Scio, Scio

A Foretaste of Fascism

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:17:56 -0700

Canada has been making a splash in conservative circles lately. The reason? They seem to be systematically destroying the right to freedom of expression up there.

First came the news of Mark Steyn, author of the book America Alone, of which I have blogged. An excerpt from this book was published in the Canadian magazine Maclean's some time ago, making essentially the same point as the book: that demographic trends in the West are pointing towards an imminent Muslim majority and the traditional European cultures may be forced to accomodate radical Muslims.

Wouldn't you know it, a Muslim group was offended by this.

So Steyn was hauled before what I can only classify as the corporeal embodiment of a liberal wet dream: a government sponsored Human Rights Tribunal. This body, while not possessing the actual faculties of a court of law, is authorized to arbitrate complaints of discrimination and "hate." With that authority comes the power to fine "offenders" and award damages to "victims."

Well, I'm not here to write about Muslim relations today, because these Canadians look to be setting up an attack on Christianity itself.

NEWS: Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
Catholic Exchange
Pete Vere
June 9, 2008
In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada's leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 "damages for pain and suffering" and apologize to the "human rights" activist who filed the complaint.

You'll forgive the obvious bias of the writer, as this is a Catholic publication. Let's continue:

The complaint stems from Canada's debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as "wicked" and stated that: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission -- a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision on May 30.

Interesting. That's pretty standard stuff here in America.

While agreeing that Boisson's letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals." Moreover, the tribunal's decision "prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future" about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada's religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government's human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as 'disparaging'.

Not criminal? Then why all the hubbub, bub? Why muzzle a religious figure?

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

Never mind the $5,000 he was ordered to pay, they are going to force him to apologize as well? So...

"Ed Stelmach's 'conservative' government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself?" Levant wrote on his blog. "Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian 'order' considered to be justice?"

"This is like a Third World jail-house confession -- where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt," Levant wrote. "We don't even 'order' murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors."

Welcome to the liberal end game. This is what they want, this is why divisions run so deep. A liberal used to be someone who challenged conventions without undermining the foundations of good government. Our Founding Fathers were all liberals of a sort. But today's liberal is more Mussolini than Madison.

In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible. The case against Pastor Boisson has been watched closely by practicing Catholics in the country, especially as news spreads about the current Canadian Human Rights Commission investigation into Fr. de Valk reported on in this space last Wednesday. The Basilian priest and publisher of Catholic Insight magazine stands accused of promoting "extreme hatred and contempt" against homosexuals for having publicly defended the Church's traditional definition of marriage. Some of the allegedly hateful statements are quotations from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. de Valk told Catholic Exchange.

Now, it's personal.

Although Catholic moral teaching is generally more nuanced in its criticism of homosexuality, evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants often appear to be used as test cases for the government commissions before targeting Catholics. Thus many Catholics fear the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will attempt to use the Boisson case to muzzle Fr. de Valk from expressing the Church's traditional moral teaching, delivering a further blow to religious liberty and freedom of conscience in Canada.

See, the real threat to these fascist dregs is a strong faith, grounded in reason. Evangelicals are, I'm sorry to say, all too often hampered by their own zeal. They emphasize the emotional relationship aspect of the faith, and allow that to color their interactions with a hostile world.

But here's the deal folks. They come after the Church, first. Then they come after the people who don't vote their way. Then they come after their own people. That's how it worked all through the 20th century, and it seems that Canada is continuing the trend..

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Bigotry and the Common Blog

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:43:50 -0700

I found this interesting article on National Review, and thought I'd share it. I enjoy the fact that Islam is still being preserved from criticism, even much deserved criticism. It seems that no progress has been made since the riots following the pope's call to reason at Regensburg.
Threaten enough people and I guess you get your way. Perhaps when Christians begin to cut off the heads of their detractors they will be afforded the same deference. I doubt that very much, for it often seems that anti-Christian sentiment is the last acceptable bigotry. Is it because we are "the Establishment" religion? Perhaps so. Europeans are increasingly godless and it has ever been the fashion of the American societal elite to ape Europe. Give him enough time, and the common man begins to ape the ape in a bid for the appearance of sophistication.
The other week I had the occasion to attempt a dialogue with another Voxer who had made it very clear that she didn't like my particular religion. She trotted out the usual litany of abuses committed by my Church over the years, but focused primarily on the sexual abuse scandal among the clergy. When I offered a counterpoint to her views, I was unfortunately met with "The Wall." That is, the "this is my personal view and I don't want to be criticized for it" wall. Now, I would hope that anyone who reads my piddling excuse for a blog would understand my frustration. Anything I post in public I understand to be open to criticism. Especially if I post something critical to another person's beliefs. Sometimes, I border on the insulting. I'd hate to be labeled a troll, but there is a point at which letting an accusation or a misconception stand is tantamount to agreement. So it seems I am constantly stepping on the toes of liberals, atheists, global warming nuts and even Protestants.
It's all quite frustrating, because at the end of the day the Internet just isn't real. The victories I might win are easily ignored. The points I make are suspect because the conversation begins with me as an intruder on a particular person's public space (which makes no sense to me...the Internet is hardly private). So what is the point of it all?
Well, I still believe that we can carry our principles with us even when we are completely anonymous. I feel that the anonymity allows us to engage in debate devoid of the usual obfuscations of personal pride and ego. Rhetorical tactics can still be used to great effect, but the debate can be essentially neutral without lacking substance.
What we say on the Internet actually is real and it matters. I still believe that relativism is the thing that will doom us to half-witted expressions of banal tolerance for even the worst sorts of offenses. And so I suppose I am going to continue feeling awkward and unpopular amongst my many anonymous Internet acquaintances.
Whose commentary, as always, I welcome.

The Evolution of Religious Bigotry

Courage without consequence.
By Jonah Goldberg
I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”
Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.
Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”
Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.
During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.
At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.
In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”
I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”
But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.
Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.
Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.
It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Holy Week is Nearly Done

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:07:43 -0700

March has been a slow month for my Vox. I haven't had much to say, and I still don't. But I have an article to share. It deals with the post-Christian element of our culture, and it makes me somewhat sad. Essentially, it made me question just how I've been treating this most holy of weeks. Do I act as a Christian should? Not always. I don't pray as much as I should, for one. I go to Mass every week, without fail, but I feel uninspired at times.
I'm planning a trip to Philadelphia to visit a community of friars. I enjoy the experience of regimented religious life. I come away from my visits to their community with a better understanding of my place in the world and how I should pursue my Faith. But I live in the world while striving not to be "of" the world. Is this possible? Absolutely. But it requires discipline that I sometimes fear I lack.
What troubles me most about this article is the sad truth of it. We live in a society that didn't even realize St. Patrick's Day fell during Holy Week, and so was actually moved. People who would otherwise choose to oppose Christianity's ideological enemies would not necessarily embrace Christian life, especially if it should mean giving up Green Beer Night. It's a phenomenon of cultural Christianity -- identifying oneself as Christian in the same way an American might call himself Irish despite a gulf of generations between him and Éire.
My family went to Disney World when I was sixteen. Stayed there for three or four days and went all over the park. On our first day there, I think we were in Epcot. Being sixteen, I decided I didn't want to hang out with my family all day. We separated, and you must remember that this was in the days before cell phones were commonplace. So I am alone until the park closes, wandering through a world of wonders and enchantment. Distractions galore, all prefabricated and striving for authenticity. An uncritical eye is pleased with the superficial effect, as I was.
But then came night, and the inevitable closing time which none can escape. And I found myself still alone, with not an idea where my family might be. I thought that perhaps we had agreed to meet at a certain point, but there was an obstacle between me and it.
Anyone who has been to Disney World at closing time might know that after the fireworks there is an orderly stampede towards the gates. Thousands of people moving in one direction, shoulder to shoulder. All nations, all races, all moving in one direction. Well, imagine a sixteen year old me, moving opposite. Surely, I reasoned, my family would be in this throng. And surely I would see them. So I made my way through the middle of the crowd, scanning for them and trying to remain visible. I made my way across a bridge, where things became very tight. Whole families locked arms, presenting a wall which impeded my progress tremendously. It took me 20 minutes to cross.
Have you ever gone against a crowd? It is not pleasant. I received literally hundreds of dirty looks, and several women loudly asked their husbands, "What is wrong with him?" while looking directly at me. Still, I had no choice but to continue seeking my family. And so I braved the crush of people, weaving as best I could but sometimes running into people headlong.
Then all at once I saw them. The whole bunch of my family, blessedly standing still at the agreed upon spot. Stressed and tired from the unpleasant experience of fighting thousands of people, I joined them and we made our way to the exit and back to the hotel, where I was allowed to order room service.
Sometimes the Faith feels like that for me. Here's the article:

