk of text:
Exactly two weeks ago, late on a Sunday afternoon, a young woman named Raghada al-Wafi ran to her local church, with some wonderful news to share with the priest who had married her: she was going to have a baby. She asked the priest for a blessing.

He was happy to give it.

It ended up being one of the last acts of his life.

Moments later, the priest, Raghada and her unborn child were slaughtered. They were among the Catholic faithful killed by terrorists at a Baghdad cathedral – Our Lady of Salvation — on October 31st.


One week after the attack at Our Lady of Salvation, the people who worship there went back. But it wasn’t like before. And it wasn’t like just walking into this church today. They had to walk past police barricades and military trucks. They had to pass a security checkpoint and be frisked for weapons. But, incredibly, they went back. They had to. They walked into a sanctuary pock-marked by bullet holes, with bloodstains on the ceiling, bloody palm prints on the walls. They removed the pews. And they set out candles in the shape of a giant cross.

One of the parishioners put it so simply, and so beautifully. He said that he returned because the week before he hadn’t finished his prayers. I need to finish them, he said. A woman with a bandage around her knee told a reporter "We forgive them. We’re not afraid. They gave us blood and we give them forgiveness."
The emphasis is hers.

Muslims went into a Catholic church and shot up the place.

The Christians of that church forgive them.

Which religion is stronger? Which is more powerful?

You judge.

* * *

While you're at it, put another tick mark in the "violence and horror from the 'religion of peace'" column.

* * *

How often has this happened in US history? We're hearing rumors that Obama is actually not going to run for re-election in 2012; and some of those rumors seem credible. Some of them indicate that the Democrat leadership is telling Obama not to plan on being President past 2012; others imply that there's simply going to be a hell of a primary fight over the nomination.

Eh? "What about when Obama talked about being a one-term President?" That was pure BS; Obama was simply angling to have people beg him to run again. "Oh, no, you have to run again! Whatever would we do without you?" Ego fodder for the ego-in-chief.

But only the die-hard Democrat will agree that Obama has been a good President by any measure. Even in terms of advancing the left's agenda he's been a near-total failure. His base is up in arms over his refusal to promote "gay rights" and his uncritical continuation of Bush-era policies, all of which violated several campaign promises. Why do you think the GOP won so many seats in Congress? Part of it is that the Democrat voters stayed home. (The guys stuffing the ballot boxes had to work overtime, I hear, to make up for it.)

Obama's economic policies are straight out of the same playbook the Democrat party has used since 1930, and they have worked as well as they've always worked--which is to say "not at all"--and unlike during the Clinton years, this time the economy is not robust enough to power through the slump and the tax increases.

The big liberal feather in Obama's cap--ObamaCare--is a godawful monstrosity which itself is contributing to the continued economic malaise, just because it sucks so much money out of the economy. I've said it before: it represents the single largest tax increase ever, and if you think I'm wrong or delusional I've got some prime land in Florida I'd love to sell you. Businesses are wary of hiring because they don't know what ObamaCare is going to require of them; they only know that more employees will mean paying more money, not how much--and they won't know until the bureaucracy is in place. That doesn't begin to happen until 2013. The law is a mess, and it's full of contradictions, and no one can predict how the contradictions will be resolved before the bureaucracy which will administer the provisions is in place--and that bureaucracy's edicts will be law.

Obama himself--the "great orator" is helpless without a teleprompter. He's got no spine. He has no leadership ability. He's incapable of making a decision quickly; if Canada invaded Minnesota tomorrow, it'd take Obama a month to decide what to do about it; and then his administration's main role in the crisis would be to ensure that the military response to Canada's invasion was following OSHA and EPA regulations.

Small wonder the Democrats are thinking about replacing his sorry ass. But--

If the Democrat Party decides to give Obama the hidey-ho, what are the blacks going to do? Does anyone in the Democrat leadership really think they can get away with picking someone else to be their next Presidential nominee?

I can see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and all the other race pimps fanning out and saying, "It's okay! It's fine! Obama wants this! We're all in this together!" But will the blacks listen when their guy is being shoved to the back of the bus before being tossed overboard?

This would seem to suggest they can get away with it. But who the hell is Clyburn? He's certainly not a prominent national figure, for all that he's a Democrat bigwig. Obama is the President. The Democrats are not going to be able to hide this under the rug, not easily. Their friends in the press will help as best they can, but will that make a difference? Or will there be huge inner city riots in the wake of the Democrat National Convention in 2012?

Without major rehabilitation, either way, the Democrats lose. They want to keep Obama from running in 2012 because they're confident he can't win, a la Carter in 1980. But by the same token, if they replace Obama, they'll lose a good chunk of the black vote and probably still lose.

So expect Democrats to demagogue the "amnesty" issue over the next two years, because they need someone to vote for them; there aren't enough muslims in the US and hispanics will have to do, even though they rate somewhere below Jews in the victimocratic hierarchy of the Democrat Party. Quite literally "hispandering for the win!"

* * *

Also over at Ace: How do you know when a liberal is lying?" Watch the lips.

* * *

Mark Twain's autobiography--well, the first part--is coming out soon, 100 years after his death. That's neat.

* * *

Yesterday I played WoW for the first time in several days. Remmyton was partway to level 51, and before I was finished I got past level 52. I slammed all the quests in Searing Gorge, which is how I managed that little feat.

My main criterion for Remmyton's equipment is that it must increase agility, which is the hunter's prime stat. Agility improves hitting and damage with ranged weapons--exactly as one would expect from an RPG!--and that's why I've still got leather boots; I haven't found a pair of mail boots which have a better agility bonus. I need mail all over to get the "mail specialization" bonus, though.

* * *

Friday afternoon, my books arrived; and so I've been reading Lovely Complex and enjoying the hell out of it.

In fact, I'm going to go read more. Later.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment