lifesitenews--2020-05-18--Do-it-yourself First Holy Communions?

Do-it-yourself First Holy Communions?

Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world : Feed your flock !
Sign the petition here .
May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Irish broadcaster RTE ’ s website posted a strange story on Saturday : “ Children celebrate a virtual First Communion via video link.
” At first I couldn ’ t understand the headline .
How can you receive Holy Communion via a video link ?
Did RTE mean that the children made a Spiritual Communion ?
But no .
It turns out that , since the children had been due to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to allow them to do this at home .
“ Fr George consecrated the hosts at an earlier mass today and then families were given different time slots to collect them.
” They received Holy Communion in the course of watching a live-streamed Mass .
The priest commented : Except , of course , that it has nothing to do with having Mass in a private home .
Mass took place in church , without the people .
The only thing that happened in their homes was the reception of Holy Communion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be entrusted to the care of the laity even for a short time without serious reason .
As the Code of Canon Law expresses it ( Can .
935 ) : The importance of this rule has been obscured by the practice of getting lay people to take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick and housebound .
This has created all sorts of opportunities for irreverence and , of course , it deprives the sick of the chance that the visit of a priest would give them for Confession , spiritual direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sick .
I am reminded of the story of the Catholic convert Malcolm Muggeridge , who , when seriously ill , was visited by a lay “ Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion , ” who proceeded to retrieve the pyx , containing the Blessed Sacrament , out of the pocket of her jeans .
He was so appalled he threw her out of the house .
Having said that , it must be admitted , first , that genuine necessity may demand that the laity perform this function , and , second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that they are properly prepared , and do carry it out with due decorum .
This case , however , clearly doesn ’ t count as pastoral necessity , and nor , as far as it is possible to see , have proper procedures been followed .
It is sad that those looking forward to their First Holy Communion are obliged to wait longer than planned to do so , but they are in this respect in the same boat as millions of other lay Catholics deprived of the Sacraments .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there could be for breaking the usual rules , designed to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanation and to accord it proper honor , simply in order to have a private First Holy Communion a few weeks sooner than would otherwise be possible .
It also seems very strange to deprive these children of the social aspect of the usual First Holy Communion , when it is received with other children at a parish Mass .
While this social aspect should never be emphasized above the spiritual realities , it is appropriate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Holy Communion .
Either the public celebration won ’ t happen , or it will be deprived of its point by taking place weeks and weeks after the actual First Holy Communion .
Something we have heard very little about , by contrast , is the baptizing of infants .
This is a very different situation , in which there is a genuine pastoral necessity , and lay people can carry out a baptism without infringing any liturgical rules : as I have discussed here before , if anything “ private baptisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Cardinal Cupich .
When I wrote that article I was thinking about the situation of infants whose christening had already been planned and had had to be indefinitely postponed .
Given that the Church urges us to baptize our children swiftly after birth , waiting for another two or three months is clearly unacceptable .
Since then , however , I have had to take my own advice on private baptism , for my daughter was born when the lockdown was already well in place .
Clearly it was not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her within a month of her birth .
We look forward , now , to a public service of the “ Supply of Ceremonies , ” which can wait for churches to be reopened .
Why has there been so much concern about Holy Communion , which is still available for the dying and is otherwise never a matter of grave urgency , and so little about Baptism , a “ sacrament of the dead ” which raises the candidate to spiritual life ?
It seems that public debate on the Church under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper sense of priorities .

Why has there been so much concern about Holy Communion, but not baptizing newborns, during the pandemic?
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock! Sign the petition here.
May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Irish broadcaster RTE’s website posted a strange story on Saturday: “Children celebrate a virtual First Communion via video link.”
At first I couldn’t understand the headline. How can you receive Holy Communion via a video link? Did RTE mean that the children made a Spiritual Communion?
But no. It turns out that, since the children had been due to make their First Holy Communion, their parish priest decided to allow them to do this at home. “Fr George consecrated the hosts at an earlier mass today and then families were given different time slots to collect them.”
They received Holy Communion in the course of watching a live-streamed Mass. The priest commented:
The parents of ten pupils took up the offer of a virtual Communion. It gave me a real sense of what the early Catholic church must have been like, when people gathered for mass in each other’s homes.
Except, of course, that it has nothing to do with having Mass in a private home. Mass took place in church, without the people. The only thing that happened in their homes was the reception of Holy Communion.
However, the Blessed Sacrament should not be entrusted to the care of the laity even for a short time without serious reason. As the Code of Canon Law expresses it (Can. 935):
No one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it around, unless pastoral necessity urges it and the prescripts of the diocesan bishop are observed.
The importance of this rule has been obscured by the practice of getting lay people to take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick and housebound. This has created all sorts of opportunities for irreverence and, of course, it deprives the sick of the chance that the visit of a priest would give them for Confession, spiritual direction, and where appropriate the Sacrament of the Sick. I am reminded of the story of the Catholic convert Malcolm Muggeridge, who, when seriously ill, was visited by a lay “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion,” who proceeded to retrieve the pyx, containing the Blessed Sacrament, out of the pocket of her jeans. He was so appalled he threw her out of the house.
Having said that, it must be admitted, first, that genuine necessity may demand that the laity perform this function, and, second, that the system is supposed to ensure that they are properly prepared, and do carry it out with due decorum. This case, however, clearly doesn’t count as pastoral necessity, and nor, as far as it is possible to see, have proper procedures been followed.
It is sad that those looking forward to their First Holy Communion are obliged to wait longer than planned to do so, but they are in this respect in the same boat as millions of other lay Catholics deprived of the Sacraments. It is hard to imagine what possible justification there could be for breaking the usual rules, designed to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanation and to accord it proper honor, simply in order to have a private First Holy Communion a few weeks sooner than would otherwise be possible.
It also seems very strange to deprive these children of the social aspect of the usual First Holy Communion, when it is received with other children at a parish Mass. While this social aspect should never be emphasized above the spiritual realities, it is appropriate to celebrate an important occasion such as a First Holy Communion. Either the public celebration won’t happen, or it will be deprived of its point by taking place weeks and weeks after the actual First Holy Communion.
Something we have heard very little about, by contrast, is the baptizing of infants. This is a very different situation, in which there is a genuine pastoral necessity, and lay people can carry out a baptism without infringing any liturgical rules: as I have discussed here before, if anything “private baptisms” have been discouraged, for example by Cardinal Cupich. When I wrote that article I was thinking about the situation of infants whose christening had already been planned and had had to be indefinitely postponed. Given that the Church urges us to baptize our children swiftly after birth, waiting for another two or three months is clearly unacceptable.
Since then, however, I have had to take my own advice on private baptism, for my daughter was born when the lockdown was already well in place. Clearly it was not going to be possible for a priest to baptize her within a month of her birth. We look forward, now, to a public service of the “Supply of Ceremonies,” which can wait for churches to be reopened.
Why has there been so much concern about Holy Communion, which is still available for the dying and is otherwise never a matter of grave urgency, and so little about Baptism, a “sacrament of the dead” which raises the candidate to spiritual life? It seems that public debate on the Church under lockdown has not been informed by a proper sense of priorities.
Follow Joseph Dr Joseph Shaw has a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford University, where he also gained a first degree in Politics and Philosophy and a graduate Diploma in Theology. He has published on Ethics and Philosophy of Religion and is the editor of The Case for Liturgical Restoration: Una Voce Position Papers on the Extraordinary Form (Angelico Press). He is the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and Secretary of Una Voce International. He teaches Philosophy in Oxford University and lives nearby with his wife and nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--Trump pledges to remedy ‘illegal situation’ of big tech censorship

TELL VIMEO : Stop silencing conservatives and Christians !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , May 18 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – President Donald Trump has called out the “ Radical Left ” for its influence over various social media based in the United States .
At the same time , he vowed his administration would work on improving the situation .
“ The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and Google , ” Trump tweeted on May 16 .
“ The Administration is working to remedy this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sent out in response to a video of a speech on tech censorship , given by conservative political commentator Michelle Malkin .
The president commented , “ Thank you Michelle !
” Ironically , the tweet on tech censorship , originally put out by America First Clips , was removed by Twitter after Trump retweeted it .
“ Twitter has DELETED the video clip you RT ’ ed of my remarks against Silicon Valley censorship this morning , ” Malkin informed the President via Twitter .
“ OUT OF CONTROL .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Clips subsequently uploaded the speech once again .
“ I ’ ve witnessed friends and allies stripped of their platforms , and their reputations , and their voices , ” Malkin said in the video .
“ Some can no longer communicate on social media.
” She added that tech censorship often translates into the real world , where conservatives are no longer allowed to “ gather peacefully ” at conferences , or do business with their banks .
“ There is no more safe space , ” Malkin warned .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration will finally take action on the question of tech censorship .
In May 2019 , the White House asked Americans to tell their stories of free speech under attack .
“ No matter your views , if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online , we want to hear about it , ” the White House tweeted .
In August 2019 , Politico revealed that the Trump administration was preparing an executive order “ that would address allegations of anti-conservative bias by social media companies.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about “ the contents of the order , which one person cautioned has already taken many different forms and remains in flux .
But its existence , and the deliberations surrounding it , are evidence that the administration is taking a serious look at wielding the federal government ’ s power against Silicon Valley.
” In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic this spring , tech giants like Twitter and YouTube , which is part of Google , have implemented a number of new measures they claim are needed to stop the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
Last week , Twitter began to attach warning labels to “ some tweets containing disputed or misleading information ” in the context of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ In serving the public conversation , our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content , ” Twitter said in a statement .
The company introduced “ new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information.
” Twitter indicated that in the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content.
” The warning labels will send users either to a website curated directly by Twitter and containing more information on whatever the subject of the tweet was , or to an “ external trusted source.
” In certain cases , Twitter might not even show a supposedly “ harmful and misleading ” tweet to users .
Instead , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning of potentially “ sensitive material.
” “ Some or all of the content shared in this tweet conflicts with guidance from public health experts regarding COVID-19 , ” the new warning message reads .
Twitter users can still view the tweet , or they can choose to move along to a “ trusted source.
” YouTube , meanwhile , started using fact-check information panels for viewers in the United States , flagging , among other things , what the company deems to be “ misinformation ” regarding the coronavirus pandemic .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary in order “ for viewers to get accurate information during fast-moving events.
” On April 19 , Susan Wojcicki , the CEO of YouTube , announced that all content contradicting the Word Health Organization ( WHO ) on the coronavirus pandemic would be removed from the video streaming platform .
“ We also talk about removing information that is problematic , ” she said .
“ Of course , anything that is medically unsubstantiated .
So people saying , like , take vitamin C , you know , take turmeric , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy.
” She then specified that any content going “ against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy .
And so [ removal ] is another really important part of our policy.
” Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an interview in mid-April that he considers protests against stay-at-home orders , which are often planned via Facebook , to be “ harmful misinformation ” that must be deleted .
While claiming that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate policies , ” Zuckerberg indicated that there is a limit to how much freedom he will allow Facebook ’ s users to do this .
“ But , you know , more than normal political discourse , I think a lot of the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to imminent physical danger and we ’ ll just take that kind of content down , ” he said .
Facebook also introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those with ties to globalist George Soros , wielding massive power to judge what is acceptable speech .
The Oversight Board was created to “ help Facebook answer some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online : what to take down , what to leave up , and why .
”

'The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation,' the president tweeted.
TELL VIMEO: Stop silencing conservatives and Christians! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – President Donald Trump has called out the “Radical Left” for its influence over various social media based in the United States. At the same time, he vowed his administration would work on improving the situation.
“The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google,” Trump tweeted on May 16. “The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation.”
The Radical Left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The Administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle! https://t.co/ZQfcfD3Hk9 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2020
Trump’s tweet was sent out in response to a video of a speech on tech censorship, given by conservative political commentator Michelle Malkin. The president commented, “Thank you Michelle!”
Ironically, the tweet on tech censorship, originally put out by America First Clips, was removed by Twitter after Trump retweeted it.
“Twitter has DELETED the video clip you RT’ed of my remarks against Silicon Valley censorship this morning,” Malkin informed the President via Twitter. “OUT OF CONTROL. The situation must be remedied ASAP.”
Thank you @realdonaldtrump – @Twitter has DELETED the video clip you RT'ed of my remarks against Silicon Valley censorship this morning! OUT OF CONTROL. The situation must be remedied ASAP.https://t.co/97CBshuHOF@twitter @jack @vijaya @TwitterSafety — Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 16, 2020
America First Clips subsequently uploaded the speech once again.
“I’ve witnessed friends and allies stripped of their platforms, and their reputations, and their voices,” Malkin said in the video. “Some can no longer communicate on social media.”
She added that tech censorship often translates into the real world, where conservatives are no longer allowed to “gather peacefully” at conferences, or do business with their banks. “There is no more safe space,” Malkin warned.
Twitter deleted this tweet after @realDonaldTrump shared it. Censorship in America is out of control! pic.twitter.com/LBBaFiG0By — America First Clips (@af_clips) May 16, 2020
It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will finally take action on the question of tech censorship.
In May 2019, the White House asked Americans to tell their stories of free speech under attack.
“No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it,” the White House tweeted.
In August 2019, Politico revealed that the Trump administration was preparing an executive order “that would address allegations of anti-conservative bias by social media companies.”
Politico’s sources declined to talk about “the contents of the order, which one person cautioned has already taken many different forms and remains in flux. But its existence, and the deliberations surrounding it, are evidence that the administration is taking a serious look at wielding the federal government’s power against Silicon Valley.”
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic this spring, tech giants like Twitter and YouTube, which is part of Google, have implemented a number of new measures they claim are needed to stop the spread of what they consider false information regarding the virus.
Last week, Twitter began to attach warning labels to “some tweets containing disputed or misleading information” in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
“In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content,” Twitter said in a statement. The company introduced “new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information.”
Twitter indicated that in the future, “we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content.”
The warning labels will send users either to a website curated directly by Twitter and containing more information on whatever the subject of the tweet was, or to an “external trusted source.”
In certain cases, Twitter might not even show a supposedly “harmful and misleading” tweet to users. Instead, it will display a message similar to those warning of potentially “sensitive material.”
“Some or all of the content shared in this tweet conflicts with guidance from public health experts regarding COVID-19,” the new warning message reads. Twitter users can still view the tweet, or they can choose to move along to a “trusted source.”
YouTube, meanwhile, started using fact-check information panels for viewers in the United States, flagging, among other things, what the company deems to be “misinformation” regarding the coronavirus pandemic. The company claimed the fact-check information panels are necessary in order “for viewers to get accurate information during fast-moving events.”
On April 19, Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, announced that all content contradicting the Word Health Organization (WHO) on the coronavirus pandemic would be removed from the video streaming platform.
“We also talk about removing information that is problematic,” she said. “Of course, anything that is medically unsubstantiated. So people saying, like, take vitamin C, you know, take turmeric, like, those are – will cure you. Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy.”
She then specified that any content going “against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy. And so [removal] is another really important part of our policy.”
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during an interview in mid-April that he considers protests against stay-at-home orders, which are often planned via Facebook, to be “harmful misinformation” that must be deleted.
While claiming that “it’s important that people can debate policies,” Zuckerberg indicated that there is a limit to how much freedom he will allow Facebook’s users to do this.
“But, you know, more than normal political discourse, I think a lot of the stuff that people are saying that is false around a health emergency like this can be classified as harmful misinformation that has a risk of leading to imminent physical danger and we’ll just take that kind of content down,” he said.
Facebook also introduced an international Oversight Board packed with leftists and those with ties to globalist George Soros, wielding massive power to judge what is acceptable speech.
The Oversight Board was created to “help Facebook answer some of the most difficult questions around freedom of expression online: what to take down, what to leave up, and why.”
Dozens of conservative organizations denounced Facebook’s move.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-18--New Jersey woman chokes on her own vomit after abortion complications

CHERRY HILL , New Jersey , May 18 , 2020 ( Operation Rescue ) — A woman choked on her own vomit during a surgical abortion at the Cherry Hill Women ’ s Center in Cherry Hill , New Jersey , and required emergency transport to the Cooper Medical Center for suspected aspiration pneumonia .
This occurred on May 2 , 2020 , during a serious COVID-19 outbreak when elective abortions were banned due to a strain on medical resources .
Abortions in New Jersey were exempted from the ban .
After the vomiting episode during the abortion , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her oxygen levels .
Once the abortion was completed , she was placed in a recovery room where her oxygen levels failed to fully recover .
She was not provided supplemental oxygen at the abortion facility .
Pro-life witnesses at the scene recorded the woman being removed from the abortion facility on a gurney .
The ambulance had lights flashing , but ran without sirens .
The Cherry Hill Women ’ s Center is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation , whose members include some of the most-cited abortion facilities in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements .
* It has recently added the more dangerous late-term abortions for “ fetal anomalies , ” which means it may conduct abortions through all nine months of pregnancy .
“ It is ironic that during a time when the nation was shut down in order to save lives from the Coronavirus , this abortion business was allowed to remain open , ending the lives of countless innocent babies , and placing women in danger .
This incident took medical resources that were supposed to be reserved for COVID-19 patients , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rescue .
“ This is just another of hundreds of medical emergencies we have documented at abortion facilities nationwide , and is further evidence that abortion is not safe for women and is fatal to unborn babies.
” Read the CAD printout for this emergency .
*Visit AbortionDocs.org where information about deficiencies at abortion facilities are easily searchable .
AbortionDocs.org contains nearly 29,000 documents related to licensing issues , health citations , medical malpractice , criminal cases , and more .

CHERRY HILL, New Jersey, May 18, 2020 (Operation Rescue) — A woman choked on her own vomit during a surgical abortion at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and required emergency transport to the Cooper Medical Center for suspected aspiration pneumonia.
This occurred on May 2, 2020, during a serious COVID-19 outbreak when elective abortions were banned due to a strain on medical resources. Abortions in New Jersey were exempted from the ban.
After the vomiting episode during the abortion, the 35-year old woman suffered a drop in her oxygen levels. Once the abortion was completed, she was placed in a recovery room where her oxygen levels failed to fully recover.
She was not provided supplemental oxygen at the abortion facility.
Pro-life witnesses at the scene recorded the woman being removed from the abortion facility on a gurney. The ambulance had lights flashing, but ran without sirens.
The Cherry Hill Women’s Center is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation, whose members include some of the most-cited abortion facilities in the nation for violations of health and safety requirements.* It has recently added the more dangerous late-term abortions for “fetal anomalies,” which means it may conduct abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.
“It is ironic that during a time when the nation was shut down in order to save lives from the Coronavirus, this abortion business was allowed to remain open, ending the lives of countless innocent babies, and placing women in danger. This incident took medical resources that were supposed to be reserved for COVID-19 patients,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “This is just another of hundreds of medical emergencies we have documented at abortion facilities nationwide, and is further evidence that abortion is not safe for women and is fatal to unborn babies.”
Read the CAD printout for this emergency.
*Visit AbortionDocs.org where information about deficiencies at abortion facilities are easily searchable. AbortionDocs.org contains nearly 29,000 documents related to licensing issues, health citations, medical malpractice, criminal cases, and more.
Published with permission from Operation Rescue.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-15--Coronavirus lockdowns cause spike in families favoring homeschooling