Easter, Anyone?
A cultural soul diminished.
By Charlotte Allen
For many years on Good Friday I would drive across town to a late-afternoon religious service at the house of a Catholic religious order in my city, Washington, D.C. Then, as dusk fell after the two-hour liturgy, I would drive back across town to my home. Each time I would be shocked to realize that I was a member of a dwindling minority of people who regarded Good Friday as different from the other 51 Fridays in the year.
Different neighborhoods on my route home provided little variance in this trend; whether the genteel and expensive post-Christian enclave in Northwest Washington where I lived, or the mostly African American and presumably fervently biblical ward in which the religious order that hosted my Good Friday liturgy resided, the general atmosphere remained consistent. A line of blue-jeaned college students snaked outside the door of my neighborhood pickup bar, the Cactus Cantina, as it did every other Friday night. Cars cruised and horns honked, and clusters of young people on the prowl for weekend adventure crammed the sidewalks.
The working-class Latino neighborhood through which I drove, whose residents nominally shared my Catholic faith and for whom Viernes Santo is a solemn fast day commemorating Christ’s death, was unseasonably merry: roaring crowds on the sidewalks, glittering lights from the bars, beer bottles smashing periodically against the asphalt.
Each passing scene on my tour confirmed the cultural obliteration of Easter — that most sacred of Christian feasts — in a society whose members still define themselves overwhelmingly as Christians. The “war against Christmas” — the campaign to force everyone to say, “Happy Holiday!” and banish the crèche from public places — is still ongoing and met with considerable resistance, à la Mike Huckabee and his in-your-face December campaign ad reminding viewers that Dec. 25 celebrates the day Jesus was born. The war against Easter, by contrast, seems sadly over.
My latest issue of Fine Cooking magazine arrived the other day, featuring what would have been known in former times as an Easter dinner: roast lamb, asparagus soup, angel food cake. Here, it’s identified as a “spring” dinner, and the issue otherwise contains not a hint that some of its readers might wish to mark the spring by celebrating Jesus’ triumph over death. Not even a recipe for dyed eggs or baby chick-shaped cookies graces the pages of the magazine.
More ominously still, St. Patrick’s Day falls this year during Holy Week for the first time since 1940. The usual green-beer binges did not abate in honor of the solemnity of this week. The saint himself, famous for having brought the bonfires of the Easter Vigil to Ireland, may well turn over in his grave.
Millions of American Christians will nonetheless celebrate Easter this year with church and sunrise services, and family lunches and brunches. But these commemorations are nowadays generally private and muted. Most schools and workplaces drone on in routine without even acknowledging the holiday (except in Hawaii, whose Good Friday legal holiday somehow survived a constitutional challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union). The “Easter parades” of yore in which people strolled in their finery after church are much diminished, if they continue to exist at all. Even the famous White House Egg Roll on Easter Monday has turned at least in part into a political occasion for gay and lesbian parents.
Given the solemn nature of Easter, which celebrates not the happy birth of a child as does Christmas, but the awesome themes of suffering, death, atonement, and resurrection, it is always conceptually difficult to festoon the paschal season with the rounds of merrymaking that characterize the end of December.
Still, it is sad and disconcerting that the oldest and holiest of Christian festivals is simply ignored by the media (and almost everyone else), and that Christians have acquiesced to the near-disappearance of their highest feast day from public consciousness.
Though we may — like the soldiers who boozed and gambled at the foot of the cross as salvation unfolded before them — ignore the phenomenon of redemption, Easter is above all a feast of hope. And as Augustine of Hippo wrote, “We are an Easter people.”
— Charlotte Allen is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Brothers Hitchens

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:45:14 -0700

So here's an article. Notice the difference in eyebrow shapes. Methinks Christopher Hitchens waxes.

I think Christopher is right about Iraq, but Peter is right about Christopher and most of what he's writing about. And Peter seems to have a consistent opposition to violence even if he does fail to realize that our Muslim enemies care little for his views. That's where Christopher scores points about faith...radical Islam is a faith that needs to stop existing. But remove the Christian sensibilities from C. Hitchens' worldview and it becomes difficult to rationalize being a good person for its own sake. P. Hitchens and C. Hitchens should write themselves a book together in which they argue bitterly...I would read it.

Also, the article is a good example of how the terms "left" and "right" mean different things across the pond.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend