Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Hillary Clinton Admires A Racist

(California Catholic Daily) - According to the State Department’s transcript of Clinton’s remark, the secretary of state said, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision… when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Now, for some quotes by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood...
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people.

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On abortion in general:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

source
As a footnote, Hillary Clinton made a pilgrimage to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City just the day before making the comments about Sanger. She offered some white flowers on behalf of the American people, and in regards to the miraculous image that mystically appeared on the tilma of Juan Diego nearly 500 years ago, she asked the basilica’s rector "Who painted it?"  No joke.  The American Secretary of State actually asked that question concerning the most important religious artifact in North American history. 

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Notre Dame Obamanation

Dear Father Jenkins:

It has come to our attention that the University of Notre Dame will honor President Barack Obama as its commencement speaker on May 17.

It is an outrage and a scandal that “Our Lady’s University,” one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage.

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.

Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

This honor is clearly a direct violation of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 mandate in “Catholics in Political Life”: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

We prayerfully implore you to halt this travesty immediately. We do so with the hope that Catholics nationwide will likewise call on you to uphold the sacred mission of your Catholic university. May God grant you the courage and wisdom to do what is right.

Sincerely,

More than 170,000 signers to date.
SIGN THE PETITION HERE

The Pope Opposes Obama

(The Catholic Thing) - A few days ago Archbishop Burke gave an interview to the San Diego-based organization Catholic Action for Faith and Family, during which he took the gloves off about Sebelius, who has been nominated to head the massive U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He noted her “public association with some of the more notorious agents of the culture of death.” This, of course, was a reference to her hosting a party for the late-term abortionist George Tiller, currently on trial in Kansas for nineteen infractions of abortion restrictions.

Burke commented on her fitness for office, saying that for Sebelius to be “placed in charge of the federal office with responsibilities for health and human services” is “sad for our nation” and a “source of great embarrassment.”

He also spoke about her relationship to the Church, and pointed out that Sebelius’s bishop in Kansas had properly instructed her about the dangerous ground she treads. Archbishop Joseph Naumann offered her pastoral counseling on the teachings of the Church related to abortion and urged her to accept them. She declined. Only then did Naumann instruct her not to approach the altar rail for Communion. Burke said this fulfilled “one of the most solemn duties as a pastor, namely, the care of the Most Blessed Sacrament and of the worthy reception of Communion.”

Burke closed the interview by issuing a challenge to his brother bishops, most notably Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C.: “Every bishop is held to the same universal discipline which has been in force since the time of St. Paul the Apostle and is stated in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.” And then this: “Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese [italics mine], she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin.”

You can see why the Obama administration might get upset about this. They played footsie with pet Catholics of left and right last year and thought they had this kind of problem covered, since some of them have already offered cover for Sebelius. Two groups created to offer such services, Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance, started a petition drive saying Sebelius was really pro-life.

And now there is word that someone who is well known among Republicans, and who has served in previous Republican administrations, is reaching out on behalf of the Obama administration to get the Holy See to quiet Burke, or at least to make it clear he speaks not for the Church, but only for himself....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I don't know how to put this subtly, and any kindergartner could point it out if the evidence were presented to him. The pope opposes President Obama's administration on so many levels. What the Obama administration doesn't understand is that Archbishop Burke is practically acting as a mouthpiece for Pope Benedict XVI. Burke is to Benedict, what Ratzinger was to John Paul II - God's rottweiler! At least he is as far as the United States goes, and perhaps western Europe as well. You see as an American, Burke has some insight into American politics and the problems that plague U.S. Catholicism. He's made it very clear over and over again, that the bishops MUST deny communion to pro-abort Catholic politicians, and don't think for one second that this isn't coming with the approval of the pope. There can be no reasonable doubt that Pope Benedict XVI is a fierce opponent of President Barack Obama and his entire administration.

Obama has sought to draw cover from the Vatican onslaught by appointing as many pro-abort Catholic politicians to the Whitehouse as possible. There is no question Obama is anti-Catholic, but his anti-Catholicism is subtle. Obama doesn't oppose Catholics just because they identify themselves as Catholics, but rather, he opposes them when they start acting like Catholics. In other words, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic. So long as a Catholic politician opposes Church teaching on human life and traditional marriage, that politician will always have a friend in the Obama administration. However, just as soon as a Catholic politician starts backing the teachings of the Church on life and family, the Obama administration immediately pushes that politician to the sideline. The Obama administration's opposition to Catholicism however, is not limited to members of the Catholic Church. It is well known the Catholic Church leads the pro-life movement in the United States, and because of this, any other pro-life Christians (regardless of denomination) will also find themselves marginalized by the Obama administration.

Not since Pope John Paul II's struggle with the communists in Poland has there been such an adversarial relationship between a reigning pontiff and a head of state. It is a moral and philosophical battle that cuts down to the very core of human nature and the role of government. The pope seeks to preserve human life in the womb, the president seeks to destroy it. The pope seeks to promote the culture of life internationally, the president seeks to export abortion-on-demand around the developing world. The pope seeks to preserve the traditional family, the president seeks to extend marital rights to gay couples. the pope seeks to promote worldwide fiscal responsibility, the president seeks to promote out-of-control government spending worldwide, starting with the United States. The pope seeks a truly just international order based on subsidiarity, the president seeks to consolidate power in the Whitehouse and create a massive central government. The two could not be more polar opposites. There is virtually nothing they have in common.

Those who long for the days of John Paul II have forgotten history. Pope John Paul II played the exact same game as Benedict XVI, its just that his focus of it was in Eastern Europe. Americans didn't get a chance to see the warrior side of John Paul II, but Eastern Europeans did. He played the game of "good cop - bad cop" with the communists. Back then it was John Paul II who played the role of the good cop while the "infamous and sinister" (sic) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger played the bad cop. Together with one mind they orchestrated the internal demise of communism in Eastern Europe. Now it's Ratzinger's turn to play the good cop as Pope Benedict XVI, while Burke is put out as today's front man to play the role of the bad cop. This time however, it is not the Soviet Union the Vatican is tinkering with. This time it's the United States of America, and for the first time Westerners are getting a chance to see the warrior papacy in action. What the Obama administration doesn't realize (or doesn't want to see) is that they've just been put into a political game the Vatican has been playing for longer than the United States has even existed. The Whitehouse has taken the bait. Archbishop Burke (a.k.a. "bad cop") is now the target of Obama's frustration, and so the plea is made for the pope to pull back on Burke's leash. Don't expect the Vatican to comply however, without some reciprocity. There is always a little give and take in these games. If the Whitehouse is going to get what it wants, even for a short time, it's going to have to give up something. It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

If the Whitehouse refuses to cooperate with the Vatican's demand for reciprocity, we can expect Burke to ratchet up the rhetoric quite a bit. Of course the pope is behind this. Nothing Burke says hasn't already been privately discussed with the pope. The two are of the same mind. If the Whitehouse complies with the Vatican's demand for reciprocity, Burke will tone it down (but not disappear from view completely). However, even if the Whitehouse complies, the restructuring of the American Church will take place anyway, right under the president's nose, reorganized by the pope for the purpose of fighting this administration (and Democrat controlled Congress) from the inside. It's a lose-lose situation for the Whitehouse. The only way to battle this kind of warfare is to engage in outright persecution against the Catholic Church, and that itself will backfire as well. No, there is only one way to beat the warrior pope, and that is to join him, and make an ally of him. This is something Obama and the Democrartic Party will never do. Make no mistake about it, the Vatican has begun an undeclared war on the Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi's Congress, and the whole Democratic Party.  Grab some popcorn and have a seat.  Things are about to get interesting.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Pope's Communion Crusade


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The pope has made it clear. The Vatican has made it clear. It is the SACRED RIGHT of every Catholic to KNEEL for communion and receive on the tongue. Nobody can lawfully stop you. No priest, no bishop, no nun, no monk, no liturgy director, NOBODY can deny you this sacred right. Oh sure, some may try to "counsel" you against receiving communion this way, and in fact, the USCCB has even authorized such "counseling." In spite of this, however, the Vatican has prohibited them from stopping you, and they are going against the Holy Father (the pope) by "counseling" you against kneeling. In fact, the Holy Father has made it clear, along with Cardinal Arinze (Prefect of the Congregation for Worship) that you should kneel, and he would prefer you do. Currently, everyone receiving communion from the hand of the pope kneels while doing so. This will be the case for the remainder of his papacy, and will probably be continued on thereafter indefinitely. The Holy Father would prefer that we all do the same. So if we are to be obedient to the will of the pope, we must oppose the will of Liberal Modernists within the U.S. Catholic Church, and kneel for communion.