May 15 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Just weeks after Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet recommended a ban on homeschooling in order to counter the influence of Christian and conservative parents , a stunning new poll from RealClear Opinion Research of 2,122 registered voters shows that COVID-19 lockdowns have had an unlikely effect : 40 % of families are now “ more likely to homeschool or virtual school after [ the ] lockdowns , ” with 64 % supporting “ school choice.
” To John Schilling , president of the American Federation of Children , this is great news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in school has been incredibly disrupted by the lockdowns , ” he said in a statement .
“ With 55 million students no longer in their normal educational setting , families are clearly considering new options , and many are seeing the benefits of homeschooling and virtual schooling .
Policymakers should note that there is a strong desire to have these and other education options available to families , with strong support for the general concept of school choice [ . ]
” The poll asked parents ( 626 respondents ) : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enroll your son or daughter in a homeschool , neighborhood homeschool co-op , or virtual school once the lockdowns are over ?
” To that question , 40.8 % indicated that it was more likely , with 31.1 % saying that they were less likely to do so .
Of those who indicated that they were more likely , 44.9 % were of the age group 18–34 , 40.8 % were of the age group 35-44 , and 35.3 % , 45-54 .
Only ethnic lines , whites were 36.6 % more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of blacks were , 38.2 % of Hispanics , and 53.8 % of Asians .
Somewhat surprisingly , the party affiliation breakdown was more or less even : 45.7 % of Democrats and 42.3 % of Republicans .
A shift toward greater parental involvement in the education of children — and more than that , more parental responsibility — would be a very encouraging development .
As polarization continues to divide the United States into irreconcilable camps , it is increasingly untenable to have a single educational system run by the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be in office .
( Barack Obama ’ s infamous transgender directives are a good example of this . )
As the chasm between the beliefs of conservative America and secular progressive America grows wider , it increasingly makes far more sense for parents and communities to pursue their own arrangements , where they can guarantee that their deeply held beliefs are passed on to their children .
The poll was also encouraging with regard to support for school choice across the board .
The question posed was pointed : “ School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax dollars designated for their child ’ s education to send their child to the public or private school which best serves their needs .
Generally speaking , would you say you support the concept of school choice ?
” Of the 64 % of the 2,122 respondents who indicated their support , a full 59 % were Democrats and 75.2 % were Republicans ( with 60.2 % stating that they were Independents . )
There was a majority through all age categories , with the highest support — 67.2 % — among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran across ethnic and racial lines , and even among those who send their children to public school ( 67.7 % support for school choice ) .
Interestingly , support for school choice remained high regardless of where the respondent lived .
There was 69.3 % support from urban respondents , 62.6 % from suburbia , 52.5 % from small-town respondents , and 68.2 % from rural respondents .
Not that much of a difference in support , all things considered .
Considering America ’ s growing divisions , it is encouraging to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , racial , and geographic lines , supports the idea that parents should be able to pursue the best education for their children as they see it .
In fact , 69 % indicated support for the American Federation of Children ’ s Federal Tax Credit Scholarship ( Education Freedom Scholarships ) — again , even among those who currently send their children to public school .
These new data , says John Schilling , indicate that it is time for action .
“ This is the time for leadership and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across our K–12 system , ” he stated .
“ Millions of families are seeing the inadequacies of school districts that are too inflexible .
We owe it to our nation ’ s families and students to give them more flexibility and additional educational options .
Moreover , policymakers owe it to the taxpayers who are footing the $ 800-billion K–12 education bill to maximize their investment by ensuring every child has access to a quality education and outcomes are improved across the board.
” Many conservatives and Christians were concerned that governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 pandemic to vastly increase government control and interference in the personal lives of citizens .
That is precisely why the proposal of Harvard ’ s Elizabeth Bartholet was so alarming — because we know that there are many in power who fully agree with her and would leap at the chance to ban homeschooling .
In that context , this new polling is particularly encouraging : Rising levels of support for not only school choice , but also homeschooling and virtual schooling will make it difficult for authorities to restrict these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families decide to pursue these options for themselves , we will be threatening the secular progressive agenda in a real and definite way : by denying them access to our children .
Jonathon ’ s new podcast , The Van Maren Show , is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement .
In his latest episode , he interviews Scott Klusendorf about the fundamental flaw Klusendorf sees in the idea of locking down the country under the guise of preventing people from getting coronavirus .
You can subscribe here @ @ @ @ @ @ @

If increasing numbers of families decide to pursue these options for themselves, we will be threatening the secular progressive agenda in a real and definite way.
May 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Just weeks after Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet recommended a ban on homeschooling in order to counter the influence of Christian and conservative parents, a stunning new poll from RealClear Opinion Research of 2,122 registered voters shows that COVID-19 lockdowns have had an unlikely effect: 40% of families are now “more likely to homeschool or virtual school after [the] lockdowns,” with 64% supporting “school choice.”
To John Schilling, president of the American Federation of Children, this is great news. “Every single family with kids in school has been incredibly disrupted by the lockdowns,” he said in a statement. “With 55 million students no longer in their normal educational setting, families are clearly considering new options, and many are seeing the benefits of homeschooling and virtual schooling. Policymakers should note that there is a strong desire to have these and other education options available to families, with strong support for the general concept of school choice[.]”
The poll asked parents (626 respondents): “Are you more or less likely to enroll your son or daughter in a homeschool, neighborhood homeschool co-op, or virtual school once the lockdowns are over?” To that question, 40.8% indicated that it was more likely, with 31.1% saying that they were less likely to do so. Of those who indicated that they were more likely, 44.9% were of the age group 18–34, 40.8% were of the age group 35-44, and 35.3%, 45-54. Only ethnic lines, whites were 36.6% more likely to consider these options, 50.4% of blacks were, 38.2% of Hispanics, and 53.8% of Asians. Somewhat surprisingly, the party affiliation breakdown was more or less even: 45.7% of Democrats and 42.3% of Republicans.
A shift toward greater parental involvement in the education of children — and more than that, more parental responsibility — would be a very encouraging development. As polarization continues to divide the United States into irreconcilable camps, it is increasingly untenable to have a single educational system run by the federal government, with standards imposed by whoever happens to be in office. (Barack Obama’s infamous transgender directives are a good example of this.) As the chasm between the beliefs of conservative America and secular progressive America grows wider, it increasingly makes far more sense for parents and communities to pursue their own arrangements, where they can guarantee that their deeply held beliefs are passed on to their children.
Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook
The poll was also encouraging with regard to support for school choice across the board. The question posed was pointed: “School choice gives parents the right to use tax dollars designated for their child’s education to send their child to the public or private school which best serves their needs. Generally speaking, would you say you support the concept of school choice?” Of the 64% of the 2,122 respondents who indicated their support, a full 59% were Democrats and 75.2% were Republicans (with 60.2% stating that they were Independents.) There was a majority through all age categories, with the highest support — 67.2% — among the age group 18–34. Wide support ran across ethnic and racial lines, and even among those who send their children to public school (67.7% support for school choice).
Interestingly, support for school choice remained high regardless of where the respondent lived. There was 69.3% support from urban respondents, 62.6% from suburbia, 52.5% from small-town respondents, and 68.2% from rural respondents. Not that much of a difference in support, all things considered. Considering America’s growing divisions, it is encouraging to see that a majority, across all party, racial, and geographic lines, supports the idea that parents should be able to pursue the best education for their children as they see it. In fact, 69% indicated support for the American Federation of Children’s Federal Tax Credit Scholarship (Education Freedom Scholarships)— again, even among those who currently send their children to public school.
These new data, says John Schilling, indicate that it is time for action. “This is the time for leadership and for desperately needed bold reforms to be implemented across our K–12 system,” he stated. “Millions of families are seeing the inadequacies of school districts that are too inflexible. We owe it to our nation’s families and students to give them more flexibility and additional educational options. Moreover, policymakers owe it to the taxpayers who are footing the $800-billion K–12 education bill to maximize their investment by ensuring every child has access to a quality education and outcomes are improved across the board.”
Many conservatives and Christians were concerned that governments are utilizing and will continue to utilize the COVID-19 pandemic to vastly increase government control and interference in the personal lives of citizens. That is precisely why the proposal of Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet was so alarming — because we know that there are many in power who fully agree with her and would leap at the chance to ban homeschooling. In that context, this new polling is particularly encouraging: Rising levels of support for not only school choice, but also homeschooling and virtual schooling will make it difficult for authorities to restrict these options. And if increasing numbers of families decide to pursue these options for themselves, we will be threatening the secular progressive agenda in a real and definite way: by denying them access to our children.
Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Scott Klusendorf about the fundamental flaw Klusendorf sees in the idea of locking down the country under the guise of preventing people from getting coronavirus.
You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below:
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-15--We must speak the truth, even when it’s not easy

Formerly Heart to Heart with Mother Miriam , Mother Miriam Live brings you inspiration and solutions for life ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Miriam is a Catholic nun on a mission to bring hope to a world that @ @ @ @ @ let her share that hope and joy with you !
To tune into Mother Miriam @ @ @ @ @ Facebook page here every Monday to Friday at 10am .

To help keep this and other programs on the air, please donate here.
Watch Mother Miriam's Live show from 5.15.2020. Today, Mother encourages her listeners to speak out against evil and government supression even if no one else is doing the same. We must defend and speak the truth no matter the cost.
You can tune in daily at 10 am EST/7 am PST on our Facebook Page.
Subscribe to Mother Miriam Live here.


lifesitenews--2020-05-20--Western media downplay, ignore Islam’s violent reactions to ‘blasphemy’

May 19 , 2020 ( Turning Point Project ) — Consider the following headline : “ Mississippi : Atheist faces execution for insulting Jesus on Facebook ” .
The alert reader will immediately recognize this as a piece of fake news .
Which it is .
I made it up myself .
But it ’ s based on a real headline .
The recent headline reads as follows : “ Nigeria : Atheist faces execution under sharia for insulting Muhammad on Facebook.
” Mubarak Bala , the President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria , and an atheist , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muhammad.
” Now , if it was true , the first headline would elicit universal outrage .
It would be front-page news in all the major Western newspapers , and the lead story on the evening news .
CNN , NBC , and the BBC would spin the story as a typical example of Christian bigotry .
And commentators would call for the arrest of the responsible Mississippi authorities , and possibly for an investigation of Christian churches in the state .
The second headline , however , only elicits a ho-hum reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true story , it ’ s not considered important enough to be carried by most Western news outlets .
There are two reasons for this response .
One is that Western media shy away from such stories for fear of being branded “ Islamophobic.
” They tend to ignore news that puts Islam in an unflattering light .
The other reason is that journalists prefer news that is unexpected and out of the ordinary : the “ man bites dog ” type of story .
But the arrest of a man in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of thing we ’ ve all come to expect .
Actually , Nigeria is not officially a Muslim country .
About half the population is Muslim and the other half is Christian .
But the current president of Nigeria is a Muslim and Kaduna where Mr. Bala was arrested is in a Muslim area .
So , fifty percent is close enough for some Muslims to think that they can impose sharia law on everyone .
Indeed , in Europe which is less than 10 percent Muslim , Europeans who live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain aspects of sharia law .
The writ of sharia has a long reach .
But I digress .
The point about the fake headline and the real one is that we have a double standard for Islam and Christianity .
We give Muslims a pass for behavior we would never countenance in Christians or Western citizens .
Here ’ s another recent headline : “ Pakistan minister calls for beheading of blasphemers.
” Ali Muhammad Khan , who is Pakistan ’ s minister of state for parliamentary affairs , tweeted , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who mock Prophet Muhammad.
” Here is how a roughly equivalent story in the U.S. might be headlined : “ Head of Senate Rules Committee demands death penalty for those who mock Jesus.
” It ’ s a headline we never expect to see .
But we ’ re not surprised or particularly perturbed when a Pakistani authority say something similar .
When it comes to Islam and its representatives , we ’ ve learned to apply a more lenient set of rules .
A classic example of this double standard for Muslims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Salman Rushdie ’ s novel , The Satanic Verses , was published in the United Kingdom in 1988 , it provoked outrage and even violence among Muslims .
Because it allegedly blasphemed Muhammad , the book was banned in numerous Muslim countries , and a number of bookstores in both the U.S. and England were bombed .
Then , in 1989 , the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers .
Shortly after , Iranian officials offered a $ 6 million reward for killing Rushdie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection , others were not so lucky .
The Japanese translator of the book was killed on July 11 , 1991 .
The Italian translator was seriously injured in a stabbing attack on July 3 , 1991 .
And the publisher of the Norwegian edition barely survived an attempted assassination in 1993 .
It ’ s also likely that the Turkish translator of the book was the intended target when a mob set fire to the Hotel Madmak in Sivas , Turkey .
The 1993 massacre resulted in 37 deaths .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been known in 1989 when the world weighed in on Khomeini ’ s fatwa .
At first , the West rallied to the defense of Rushdie .
No Western government banned The Satanic Verses , and many politicians , particularly in Great Britain spoke up for Rushdie ’ s right to freedom of speech .
So did many prominent authors and publishers .
After the assassinations , however , the literary establishment changed its tune , and began a program of self-censorship .
In the following years , numerous books that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else pulled from the shelves .
And , particularly in Europe , the book banning continues to this day .
Many prominent Jewish and Christian leaders , however , gave Khomeini the benefit of the double standard right from the start .
They seemed more concerned with Rushdie ’ s irreverent attitude toward Islam than with his freedom of expression .
Robert Runcie , The Archbishop of Canterbury opined that Rushdie was guilty of blasphemy ; and L ’ Osservatore Romano , the Vatican newspaper criticized Rushdie for offending millions of Muslims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to say about the violent reaction of Muslims to the book such as the bombing of bookstores and the mob attack on the American Cultural Center in Islamabad which occurred two days before the fatwa was issued .
