Do the Writers at America Magazine Know They're Going to Hell?

Tweet

What, Me Worry?

Do they?

That's not a rhetorical question. Or rather, while if, so to speak, current trends continue there's a high probability that they are going to hell, I'm honestly interested in whether or not they are aware of that.

I'm not merely referring to the recent pro-gay marriage ruling piece, which presumably sums up the editorial view of the magazine. Though, admittedly that was the proximate cause for this post. But more generally I'm referencing their obstinate dissent, denial and opposition to Catholic doctrine and teaching expressed for so many years. In addition, of course, what makes their conduct even more hellish is their maniacal desire to spread their poison to others--dragging as many souls as possible with them.

Nor is this purely a claim about being wrong about Christian truths, or acting wrongly on them. There are many non-Catholics and non-Christians who do these things yet who will in fact be saved. This is because many of them are innocent of these Christian truths. That's perhaps not quite enough to be saved. But at least many of them haven't knowingly rejected Christ so far. They just haven't met Him yet. If they don't fall prey to the lies of America magazine and their like, perhaps they will.

Rather, the writers at America magazine have been exposed to the truth. Most of them took an oath to defend it (as priests or monks), yet they have broken that oath.

Christians often think it is unseemly to talk of these things. How can anyone know who is really going to hell? And we shouldn't presume. Nor should we judge.

But to simply throw up our hands and declare complete ignorance on the matter is to mock God and the Church. The Church is (fairly) clear on what constitutes mortal sin. And to the extent that there is a chance that those wallowing in it may repent, they (if no one else) deserve straight talk.

The current Pope thinks, or at least says he thinks, that Mafia members are going to hell (if they don't repent). Let's take his lead.

Do the writers at America magazine know they're going to hell?

Here are the possibilities:

1. They don't anymore believe in hell (or perhaps even in God). Therefore, they don't believe they're going there.
2. They think hell is the destination of fascist traditionalists who make a pharisaical show of taking communion on the tongue and think Jesus invented maniples. At the same time, heaven is for those who understand that Christianity is really about equality and having sympathetic feelings for illegal immigrants. Therefore they believe they're going to heaven, not hell. After all, they went to a pro-illegals rally just last week.
3. They know they're going to hell, at least subconsciously. But they just can't help going down the path they are on. Or so it seems to them. Earthly things, such as the accolades they receive from secular powers are just too attractive. They know it's wrong but they do it anyway. This obvious sign of their own selfishness coupled with weakness makes them bitter and perhaps even more spiteful and irrational. Thus, they have the demonic urge to take as many people as possible with them.

Some think the answer is 1.
I actually believe it is 3.

Or, rather, the writers at America magazine might have half-convinced themselves that it's 1.
But they know in their hearts it is 3.

As bad as that sounds, I think it's the charitable interpretation. Or at least the hopeful one. Their brains and hearts are not yet dead. They are still men, subject to the same human urges and temptations as all of us.

We can pray for them.

But we can also bear Christian and Catholic witness. What they need is to see that there are some people who can't, pardon me, be bought--that that isn't how it has to be, for anyone, including them.

There were only three disciples at the foot of the cross. All the rest denied Him, including Peter. But we know the rest of the story.

Mob of Cowardly Muslim Girly Men Beat a Taxi Passenger Half to Death

Tweet

If he was looking for chivalry, he didn't find it

In Muslim countries, there is always a mob at the ready. Indeed, mobbing appears to be a sort of trans-national pastime.

Burn tires, chant with raised fists, kick someone to death. Hey, it's all good.

Well, the rich beards have all the wives, the economy sucks and I'm not supposed to drink. What else is there to do?

I learned of this story from the always excellent and useful blog, The Muslim Issue. The text that follows is from two recent articles in the Moroccan World News.

Note, by the way, the second to last paragraph, highlighting the important role that the family plays in Muslim culture.

Fez (June 30) – A young gay man was reportedly beaten brutally and humiliated by an angry mob on Monday in the street on Hassan II in Fez. 

According to Alyoum24, dozens of angry men attacked the gay man and booed him after he got out of a taxi. He was later rescued by the police. 

The same source said that one of the police officers was forced to draw his gun on the angry people to disperse them. 

(July 2) The alleged gay man, whose identity has not yet been revealed, said that he had “survived certain death,” after being “beaten brutally and humiliated by an angry mob,” for no reason other than “a disagreement with a taxi driver over the price of the ride.” 

“I came out of the cafe, and got into a taxi, but the taxi driver refused to take me home for the usual price,” the man said on the video. “After our disagreement over the price, he snatched my two smart phones and my wallet, and then started to shout out ‘ay!’ in order to draw people’s attention and escape with my phones.” 

The man also said that the “aggressive” taxi driver tore his “Derraia” (a loose, sleeveless tunic worn by Moroccan men for prayers in hot weather), and snatched his necklace before an angry mob start to beat him and humiliate him. 

He said that he got into another taxi to escape the aggressive crowd, but they surrounded that taxi and blocked its path while yelling at him and filming the scene with their smartphones. 

“They didn’t have any right to attack and humiliate me while I was inside a taxi,” he said. 

“Instead of arresting the aggressors, the police arrested me and kept me locked up from 1 a.m until 12 p.m with no food. Why?” he asked. 

“I am demanding the right of asylum in a country where the law is respected,” he said, adding that he is undergoing a traumatic experience and frightening memories after his family “abandoned him” and “threatened to kill him.” as a result of this incident. 

The incident went viral on social media, and the Public Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance in Fez has reportedly opened an investigation into the matter, pledging to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Uncharitable Thursday: Surrender the Tween Togs, Caitlyn!

Tweet

Wait, didn't you used to play for the Jets?

Okay, so I'm not saying I would do any better. But then, I'm still a man.

From Kirsten Fleming in the July 1st New York Post:

Caitlyn Jenner needs a fashion intervention

...The newly minted Caitlyn has been doing a victory lap in New York since Sunday’s LGBT Pride March in a series of figure-flattering, age-appropriate frocks. On Tuesday, Jenner went shopping at Patricia Field’s Bowery store, where she continued her style showcase as she stepped into the “Sex and the City” stylist’s shop wearing a saucy leopard wrap dress from DVF. 

Unfortunately, she emerged looking like a deranged Carrie Bradshaw after a bad acid trip in the JCPenney juniors department... 

The 65-year-old Jenner showed off her long but past-their-prime gams in a stained-glass-panel sequined mini that could have been repurposed from Dorothy Zbornak’s favorite date-night dress. 

She paired it with a dark sequined top and neoprene zip-up jacket with exaggerated shoulders — the preferred silhouette of ex Kris Jenner. 

The crap de grace? A $32 printed, cartoonish “Princess” clutch. 

Can we blame Field for turning the AARP-aged reality star into a bad teenage dream? 

Perhaps Caitlyn is trying to make up for all of those years of dressing in Kohl’s couture — golf shirts and baggy khakis. Either way, it’s time to step back into the black wrap dress — and surrender the tween togs.

That Was No Gay Rainbow, It Was a Scam to Sell Dietary Supplements

Tweet

Nothing to see here. Move along now.

"It Was Not For the Supremacy That You Have Sought My Blood. But Because I Would Not Bend to the Marriage!"

Tweet

This is the final part of the trial scene for the 1966 film, A Man for All Seasons.

Paul Scofield plays Saint Thomas Moore.

He gave up everything, including his life, to defend the clear words of Christ...

...on divorce.

The indictment is grounded in an Act of Parliament which is directly repugnant to the law of God and His holy Church, the supreme government of which no temporal person may, by any law presume to take upon him. This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ Himself to Saint Peter and the bishops of Rome whilst He lived and was personally present here on Earth. It is therefore insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it.

Have mercy.

That speech strikes the contemporary Church like thunder.

The interesting thing about the film is that it was written by a non-Catholic and non-Christian.

Robert Bolt had been divorced three times.

Some believe Bolt rewrote the intensely Catholic Moore into a sort of free-speech liberal.

I think this is half-true. But Bolt himself was aware of the issue:

I am not a Catholic, nor even in the meaningful sense of the word a Christian. So, by what right do I appropriate a Christian saint to my purposes? 

What first attracted me was a person who could not be accused of any incapacity for life, who indeed seized life in great variety and almost greedy quantities, but who nevertheless found something within himself without which life was valueless, and when that was denied him, was able to grasp his death... 

So, St. Thomas More's deep religious convictions—the motive of his life and death—are too often minimized or even discounted as a kind of amiable eccentricity. 

Yet is it meaningless to write about a saint and leave out God.

Faithful Catholics think of the sixties as a turning point. By the mid-sixties the rot had already set in, and all that.

But what's notable is that in 1966 a thorough-going and principled Catholic could also be a sympathetic free-speech liberal.

A Man for All Seasons won six Academy Awards.

The film could not be made now. For that matter, at least two other films based on Bolt's screenplays--Lawrence of Arabia and The Mission--could not be made now.

Today, such a character as Moore, or Moore as written by Bolt, would be called a hater.

I do none harm. 

I say none harm. 

I think none harm. 

And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then, in good faith, I long not to live.

Yeah, sure. He was a hater.

Enjoy your rainbow.