Here is how to do it in a easy way. If the chapel is not set up for kneeling, simply go to the back of the communion line. The idea here being to let everyone else go first, so you don't trip up the person behind you. Make sure you're in an isle that leads to a priest, and not an extraordinary Eucharistic minister. Then when you reach the priest, kneel down on both knees, open your mouth, tilt your head back, and close your eyes. After the priest places the Eucharist on your tongue, close your mouth and say "Amen." Cross yourself as you're getting up and return to the pew.

The reason why you close your eyes is to avoid looking at the priest. That way if he gives you a gesture to "get up," you'll never see it, and it simply becomes easier for him to give you the sacrament than to lean over and tell you to stand. This works well to avoid any confrontation. Should anyone seek to "counsel" you about it after mass, simply smile and thank them for caring about you. Then come back the following Sunday, and promptly do the same thing all over again, in obedience to the Holy Father and in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If somebody tries to "counsel" you again, simply smile and thank them for caring about you again, and come back the next Sunday to do the same thing. Eventually they'll stop "counseling" you.

Monday, March 23, 2009

"Hitler's Youth" Comes To America?


THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It has begun! The U.S. House of Representatives just passed HR 1388 "The GIVE Act" which authorizes the creation of a "voluntary" youth corp, promoted in the public schools across America, in which children will receive official government uniforms and be sent to "camps" where they will learn the basics of social service to the state. The legislation was passed by the House on March 18, 2009. This is Phase 1 of the plan. The legislation will now be passed on to the Senate, where it is expected to receive wide support before it is signed into law by President Obama.

The bill also authorizes an investigation as to how the program might be made MANDATORY for ALL YOUTHS IN AMERICA at some future date. That will be Phase 2. No word yet on when that will come about. Finally, the bill addresses the further study of an axillary program for adults, which will also be mandatory for a certain number of weeks out of the year. This will be phase 3.

Democrats in Congress applaud the legislation as a measure mapping out a national mandate for all citizens to participate in the fine American tradition of volunteerism. Few seem to be concerned that mandatory "volunteer" labor was actually called by another name during the early to middle 1800s, and supposedly prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. No word yet on how Congress plans to get around that little problem, but we can rest assured their constitutional lawyers are hard at work trying to make it happen.

The problem with this legislation is threefold. First and foremost, it threatens to kill the very thing it claims to promote. Volunteerism is only volunteerism when people participate voluntarily. The moment you make participation mandatory, it is no longer volunteerism. It's sort of like reinstating a military draft and calling it a "volunteer army." It's also a lot like our supposedly "voluntary" income tax system in the United States. The IRS likes to boast about how so many Americans voluntarily submit their tax returns and pay their income taxes every year, but then we all know what happens to those who don't. Yes, volunteerism is a fine American tradition, but Congress by proposing to make it mandatory, threatens to end it all with the stroke of a pen. If Phase 2 and 3 are ever implemented, it will actually spell the end of American volunteerism.

The second problem with this legislation is the nature of the program itself. We must ask ourselves what business the state has in recruiting children for social service work. The comparison is sometimes made to "Hitler's Youth," which was formed in 1920s Germany and remained active until the end of World War II. On the one hand, the comparison is unfair, because as far as we know, the youth corp this legislation creates does not have a racist component. As far as we know, it does not have a military component either, even though one could be added very easily. On the other hand, the comparison is perfectly legitimate because the basic underlying concept is similar. Children are being recruited to serve the state. They will be wearing state uniforms, and going to state run training camps, where they will undoubtedly learn state sponsored indoctrination. That indoctrination may not include the racial darwinism that was characteristic to Hitler's Youth, but it is state sponsored indoctrination nonetheless. That means whatever form this indoctrination takes, it's going to be very pro-government, and may quite possibly be designed to cast suspicion upon anybody who doesn't share the same pro-government views. Jews and Gypsies probably won't be the targets of such suspicion, but social and fiscal conservatives probably will be. That would especially include practicing Catholics and Evangelicals (of course devout and practicing Jews might fall into this category as well). It is likely that indoctrination will be done quietly and subtly at first, so as not to alarm the general public. As time passes however, the indoctrination will slowly become more bold and abrasive. We can rest assured this will happen because of the very nature of government itself. Remember, government programs have a tendency for self-preservation, and those who are involved in them often take a very pro-government political position. So it's only reasonable to assume the youth corp will follow the same pattern.

The third and final problem with this legislation is that Barack Obama himself is the inspiration for it, and based on the campaign speech he gave in July of 2008 (featured above), he made it very clear that a military component is eventually planned for this mandatory "volunteer" security force. How will this manifest? We don't know exactly, but if the American Youth Corp follows the Hitler model; children will be made physically fit, and competitively train in exercises similar to army boot camp, minus combat and weapons training. That is reserved for the adult version of the program.

The only way it could be stopped is if the Senate votes it down. That is not likely to happen. So the time has now come for parents to do some serious reflection. This youth corp is just weeks away from being created. By early to middle 2010, parents may start to see some of their children's school friends going to meet the school bus fully uniformed. Chances are these kids will be indoctrinated with a very pro-government point of view, and might start to hold a suspicion of anyone who thinks contrary, particularly religious conservatives. It is very probable, parents will also begin to notice their own children being pressured to join this program, especially if they attend public school. That alone will be disturbing enough, even if phases 2 and 3 are never implemented.

UPDATE 3-26-2009: The Senate just passed the bill. Obama WILL sign it! It's his idea. So it's as good as LAW now. Phase 1 has just been implemented.

Russian Orthodox Support Pope Over Condom Controversy

(Zenit) - The Russian Orthodox Church is supporting Benedict XVI's position that condoms are not an acceptable solution to AIDS.

A message on the French official Web site of the Church stated, "The Patriarchate of Moscow is in solidarity with Pope Benedict XVI's position on the means in the fight against AIDS, and on the fact that condoms cannot be considered as a remedy against this sickness."

This statement came as a response to the Pope's words to journalists on his flight to Africa, in which he affirmed: "This problem of AIDS cannot be overcome only with publicity slogans.

"If there is not the soul, if the Africans are not helped, the scourge cannot be resolved with the distribution of condoms: on the contrary, there is a risk of increasing the problem."...

read full story here

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Harvard Agrees With Pope - Liberals Wrong About Condoms

(NRO) - “The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So the pope turns out to be right all along. The use of condoms does not prevent AIDS/HIV. Harvard scholars agree with Benedict XVI. Liberals are wrong, and all they can do is put their lack of scientific understanding on display for all the world to see. Meanwhile the enjoy attacking the pope - for being right - as they plot their next crucifixion scenario for the Holy Father.

The Flat Earth Society



20th March 2009


If you thought everyone knew that the world was a sphere, you were wrong, or rather, not everyone is convinced. The Flat Earth Society is a group of people who believe the earth to be flat – quite a self-explanatory name, I know, but as some of you may not believe it, I insist. It’s an absolutely serious organisation, and in my experience of them, a group of absolutely serious people.


I will not go into whether they are right or wrong, though feel free to do that yourself, just into what they actually think and how they make sense of such a world, which is what truly interested me in the beginning, and still does now. Many questions arise when you start thinking about our earth as a flat one, and I don’t even know where to start with those.


What of space photos? Flat earthers, as they are known, think that Nasa is simply lying to us. If you have inquired about Nasa a little or poked around the supposedly moon landing hoax and the likes, you might very easily believe that Nasa is indeed filled with liars – but that’s an entirely different subject. Flat earthers do not accept space photographs as valid evidence of the earth being a sphere because any photograph from space was taken under their control, and nobody can go to space and take pictures on their own.


Another thing you will love to know is that flat earthers don’t believe in gravity. Although, some do, but all agree that the earth itself doesn’t cause gravity, while other celestial bodies do. The argument is that other planets are round, as we can see from down here, but our own mother earth isn’t, and doesn’t have to be. This wouldn’t be the first singularity of our home planet: the tectonic plates are another one that isn’t shared by most planets, if I’m not mistaken.


So if there is no gravity, how do we stick to the ground? Simple. The earth is moving upwards. Not only is it moving, it’s also accelerating exponentially. If it was merely moving upwards, we’d be flying at the slightest jump. What makes the flat earth accelerates upwards like this? They don’t know. I think they call it “dark energy”. To be fair, and for all I know, even today we can’t quite explain how gravity actually functions.



I questioned them on many problems I had with their model. For instance, if the earth is continually accelerating upwards, wouldn’t that mean that eventually we would be moving at the speed of light? No, I was told. Answers differed from a flat earther to another. Some said the earth would eventually slow down, which, I guess, means we will one day just fly away and get lost into space, or something. What I love about all this is how it makes your mind work out on figuring stuff out with new parameters. For instance, moving at the speed of light, you would be unable to see anything directly below 90°, because the light rays wouldn’t be able to catch up with you! [Upon further reflection, I think you would see absolutely nothing unless you were looking upwards, since even light coming from the side would not have time to reach your eyes, or maybe you'd see things in front of you that in reality are much higher in space; the light from them, going horizontally would hit you in the eye as you move up. This is hard to explain, I hope you can figure it out.] In theory, nothing can top the speed of light, so I assume we would float away at this point.


So what does the earth look like for a flat earther? And how do they explain circumnavigation (sailing around the world)? I want you to visualise the UN’s flag now. That’s how they see the earth. Here’s an image so you get a better idea.



The North Pole is at the center of our world, and the South Pole does not exist as a pole. Indeed, Antarctica is not a continent, but a gigantic wall of ice surrounding our world. This explains why sailors felt like they were going around the world, and whenever they went South, they reached “Antarctica”, or that giant Ice Wall, for the magnetic poles still exist.


Giant Ice Wall you say? Yes. Flat earthers differ on this. Some say what we think of as Antarctica is the Ice Wall, while others say it just lays before it, but isn’t said Ice Wall. What happens at the end of the earth? Here again, flat earthers differ, and mostly don’t know. But they have some interesting examples of what could be.


Some think that beyond the Ice Wall is nothing but barren wastelands that expand on forever. Others think the world just drops off, and others still think there might be other worlds like ours, like so many fried eggs in an eternal frying pan, separated by vast deserts of wind-beaten icy snow.



The Ice Wall itself is in fact a chain of mountains covered with snow and ice. How deep is it? Deep enough to keep the oceans in. Flat earthers tend to believe that there is a conspiracy meant to keep us from exploring Antarctica for ourselves, and that anyone who goes there is somehow lured and never really sees things for what they are.


As to the origins of such a flat earth, I asked, expecting some kind of astronomical explanation. The only person who took the time to give me an answer simply gave me a link to an online version of the Book of Genesis. I hadn’t thought of that one. Many, though not all, flat earthers are religious people, or so I am led to believe, but don’t be fooled, if you go in there and discuss, you might find yourself unprepared to argue physics with some of them, as I did. I did not know that “c” represented light, or the speed of light, or whatever, and apparently that made me sound like a retard. Sorry, I’m no physicist.


What of the sun and moon? Easy: they just hover over our flat earth in circles. Said circles vary, and this causes seasons and the moon cycle. The sun never sets, it just goes far away and creates the illusion that it goes below the horizon, when in fact, it’s just beyond.


What of the earth’s curvature? You know, as when you see a ship in the distance somehow sinking into the horizon, and not just getting smaller. I asked about this, and was told that we need special telescopes to see truly. I did not manage to know what there was to correct, just that someone whose name I do not dare deface here invented special telescopes that restored true vision. Why such a distortion happens, I have no idea. Why we haven’t been able to build another one of these correcting devices, I have no idea either.


What of satellites? Flat earthers don’t believe in them. Instead, they think that on the edges of the world are poles or some such things that emit signals simulating satellites, or something like that. I don’t guarantee exactitude on this one. Why would Nasa and/or others fool us on this? They admit they don’t know, but suspect that a financial gain is the most likely reason. How do you make money from that? I’m not sure, but what I do know, however, is that the exploration of space is not at all where it could be. Given the obscene amounts of money they make by launching billionaires into space, they have no interest in developing technologies that would make the travel cheap and affordable to everyone. This is how greed hinders us severely. The rationale behind convincing the whole world that said world is flat is nothing too clear to me, be it for money, power, or some almighty alien warlord we know nothing of.


There are many more questions to be asked about this, and I assuredly forgot a few that I wanted to deal with here. Flat earthers themselves don’t claim to have all the answers. Feel free to question them directly on their own forum, but be warned, most people are very impolite towards them and abusive, and as a result, many flat earthers have the reflex of being harsh, giving very short answers without explanation, or downright insulting you. This doesn’t happen much if you are yourself polite and respectful, but expect animosity. That was my disappointment with the forum. I didn’t go there for a fight, and if you are a flat earther, I wouldn’t see the point in posting in a forum solely for fights. Why waste one’s time? That goes for every side of the issue.


But don’t get discouraged, there are a lot of people there who have things to say and reasons to give, and if only for those, it is worth being courteous. Often, you will ask things like “Then will the earth reach the speed of light?” and your only answer will be “No.” and I just hate that kind of answer. It’s as if they got tired of explaining stuff over and over, and just decided to give us the truth in miniature format. Feel free to insist on an explanation! Someone will always try to explain FE models to you if you are genuinely interested in an answer.


Conclusion? I was decidedly happy to find that there are people who really believe the earth is flat. Imagining my world in a new perspective was great fun, still is, and the kind of hostility these heretics of science have to face reminds you how intolerant people can be and how little credit they give anyone who doesn’t immediately accept the official paradigm without questions. I doubt most round eathers have studied the question before accepting that the earth was a sphere. You may accuse the flat earthers of being this and that, but one thing you can’t accuse them of is to not have done any research. They have a whole bunch of references ready for your eyes if you feel so inclined.


The following chapter will be about the Hollow Earth, stay tuned!


The Flat Eart Society forum.


Pope Condom Flap

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Well, the secular anti-Catholic news media is at it again. It's the usual suspects, so I won't bother to mention their outlets by name. This time they've taken the pope's comments about condoms in Africa out of context, and put their own spin on them. This of course has drawn criticism of the pope from every corner of the western world, and even within the Catholic Church, whose modernist clergy are more than willing to crucify the Holy Father at every opportunity they can get. They don't agree with this conservative and orthodox approach to the faith, so they give themselves license to persecute the Holy Father with their words and acts of rebellion.

Because my readers deserve to know the truth, I provide the full context of the pope's interview in which the supposedly controversial comments were made. I will not bother to elaborate or comments on them myself. The Holy Father speaks for himself, and anybody with half an intellect can understand the plain sense of his condom comments when placed in their appropriate context.

A full transcript of the exchange follows...
(CNA) - A journalist from French state TV asked Pope Benedict:

“Holy Father among the many evils that affect Africa there is also the particular problem of the the spread of AIDS. The position of the Catholic Church for fighting this evil is frequently considered unrealistic and ineffective.

“Will you address this issue during your trip? Holy Father, could you please respond in French to this question?” he asked.

Although the Pope responded to a previous question from the French newspaper La Croix in French, he gave this in-depth answer in Italian.

“I would say the opposite.”

"It is my belief that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is precisely the Catholic Church and her institutions. I think of the Community of Sant’ Egidio, which does so much, visibly and invisibly to fight AIDS, of the Camillians, of all the nuns that are at the service of the sick.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

“Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person’s body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations.

“I believe that this is the first response [to AIDS] and that this is what the Church does, and thus, she offers a great and important contribution. And we are grateful to those that do this.”

read full story here

Monday, March 9, 2009

Opposition to US-RP Balikatan exercise snowballs

Not that I am nitpicking, but three things are inaccurate with this article:1. My family name is misspelled. The post below already has the correction.2. I didn't celebrate Mass during the rally. I don't even think a Mass was held there that time.3. I am not the official spokesman of the diocese. I just, once in a while, repeat what my bishop says.The views and opinions are just about right.My