The Betrayal of God: Destruction from Within!

Today, 15th August - the Celebration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - departing Bishop Muskens of the provincial Diocese of Breda in the southern Netherlands - is shocking us with a proposal for non Muslims to use the name of 'Allah' for God.

I have to give the reader fair warning: this is an interesting story if you're into it, but there are no abbreviations or short-cuts here.

The cleric's proposal is an education on a number of levels. At first sight his proposal isn't a contribution to 'the multicultural society' or a shot at syncretism, but rather a further step in the mono-cultural and mono-religious direction - of Islam, that is: a proposal to voluntarily give up the single most essential principle of Western culture, our name of God and all what that entails, presumably in exchange for .... what?

On an intellectual level the proposal is a typical Postmodern one: truth does not exist, all cultures/beliefs are equally valid. This ridiculous Marxist lie gives birth to the further fallacy, that everything under God's sky that shares a generic term, is by consequence 'the same'.

We touched on that yesterday, when we educated the Dutch in relation to the new Robert Spencer book "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn't", that not all religions are 'the same'. Departing Bishop Muskens falls into the same trap with his proposal, which entails that Allah and God are fully synonymous and readily interchangeable.

Not being a theologian, it doesn't befit me to go into this very far, but obvious differences are that the Christian God is a threefold principle, who loves man, whom He created in His image, and - not without significance - is knowable, intelligible, which brings Natural Philosophy so far as to posit: the more Intelligible, the more Being.

Until Marxism taught us better by blessing us with minorities, this idea gave rise to the equality of all men - and by extension to human rights and democracy, to scientific enquiry (investigations into nature and the universe), and the idea - simply abhorred by Muslims and Postmoderns alike - that humanity progresses towards a teleological, predestined end game.

Allah on the other hand, is One and transcendental, flighty and chaotic, and is basically unknowable to us poor humans, who are His playthings, to dispose over as He sees fit.

An investigative short cut to Bishop Muskens relevant Wikipedia entry learns he didn't attend seminary. Well, it figures - also in relation to a number of things he has said in the past - he does seem to suffer from an intellectual lacuna which plays tricks on him at crucial times.

A few years ago the Red Bishop gave us the first shock, in admitting - in reference to wars and genocide - he has a problem with Christianity, stemming from the apparent existence of evil and injustice in the world. To him it doesn't follow that Goodness cannot even exist in the absence of Evil.

Catholic Scholasticism, which gave us Natural Philosophy (or Moral Law - Pope Benedict XVI is at present working on a popular re-introduction) is taught at seminaries, and teaches human voluntarism or free will, rendering such miseries not mischievous Acts of God, but simply the result of human action.

If men hadn't free will, how can we possibly come to any moral decisions? This lays the basis for the idea, that the only natural environment for man, is liberty. This being the reason why mentally and emotionally mature people prefer freedom over Statism and Collectivism.

Those ideas obviously aren't part of the Red Bishop's theological tool kit. The cleric has made a habit out of transmitting the wrong message. A few years back, at the time of an economic downturn, he came up with the morally deplorable missive that it is "okay for the poor to steal a loaf of bread".

That was probably not what he literally said - and apparently it is part of Catholic morality provided the choice is misappropriation or starvation - but in a rich country like the Netherlands where dying of hunger isn't an issue, his words in practice meant that it was acceptable to defraud the state, if that could get you a social security benefit.

So now we are faced with the Bishop's proposal of dhimmitude. Reactions to his words are mixed, but it figures that the chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council "has no problem with it" and that the difference between the two is "in the details"; I dare say that - seen from the perspective of a sterile religion, the scientific approach to Creation, liberty and human rights, might seem mere details - they are however the essential substance of Western existence!

That bastion of Marxist Catholicism, the peace movement Pax Christi, thinks the proposal is 'worth further deliberation in such polarizing times' (that's probably after they've gotten over the regret, they haven't thought of it themselves!).