BREAKING: ISIS Seizes Parts of Sinai City After Coordinated Attacks

Tweet

The nearby Rafah border crossing, a few miles from Israel and the Gaza strip

The War has come to Egypt.

A few hours ago we mentioned President Obama's support of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood and ISIS are separate and to some extent opposed entities, they in turn are both working to bring down the current Abdel Fattah el-Sisi government, and no doubt draw members from the same sources. The recent assassination of Egypt's top prosecutor could have been undertaken by either group. Given the Obama Administration's support for the Brotherhood and its lukewarm dealings with el-Sisi, it is arguably now de facto allied with ISIS in a rapidly expanding conflict.

From the International Business Times (1 July, 10:23 AM CST):

A series of coordinated attacks in Egypt’s northern Sinai city of Sheikh Zuweid has left up to 50 people dead amid growing concern over the Islamic State group's spread in North Africa, military and security officials said. The Sinai-based group, "State of Sinai," which has pledged allegiance to ISIS, took responsibility for the attacks on social media. 

The assault began Wednesday morning when militants launched a coordinated series of attacks against military checkpoints and posts and detonated suicide bombs. The militants cut off streets leading to the city's police station, bombed government posts and checkpoints and stationed themselves throughout the city, media reports said. The attack came just one day after Egypt’s president pledged to broaden his government’s crackdown on Islamic militant groups operating out of the peninsula. 

Egyptian military F-17 jets bombarded ISIS targets in the Sinai following the attacks, the Daily Star reported. A journalist based in Sinai, Mostafa Singer, told Daily News Egypt that the city was out of the control of Egyptian security forces, and ISIS released a statement announcing they had seized parts of Sheikh Zuweid, according to the Guardian. “We have total control of many sites, and have seized what was in them,” the statement read. 

A policeman denied that the city was under the group's control, a Twitter account with the handle @EgyptianStreets said, citing Daily News Egypt. He admitted, however, that ISIS had effectively laid siege to the city... 

In January, the same group responsible for Wednesday's assault was responsible for a series of attacks which resulted in more than 40 deaths. Similarly, in October 2014, the group launched an attack that led to 30 deaths. Sheikh Zuweid was a target in both assaults. 

The attacks highlight growing security concerns in Egypt, where Islamic militant attacks have surged following the military’s ousting of Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, amid widescale street protests against the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood president. Last month, Egypt’s court sentenced the former leader to death, a move the U.S. called “deeply troubling.” 

The sentence followed suit with thousands of mass death sentences and arrests which have been handed down against Islamic extremists and government opponents under President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, the country's former military chief who became its president last year and has established himself as hard-handed against terror. 

On Monday, the country’s top prosecutor was assassinated in the capital, Cairo, by unknown assailants, in an attack that may have been linked to anger over Morsi's death sentence. 

Israel has closed its border with Egypt amid security concerns, and the IDF said they were closely monitoring the border, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Ode to Obamalodon: A Case Study in Evolution

Tweet

Transitional Obamalodon with half-formed musculature  

(On the inspiration for the title, see here.)

Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage is well known and parts of it have been catalogued in a number of places. But I wanted to set out a comprehensive account for the record, including the most recent mutation from "it should be left up to the states" to "it shouldn't be left up to the states". The account is long and (for some may be) tedious, but such is often the case with these things. If you're quickly reading this post on your phone  and only have a few minutes before your date returns from her cigarette, here are the takeaways:

1. On gay marriage, most people know that Obama was against it before he was for it. But fewer know that he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. The technical name for this is "evolutionary reversal." Among evolutionary biologists it is a recognized, though somewhat uncommon phenomenon.
2. Many if not most politicians evolve on issues. Though, especially among Democrats the gay marriage issue has been a veritable laboratory in widespread and rapid evolutionary activity. However, Obama is notable, if not unique in repeatedly recognizing the evolutionary process as it was happening and indeed, in forecasting future evolutionary changes. Take a look at these gills, baby. I won't have them forever.
3. Many Obama opponents see the evolution thing as a dodge. His current views were always his real views. He was secretly hiding his views until the time was right to reveal them, etc. I do not see it this way (and no, I'm not kidding or joking around on this one). I fully believe that Obama was in favor of gay marriage, then was against it, then was for it. He was for leaving it up to the states, then he was against that. As to why his views changed or why, say, his particular view at one instance might have been this rather than that, those are separate questions. But I think Obama's views simply are...whatever they are at the time. That's how he thinks. That's what views are to him. Of course, I don't find this laudable or re-assuring. Rather, I find it, well, fascistic. In large part, Obama's views at any one time are whatever he thinks they should be to most effectively strive for, attain or hold on to power. Or, to put it another way, they are what he believes will serve him best at maximizing his own power over others. I didn't vote for him, by the way. How did you guess?
4. On this note, Obama may currently be in favor of gay marriage, but I believe if he thought it politically expedient, he would not only be against gay marriage (as he was when that was politically expedient) but would be in favor of criminalizing gay conduct and imposing harsh punishments on such. Off to the camps with them, if it came to that. What? You think that's unfair? Well, note that Obama is an intense supporter (to the point of ignoring all other considerations including traditional and obvious U.S. interests) of the Muslim Brotherhood--an outlawed hard-core Muslim group, whose stated aim is to impose full-blown Sharia law on the people of Egypt. Where is his liberal concern for gays (or anyone) in that case? (See the last two items, below).

Okay, so here goes. Gay marriage, Yes or No?

1996: Yes.
State Senate candidate questionnaire from Outlines--a Chicago gay newspaper:

I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.

1998: Maybe.
Similar questionnaire from Outlines:

Do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you co-sponsor such a bill? Undecided.

2004: No, but for strategic reasons.
Interview with Windy City Times:

I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ...What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

2004: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with WTTW Chicago public television:

What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. … We have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved. … I don’t think marriage is a civil right...but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions.

2006: No, but this may be because I am infected with society's prejudices.
From The Audacity of Hope:

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …[But] it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.

2007: No, though yes to civil unions.
Democratic Primary Debate sponsored by a gay rights group:

I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

2008: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with megachurch Pastor Rick Warren:

I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix...I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.

2008: No, though (not quoted here) yes to civil unions and no to federal intervention either way.
Interview with MTV:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

2010: No, but I may be evolving.
Interview with a group of liberal bloggers:

I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.

2011: No. Never. But he may be evolving.
White House Press Secretary Dan Pfeiffer to Net Roots Nation activists:

The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states.
David Corn of Mother Jones, quoting an Administration source:

[President Obama] has always said that it is a state issue, and he's not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment [against gay marriage], but he's not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states:
Interview on Good Morning America:

I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

2012: Yes, and if it is recognized in some states, that recognition cannot be denied by other states.
Same Interview:

Well, I — you know, my Justice Department has already — said that it is not gonna defend — the Defense Against Marriage Act [which attempted to block the decisions in some states from impacting the decisions of other states]; that we consider that a violation of [the] equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that — that move on the part of the Justice Department.

2012: Yes.
Same Interview:

At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

2015: Yes, and it should NOT be up to the states.

Rose Garden reaction to the Obergefell Supreme Court decision requiring states to recognize gay marriage:

And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,...When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. For all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we will ever be alone. That has always been our story. Today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we made our union a little more perfect.

2015: Yes, and rainbow.
The White House a few hours later:

Now, here's the Muslim angle.

2011-2015: No (and throw all the gays in jail).

The Obama Administration, to the anger and disdain of liberal Egyptians, supported the Muslim Brotherhood while it was on the path to turning Egypt into a full-blown authoritarian Islamic state. After the popular coup that ousted that organization and then outlawed it, the Administration has continued to express its support for the Brotherhood, holding meetings with key figures at the White House, among other things.

The stated aim of the Brotherhood has always been to create an Islamic state governed by Islamic Law or Sharia, a legal code that among other things, criminalizes and harshly punishes homosexual behavior. Though in initially gaining and attempting to consolidate political power, the Brotherhood was somewhat cagey on the explicit consequences of Sharia for gays as well as for other groups (mindful of Western opinion and the opinion of Egyptian "moderates"), here are a few hints of their views:

From an article on the 2011-12 elections, "Egypt Islamists 'use homophobia to win votes'":

The Muslim Brotherhood is "using homophobia and xenophobia to attract people's votes like they did before during the constitutional referendum and influenced people to vote 'yes'," according to Jennifer Josef from the international gay rights organisation ILGA. 

At a recent rally attended by about 25,000 people in Tanta, north of Cairo, Mohammed Badie, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood was reported to state that "it is not permissible for democracy to allow what is forbidden (haram) or forbid what is allowed (halal) even if the entire nation agreed to it." 

Mr Badie stressed that "the West has allowed gay marriage under the pretext of democracy, which we will never allow in Egypt..."

And here is a 2012 Foreign Policy Magazine interview with Dr. Mohammed Ghanem, the Brotherhood's spokesman in London:

FP: What is the Brotherhood’s position on gay rights? 

MG: We’ve never had a public issue on this particular problem. Most of the laws in Muslim countries consider it as illegal. Culturally, Muslims don’t like it. Legally speaking, I don’t think there have been any problematic cases. The people simply refuse it.