The site of the Diocese of Breda goes into historical, linguistic and cultural detail [1] and it is of course very reassuring to read that 'Allah' has really very little to do with Muslims, Islam or the Koran, as this name of God already existed before the Islamic conquest. But that explanation begs the question, what then - for crying out loud - is the meaning of the proposal in the first place?

To placate the Copts and other 'oriental Christians' so that they don't take to the Arab streets, shouting Hell and Brimstone over some perceived grievances, while committing arson and murder in the process? What a load of BS!

The poison has been in the bloodstream for decades: after Red Catholicism and Liberation Theology, thank Heaven! we've got dhimmitude as a vehicle to destroy the Roman Church from within (see Chart II: the Subversion Program).

Red Bishop Muskens is about to join a monastery to spend the last days of his activist life growing giant cauliflowers, or brewing monastic ale, or perhaps playing a significant role in the production of traditional monastic cheese, but I dare say - for Catholicism his goodbye doesn't come a moment too soon. At least Pope Benedict XVI will have one relativist element less to deal with.

The clarification on the site of the Diocese of Breda concludes with the assertion that if Muslims and Christians address God with the same name, "this contributes to harmonious living together." I posit that quite the opposite is the case, and that it would be far better if - instead of proposals to merge - we would engage in actions of mutuality and respect.

Bees Pee Upon Them All!

Beliefs of Fear

Time for a few assorted news alerts with a commonality: the usefulness of fear!

Czech President and economist Vaclav Klaus today said that his new book "Blue, Not Green Planet" is to highlight the threatening and curtailing of freedom, which Klaus considers the key topic of the present era. The book is subtitled "What has been threatened: climate or freedom?". A good question.

If we follow the Roman advice: Cui Bono?, or the American: Follow the Money!, we arrive at the subsidized global fear industry that has sprung up over the last decades, and at governments that are thus able to firm their grip on people's freedoms by regulating and soft engineering; above all it provides an opportunity - and moreover, a ligitimated excuse - to 'broaden the fiscal base'.

Price tag: a personal contribution of 225 Euros per year will release you of your guilt "and can prevent the earth from warming two degrees by the year 2030", the U.N.'s I.C.P.P. has calculated! Total cost: 1700 billion Euros.

Perhaps it is this what Klaus has in mind. The book isn't available yet on Amazon. When it is, we'll let you know and add it to The Lighthouse Library.

It is astounding how environmentalism - whose animistic Gaia theory, which borders irrational earth-goddess worship - is abusing science to ridicule the skeptics: their taunting 'Flat, Not Round Earth' in this case, is reminiscent of the Darwinism versus creation myth dualism, when the unproven and highly unlikely theory of evolution is called into question.

If you don't buy into the Leftist politically correct epistemologies, you are an medieval ignoramus, that's the idea. Yet nothing is less scientific than elevating theories to sacrosanct dogma, as the medieval Scholastics knew, and some postmodern relativist theorists would be happy to point out!

Surely this must be another one of the Sanity Squad's infamous psychological projections! There's nothing like fear and guilt for a prime mover!

On an entirely other topic, I woke up this morning with the Algerian genocide in mind, which occurred during the nineties of the last century. The 150,000 martyrs to Islamism appear to be all but forgotten. The inhabitants of entire villages had their throats scimitared, after the Algerian government made the mistake of allowing an undemocratic Islamist party (FIS) to participate in democratic elections. When they appeared to be winning, the elections were cancelled in the certainty that democracy would be abolished were the FIS come to power. This sparked a whole series of blood baths that lasted for years.

According to this BBC article the period is characterized as a 'civil war', and apparently the security forces had a hand in it. Not mentioned are the Jihadis of the FIS and other Islamist groups. The reason for this is likely to be found in the BBC's approach towards journalism, by which unequal groups are compensated in proportion to their inequality vis a vis the official government, which in this case means they don't get any attention drawn to their unspeakable sins.

But today Algeria goes to the polls. Let's hope they make it a good one! In the West - especially in Europe - we tend to forget that democracy and freedom aren't free!

Post-modernism's fallacies (II)

In the first instalment of this post we looked at fallacies 1 to 5. This morning I could add a tenth problem to the list, placed conveniently on 7., sandwiched between how a person's political affinity differs from wet bathing water on 6., and on 8. the intricacies of the French Revolution.

At this stage it may be practical to remind ourselves of the definition of relativism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

"Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true. Critics of relativism typically dismiss such
views as incoherent since they imply the validity even of the view that relativism is false. They also charge that such views are pernicious since they undermine the enterprise of trying to improve our ways of thinking"

... to which I have nothing to add. Back to my list of post-modern problems. Not all, but most of them can be directly attributed to the relativist world view and we will see indeed how pernicious and pervasive the consequences are.

6. Fact is not opinion.
It is a fact that the table is made of wood. In my opinion a red table cloth would be nice.
- You can discuss the choice of a table cloth with your neighbour, who may think a blue one would be better - and go in the end for a green one.
- The fact that it is a wooden table, cannot be changed however long the matter is debated. It is not open to interpretation; it is a fact of life and the law of nature. This may seem obvious, but it is sadly a commonly made mistake.

7. The truth about the Questionable Cause, or Causality, or the Law of Cause and Effect
Having for some time witnessed how some people are struggling with cause and effect, I was not particularly surprised this morning, to find there is a relationship with post-modern thinking. Without going deep into the basics of Aristotle's work "Metaphysics", it can be said that up to modern times causality was a law of nature and moreover, plain common sense. It was also the basis for St Thomas' proof of God's existence: matter unable to create matter, giving rise to the First Cause, a.k.a. God.
Since this state of affairs couldn't stand for the New Man, a number of philosophers and scientists have posed views to the effect that the universe is but an accident, a random chain of events (determinism) and there is no such principle as a free will (incompatibilism). The principle of free will is also often forgotten by Christians, struggling as they do with wars and holocausts that they forget are committed by humans at free will.
Nietzsche's philosophy on the meaningless universe and existentialism did the rest for a cynic world view, that is ruled by boredom and trivia.

Since ideas have consequences, with the corresponding abolition of the time-line in education (boring) and teaching instead centered around themes (fun!), it becomes apparent that some people started developing problems with Law of Cause and Effect: the understanding that cause happens prior to the effect and the effect being a reaction to the cause.
You cannot really explain without getting seriously pedantic, that when a book is on the table, and next it is on the floor, any normal, reasonable person would assume that the book has fallen off the table, on the floor. In grown up current affairs' terms, for example: the events in New York on the 11th of September 2001 (Cause) happened prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Effect), not the other way around.

8. Equality means, equal before the law.
During the French revolution the people called for "Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité", Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood (Solidarity). By Equality they meant, equal before the law, so as to put an end to the commonly practiced, nasty habit of class justice whereby there was one law for the people, and another for the aristocracy.

Lately we have the tendency to take equality to mean "the same" or "identical", and often not used in a legal context either. That you are not the same person as your neighbor may be self-evident and only clones are (more or less) identical. It would therefore be better to speak of equivalance when we mean to say that somebody shouldn't be giving himself any needless airs.
Even if we are all equal before the law, judges will still have to be careful and interpret the law from a legal language into a human one, taking for example human dignity and fairness into consideration. Only in totalitarian regimes is the law considered above the people. In democratic countries the law serves the people and not the other way around.

To be continued.

Today I started posting news items for Blogger News Network (BNN)

Today I started posting news items at BNN, being the Blogger News Network (not BNN of Dutch disrepute) under call sign trojan0505. I debuted with Saddam's second trial, which seemed a worthy cause for the occasion.
The marines are no longer angry at me (cheers!).
I've been half the day off line due to Greek technology still being wonky (perhaps those infamous copper cables again), which I must admit feels strangely cut off from the rest of humanity. Winter has finally arrived in Greece, just before Christmas. Not nearly as bad as the U.K. though, which is reporting fog (once again poor continent cut off!) and Colorado has vast masses of snow to celebrate a white Christmas in style; but apparently it's not nearly as pleasant as you might think when you're snowed in and nowhere to go. This may still happen in Greece too - well, it happened last year anyway - there's no saying. So much for the trivialities (my cousin, who's doing some artwork for the Ad Swap for me (?), is going to love this item).

In between I prepared a piece about higher matters. Seemed atmospheric for Christmas:

Astronomers of Nasa's Spitzer Space Telescope have looked at the first stars that formed after the big bang. They aren't anything like stars known today, nor anything else for that matter. Some are a thousand times larger than our sun and very, very bright. Actually, they may not be stars at all, but early black holes, inhaling gas and exhaling radiation, thus forming the earliest galaxies. The objects are 13 billion light-years away, the time when the events took place, and are clustered in mini-galaxies. Cosmic figures are beyond human imagination ...

Which reminds me of an article on the site of Discovery Institute, "Priest of the Cosmos", a review by Messrs Gonzalez and Richards of the book "The Day without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology". The book touches on the life and work of Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaitre.

It also recalls the sad way in which religion by today's secularists is set apart as lacking in reason and scientific thinking, as if there never were Scholastics and natural philosophy for instance. The book by Thomas Woods "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization", on which I did a review on these pages only few months ago, reminds us of the accomplishments of the Catholic Church in this respect and how much we owe Catholicism. The example of Galilei is often brought forward as a prime example how the church suppressed the advance of science, but it is never explained this trial happened in the first place because Galilei couldn't prove what he said. If that isn't pretty scientific thinking, I don't know what is.

How'zat for psychology?

How should one form one's opinion? I'd refer to my post on how the Scholastics did that in the Middle Ages (so dark!), but because you are a lazy lot (don't take it personally: it's a fine human characteristic which keeps us out of some troubles at times (but alas into others as well), but here's the gist again: 1. pose (formulate) the question, 2. list the arguments from both sides (for and against), 3. weigh both sides for the outcome, 4. are there any possible objections to the outcome which must taken into consideration (or maybe re-think steps 2. and 3.).
So here's how people of Reason do it. But most of us, being (increasingly) unreasonable, sit for the box at night and let things "come over us", as it were. Seeing for example bleeding, crying children and hysterical women we conclude something terrible must have been done to them. We just made an opinion. We skipped however steps 1., 2. and 3. We reacted spontaneously, on basis of the emotions of seeing those women and children. We didn't formulate the question (what is going on here?) and we didn't list or weigh the arguments; it could for example very well be that they were indeed a bunch (or is it a flock) of angels, OR that a day earlier they did the same to another group of people, OR they stoned an innocent woman to death who had the misfortune of having dishonoured her family by getting raped by the Dutch uncle, OR they even might have been plotting to throw a bomb on YOU. Now that would make a difference, wouldn't it?
Let's face it, most of us form our opinions in the latter way and pick up a few arguments here and there when we have to defend our position in the unlikely event we meet someone with an opinion of his own. Let's try do it more like St. Thomas in future, and the world will become a better place. Trust me ...

On quite another note (I'll not even try to pretend there is a bridge), here's for the interior decorators amongst us (twins, pay attention!): aware of the organization 1stdibs.com? They carry a line of lovely antiques which is sold over the Internet, but they do have physical locations allover: Paris, New York, Miami, etc. There's a free monthly (?) newsletter available to keep you updated. Here's the link: http://www.1stdibs.com/search.php

Don't want to let you go without the flour of this morning's news items:
- Cleric 'meat' remarks spark fury ... Gist: if you're not wearing a bag over your head, you're asking for it!): http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/26/australia.cleric.ap/index.html

I told you (or didn't I) that the world is in reverse! But in the midst of all that, there are also sparks of hope, of people swimming against the tide of political correctness, that bane of our time (just after relativism, which is an absolute curse):
- Argentine prosecutors: Arrest former Iranian president: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/25/argentina.iran.ap/index.html