Many in the Church had already adopted the double standard toward Islam .
No Christian or Jewish leader would have defended an archbishop or chief rabbi who did what Khomeini did , but somehow it seemed a less serious matter for a Muslim cleric to order another man ’ s death .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reading some conservative Catholic columnists at the time who thought Rushdie was asking for it ; and a couple of my acquaintances thought it too bad that the Church couldn ’ t handle the dissenters in its own ranks in the same way .
Liberal Catholics were also upset by Rushdie — not because of the blasphemy ( which didn ’ t bother them ) , but because of his insensitivity to diversity .
By the late Eighties , liberals were already putting a higher priority on diversity than on freedom of speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians made excuses for behavior — Khomeini ’ s fatwa — that would have been entirely unacceptable in a Christian leader .
We know it would be unacceptable because fifteen years after the publication of Rushdie ’ s veiled criticism of Islam , there appeared another extremely popular work of fiction , which was no less than an all-out attack on Christianity , and , in particular , on the Catholic Church .
By almost any measure , Dan Brown ’ s best-selling The Da Vinci Code — which has sold some 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Jesus .
Moreover , his challenge to Christian belief was a very effective one .
A poll of Canadian readers found that fully one-third of them believed Brown ’ s manufactured version of Christian history to be the true one .
Meanwhile , in contrast to the response to Rushdie ’ s book , very few in the secular world expressed any concern that The Da Vinci Code might be offensive to hundreds of millions of Christians .
The book certainly called for a strong response from the Catholic Church .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Brown .
Yet no one expected to open their morning paper and read : “ Pope pronounces death sentence on Dan Brown for blasphemy.
” And , of course , no such headline ever appeared .
If the pope had made such a pronouncement he would have been immediately and strongly condemned not only by secular leaders , but also by Christian leaders .
In addition , it ’ s highly likely that prominent voices would have demanded that he be tried before the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) for incitement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , Geoffrey Robinson , a high ranking UN jurist did ask the British government to detain Pope Benedict XVI when he visited England , and remand him to the ICC for “ crimes against humanity ; ” but these supposed crimes had nothing to do with Dan Brown ) .
By contrast , when Ayatollah Khomeini actually did issue an incitement to murder , the world ’ s response was fairly restrained .
Yet there can be little doubt that the fatwa was intended to result in Rushdie ’ s death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s differing responses to The Satanic Verses and The Da Vinci Code are quite telling .
Of the two books , The Da Vinci Code offered a much more sweeping , and far more widely read indictment of a major faith .
Yet , aside from a handful of Catholics , few commentators seemed concerned that Catholics might be offended .
By contrast , many Westerners expressed outrage over Rushdie ’ s offense to Muslims .
After Khomeini ’ s fatwa , Rushdie went into hiding for almost a decade .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dan Brown went on the celebrity circuit , and continued to write bestsellers , content in the knowledge that the Church would not be dispatching albino monks to track him down .
In the wake of bookstore bombings and attempted assassinations , Western publishers adopted a policy of self-censorship that had the effect of enforcing Islam ’ s blasphemy laws .
But there was no corresponding censorship after The Da Vinci Code controversy .
Indeed , publishers rushed to cash in on a spate of Da Vinci–like anti-Christian/pro-goddess books .
No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of Vatican retribution .
I have been referring to the West ’ s disparate treatment of Islam and the West as a “ double standard , ” but , in a sense , it ’ s not .
The double standard only comes into play when two parties who share the same standards are judged differently for the same behavior .
But if the two parties have completely different standards , the issue becomes complicated .
If you believe that there are universal standards which apply to all people of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to judge Islam harshly .
On the other hand , if you ’ re a relativist who believes that there are no universal standards , then you have no right to criticize Islam when it violates Western/Christian norms .
Since relativism is the road most taken in the modern world , it ’ s easy to understand the reluctance to criticize Islam .
After all , as is commonly said , “ they have a different culture.
” The fact that we don ’ t hold Islam to the same standards is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have different standards , and therefore — at least from a cultural relativist standpoint — they shouldn ’ t be held to ours .
The irony is that while we tacitly accept the reality that Islamic values are quite different from our own , many in the West , and particularly in the Church , still insist that we share the same values .
Currently , the Vatican-backed Higher Committee of Human Fraternity seems to be working on the assumption that Islam and Christianity share the same humanistic values .
One wishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the West consistently judges Islam by a different , and lower standard , suggests that it is not .
Increasingly , what we see is not a sharing of values , but a subordination of Western and Christian standards to those of Islam .
This article originally appeared in the May 16 , 2020 edition of Catholic World Report .
It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project .

The fact that we don’t hold Islam to the same standards is a tacit acknowledgment that they do, indeed, have different standards.
May 19, 2020 (Turning Point Project) — Consider the following headline: “Mississippi: Atheist faces execution for insulting Jesus on Facebook”.
The alert reader will immediately recognize this as a piece of fake news. Which it is. I made it up myself.
But it’s based on a real headline. The recent headline reads as follows: “Nigeria: Atheist faces execution under sharia for insulting Muhammad on Facebook.”
Mubarak Bala, the President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, and an atheist, was arrested in Kaduna for “insulting Prophet Muhammad.”
Now, if it was true, the first headline would elicit universal outrage. It would be front-page news in all the major Western newspapers, and the lead story on the evening news. CNN, NBC, and the BBC would spin the story as a typical example of Christian bigotry. And commentators would call for the arrest of the responsible Mississippi authorities, and possibly for an investigation of Christian churches in the state.
The second headline, however, only elicits a ho-hum reaction. Even though it’s a true story, it’s not considered important enough to be carried by most Western news outlets.
There are two reasons for this response. One is that Western media shy away from such stories for fear of being branded “Islamophobic.” They tend to ignore news that puts Islam in an unflattering light. The other reason is that journalists prefer news that is unexpected and out of the ordinary: the “man bites dog” type of story. But the arrest of a man in a Muslim country who blasphemes Muhammad is the kind of thing we’ve all come to expect.
Actually, Nigeria is not officially a Muslim country. About half the population is Muslim and the other half is Christian. But the current president of Nigeria is a Muslim and Kaduna where Mr. Bala was arrested is in a Muslim area. So, fifty percent is close enough for some Muslims to think that they can impose sharia law on everyone. Indeed, in Europe which is less than 10 percent Muslim, Europeans who live in Muslim areas are expected to conform to certain aspects of sharia law. The writ of sharia has a long reach.
But I digress. The point about the fake headline and the real one is that we have a double standard for Islam and Christianity. We give Muslims a pass for behavior we would never countenance in Christians or Western citizens.
Here’s another recent headline: “Pakistan minister calls for beheading of blasphemers.”
Ali Muhammad Khan, who is Pakistan’s minister of state for parliamentary affairs, tweeted, “Beheading is the only punishment for those who mock Prophet Muhammad.”
Here is how a roughly equivalent story in the U.S. might be headlined: “Head of Senate Rules Committee demands death penalty for those who mock Jesus.”
It’s a headline we never expect to see. But we’re not surprised or particularly perturbed when a Pakistani authority say something similar. When it comes to Islam and its representatives, we’ve learned to apply a more lenient set of rules.
A classic example of this double standard for Muslims and non-Muslims was the Rushdie affair. When Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, was published in the United Kingdom in 1988, it provoked outrage and even violence among Muslims. Because it allegedly blasphemed Muhammad, the book was banned in numerous Muslim countries, and a number of bookstores in both the U.S. and England were bombed.
Then, in 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers. Shortly after, Iranian officials offered a $6 million reward for killing Rushdie. Although Rushdie himself benefited from police protection, others were not so lucky. The Japanese translator of the book was killed on July 11, 1991. The Italian translator was seriously injured in a stabbing attack on July 3, 1991. And the publisher of the Norwegian edition barely survived an attempted assassination in 1993. It’s also likely that the Turkish translator of the book was the intended target when a mob set fire to the Hotel Madmak in Sivas, Turkey. The 1993 massacre resulted in 37 deaths.
But, of course, none of this could have been known in 1989 when the world weighed in on Khomeini’s fatwa. At first, the West rallied to the defense of Rushdie. No Western government banned The Satanic Verses, and many politicians, particularly in Great Britain spoke up for Rushdie’s right to freedom of speech. So did many prominent authors and publishers. After the assassinations, however, the literary establishment changed its tune, and began a program of self-censorship. In the following years, numerous books that were deemed offensive to Islam were cancelled or else pulled from the shelves. And, particularly in Europe, the book banning continues to this day.
Many prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, however, gave Khomeini the benefit of the double standard right from the start. They seemed more concerned with Rushdie’s irreverent attitude toward Islam than with his freedom of expression. Robert Runcie, The Archbishop of Canterbury opined that Rushdie was guilty of blasphemy; and L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper criticized Rushdie for offending millions of Muslims. At the same time Christian leaders had little to say about the violent reaction of Muslims to the book such as the bombing of bookstores and the mob attack on the American Cultural Center in Islamabad which occurred two days before the fatwa was issued.
Many in the Church had already adopted the double standard toward Islam. No Christian or Jewish leader would have defended an archbishop or chief rabbi who did what Khomeini did, but somehow it seemed a less serious matter for a Muslim cleric to order another man’s death.
Indeed, some Catholics seemed envious. I remember reading some conservative Catholic columnists at the time who thought Rushdie was asking for it; and a couple of my acquaintances thought it too bad that the Church couldn’t handle the dissenters in its own ranks in the same way. Liberal Catholics were also upset by Rushdie — not because of the blasphemy (which didn’t bother them), but because of his insensitivity to diversity. By the late Eighties, liberals were already putting a higher priority on diversity than on freedom of speech.
In short, a number of Christians made excuses for behavior — Khomeini’s fatwa — that would have been entirely unacceptable in a Christian leader. We know it would be unacceptable because fifteen years after the publication of Rushdie’s veiled criticism of Islam, there appeared another extremely popular work of fiction, which was no less than an all-out attack on Christianity, and, in particular, on the Catholic Church.
By almost any measure, Dan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Code — which has sold some 80 million copies — presents a blasphemous portrayal of Jesus. Moreover, his challenge to Christian belief was a very effective one. A poll of Canadian readers found that fully one-third of them believed Brown’s manufactured version of Christian history to be the true one. Meanwhile, in contrast to the response to Rushdie’s book, very few in the secular world expressed any concern that The Da Vinci Code might be offensive to hundreds of millions of Christians.
The book certainly called for a strong response from the Catholic Church. And many Catholics did respond with vigorous criticism of Brown. Yet no one expected to open their morning paper and read: “Pope pronounces death sentence on Dan Brown for blasphemy.” And, of course, no such headline ever appeared.
If the pope had made such a pronouncement he would have been immediately and strongly condemned not only by secular leaders, but also by Christian leaders. In addition, it’s highly likely that prominent voices would have demanded that he be tried before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for incitement to murder (in fact, years later, Geoffrey Robinson, a high ranking UN jurist did ask the British government to detain Pope Benedict XVI when he visited England, and remand him to the ICC for “crimes against humanity;” but these supposed crimes had nothing to do with Dan Brown).
By contrast, when Ayatollah Khomeini actually did issue an incitement to murder, the world’s response was fairly restrained. Yet there can be little doubt that the fatwa was intended to result in Rushdie’s death. Here is an excerpt:
I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses…along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on valiant Muslim wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslim henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, God willing.
The West’s differing responses to The Satanic Verses and The Da Vinci Code are quite telling. Of the two books, The Da Vinci Code offered a much more sweeping, and far more widely read indictment of a major faith. Yet, aside from a handful of Catholics, few commentators seemed concerned that Catholics might be offended. By contrast, many Westerners expressed outrage over Rushdie’s offense to Muslims.
After Khomeini’s fatwa, Rushdie went into hiding for almost a decade. After the success of The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown went on the celebrity circuit, and continued to write bestsellers, content in the knowledge that the Church would not be dispatching albino monks to track him down.
In the wake of bookstore bombings and attempted assassinations, Western publishers adopted a policy of self-censorship that had the effect of enforcing Islam’s blasphemy laws. But there was no corresponding censorship after The Da Vinci Code controversy. Indeed, publishers rushed to cash in on a spate of Da Vinci–like anti-Christian/pro-goddess books. No one, it seemed, was worried about the possibility of Vatican retribution.
I have been referring to the West’s disparate treatment of Islam and the West as a “double standard,” but, in a sense, it’s not. The double standard only comes into play when two parties who share the same standards are judged differently for the same behavior. But if the two parties have completely different standards, the issue becomes complicated. If you believe that there are universal standards which apply to all people of all cultures, then it’s fair to judge Islam harshly. On the other hand, if you’re a relativist who believes that there are no universal standards, then you have no right to criticize Islam when it violates Western/Christian norms.
Since relativism is the road most taken in the modern world, it’s easy to understand the reluctance to criticize Islam. After all, as is commonly said, “they have a different culture.”
The fact that we don’t hold Islam to the same standards is a tacit acknowledgment that they do, indeed, have different standards, and therefore — at least from a cultural relativist standpoint — they shouldn’t be held to ours.
The irony is that while we tacitly accept the reality that Islamic values are quite different from our own, many in the West, and particularly in the Church, still insist that we share the same values. Currently, the Vatican-backed Higher Committee of Human Fraternity seems to be working on the assumption that Islam and Christianity share the same humanistic values. One wishes that were so, but the fact that the West consistently judges Islam by a different, and lower standard, suggests that it is not. Increasingly, what we see is not a sharing of values, but a subordination of Western and Christian standards to those of Islam.
This article originally appeared in the May 16, 2020 edition of Catholic World Report. It is published here with permission from the Turning Point Project.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-19--Catholic political scientist: We must be ‘vigilant’ against New World Order post-COVID

May 19 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Professor Felix Dirsch , a German theologian , philosopher , and political scientist , has published a response to the criticism on the part of German media with regard to the May 7 Viganò Appeal concerning the corona crisis and its consequent potential dangers for the various freedoms of our countries .
He sees a suppression of dissident voices at work .
In his commentary published on the website of the journalist Boris Reitschuster , Dirsch regrets the “ inquisitorial reflexes of the media ” that suppress an objective debate of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ a rather ‘ subtle dictatorship ’ as a result of the tendentious orientation of the leading media of quality : the exclusion and discrediting of dissidents whose own concerns are rejected without examination of the facts , even if the statement finds many starting points in the current discourse.
” Furthermore , Professor Dirsch quotes a recent article published by the prominent globalist and entrepreneur Bill Gates , who explained that the current corona crisis will foster major changes in the world now , one being the promotion of international “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” thus furthering a globalized society .
Furthermore , Professor Dirsch supports the well reasoned interventions of Cardinal Gerhard Müller , who seems to have been especially singled out by critics in Germany , as well as of Bishop Athanasius Schneider .
Both prelates have now published extensive defenses of their support of the Viganò Appeal and criticize an atmosphere in the public that suppresses a substantial debate and instead labels critics with derogatory names such as “ conspiracy theorist.
” The author also regrets that there is a division even among Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus and its dangers for our freedoms in society .
He explicitly mentions here the criticism of Professor Roberto de Mattei , who had reproached the prelates signing the Viganò Appeal since they should keep to their theological and moral competencies .
PETITION : Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society !
Sign the petition here .
Speaking with the Tagespost , de Mattei argued that the bishops are leaving their field of expertise — which is that of theology and morality — when making statements on health matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is understandable when people criticize the interdiction of public Masses and of the administration of the sacraments during the pandemic .
However , he is perplexed when “ bishops make statements on the field of health measures taken by government , since this is beyond their field of expertise which is , after all , a theological and moral one.
” The Catholic professor also addresses the fact that several German bishops and dignitaries had distanced themselves from the Viganò Appeal and especially criticized Cardinal Müller in person .
“ That state media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German public-service television broadcasters ] reject divergent views as a ‘ conspiracy theory ’ without defining this multifaceted concept , ” Dirsch explains , “ is anything but astonishing .
But the fact that the German Bishops ’ Conference dissociates itself from the appeal may be considered a bit much.
” He especially shows himself astonished at the lack of charity toward fellow bishops , as well as at the eagerness of German bishops to please the spirit of the times , something that they just recently bemoaned with regard to their episcopal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In light of such regrettable conduct , Professor Dirsch also points out that indeed , there are serious researchers and experts who bring forth similar arguments to those of the Viganò Appeal , adding that there are taking place developments toward a world government — such as the World Bank , a World Court of Justice , and so on — which very well may be a cause of concern .
He concludes by saying : “ The danger can not be dismissed that it is not the peoples who determine their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also those who stigmatize all unpleasant opinions as conspiracy theories can hardly want such a trend.
” Translation of full statement by Professor Felix Dirsch : All Against Some Instead of an objective discussion , the debate about the Viganò Appeal shows the usual inquisitorial reflexes of the media .
In our times characterized by the plurality of media , obsessed with clicks and gigabytes with which one can earn an enormous amount of money , it is not easy to bring it about that a topic is widely discussed .
Often only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and from there into countless secondary channels .
The appeal Veritas liberabit vos has achieved the feat of a controversial , if largely one-sided reception .
The document was produced by some within the Vatican ( in cooperation with various experts ) .
Curial cardinals and curial archbishops such as Gerhard L. Müller , Joseph Zen Zen-kiun and Carlo M. Viganò were the first signatories .
Numerous supporters , doctors , lawyers and others — mostly believers — put their name under the letter since its publication .
That such an appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is self-evident .
This text , too , which is addressed to all people of good will and does not contain any specifically dogmatic topics , can only vaguely hint at some things .
More precise justifications of some theses are missing .
So far , the objections are correct .
Of course , such a paper is written to stimulate reflection .
It is not intended to replace a comprehensive treatise .
He who is interested in contemporary events will detect numerous topics that are widely debated worldwide : These include the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apps , which might make possible improved controls worldwide , the criticism of restrictions on freedom and of corona panic-mongering , which has been pointed out by a whole phalanx of [ German ] virologists and other experts ( from Sucharit Bhakdi to Karin Mölling and Hendrik Streeck ) .
The prohibitions of worship are justly being targeted .
The reference to the dangers of a world government has provoked a particular rejection .
As in other debates in recent years , one particularly worrying fact stands out : Although dissenting opinions can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however dominates , which points to a rather ‘ subtle dictatorship ’ as a result of the tendentious orientation of the leading media of quality : the exclusion and discrediting of dissidents whose own concerns are rejected without any examination of the facts , even if the statement finds many reference points in the current discourse .
One of the co-signatories , Athanasius Schneider , Auxiliary Bishop in Astana ( Kazakhstan ) , expressed his dismay at the omnipresent ‘ demagogic and popular rhetoric.
’ In a personal statement he refers among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination which endanger freedom .
Not only in the case of the so-called Viganò document , one can only shake one ’ s head over the deficits of the prevailing culture of debate .
That state media such as ARD and ZDF [ two German public-service television broadcasters ] reject divergent views as a ‘ conspiracy theory ’ without defining this multi-faceted concept is anything but astonishing .
But the fact that the German Bishops ’ Conference dissociates itself from the appeal may be considered a bit much .
Even more worthy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fellow bishops .
The usual speech bubbles ( “ right-wing populism ” , “ conspiracy theory ” and so on ) prove that the notorious left and left-liberal propaganda arsenal has been adopted .
Not only the vicar general [ Klaus ] Pfeffer from Essen revealed himself as a follower of the zeitgeist [ “ Zeitgeistlicher ” ] .
The conformist Church , it can be pointed out , has struck again .
Quite a few may remember well-known Church statements on illegal mass immigration , which reached its peak in 2015/16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as the ZdK [ Central Committee of German Catholics ] chairman Thomas Sternberg raised their voice with a pathetic commentary is really outrageous .
As if it were self-evident , and without any content-related discussion , Mr .
Professor sees the reputation of Cardinal Müller ruined , on whom the shitstorm focused .
Aha , that is to say : Impulses to current debates that are not politically correct ruin the reputation of the contributor !
And here , Müller himself did not even write a line of it .
A journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hans-Georg Maaßen of the Catholic Church ” [ a German lawyer and former president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution ] ; Müller may well understand the comparison with this excellent lawyer as praise .
The actions of the clergymen who are part of the regime seem particularly embarrassing against the background of the bishops ’ letter on occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of the war [ World War II ] .
In it connections of numerous Catholics to the National-Socialist tyrannical state are admitted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact only few remained without guilt .
For that reason alone the raised warning finger , which has long become customary , is not due to those born after the war !
The many opponents among the Christians who raised their voices are not being discussed in detail because of the gesture of subservience to the spirit of the times .
The fact that this circle was rather manageable can hardly surprise us also in light of today ’ s experiences .
German Civil Service Catholicism – like large parts of the post-war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Walter Cardinal Brandmüller ) .
One does not get the impression that today ’ s Church leaders are more critical of the state authorities than they were back then .
While in the dark 12 years [ under Hitler ’ s reign ] the fear of reprisals by the rulers understandably prevailed with many , today it is the fear of the virus , which is admittedly often only advanced in order to reduce civil rights and liberties .
The author of these lines , who has also put his name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic-conservative camp is also divided with regard to the [ Viganò ] appeal .
At least , the weekly newspaper Die Tagespost let two well-known signatories , Müller and Schneider , speak for themselves [ see here LifeSite ’ s reports ] .
Even the historian Roberto de Mattei , known for his orthodoxy , questioned the competence of the bishops .
He should have taken into account that Church dignitaries may very well express their opinion on questions concerning the common good .
The magisterial authority is of course not as binding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith .
A word on the hot topic “ world government ” is appropriate here .
No one will claim that it is just around the corner .
Global-centralist tendencies are nevertheless frightening and should be debated beyond any speculations of conspiracy theories .
Recently , the media reported extensively on the search for and financing of a new vaccine .
One of the protagonists in this field , the US entrepreneur Bill Gates , who exerts great influence on the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , comments on this in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He sees three major medical breakthroughs as a result of the corona crisis .
It is obvious that the innovations will bring about fundamental global power shifts .
It is no coincidence that Gates associates such research advances with the UN .
In the translation of his article on Focus-Online [ a German magazine ] it says : “ Our progress will not only be seen in science .
It will also be seen in our ability to ensure that everyone benefits from this science .
I think in the years after 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 1945 .
With the end of the Second World War , leaders created international institutions like the UN to prevent further conflicts .
After Covid-19 , leaders will work on institutions to prevent the next pandemic.
” The appeal by the dignitaries and the many lay people who support it can help to remain vigilant against an even greater increase of power by leading globalists who look for major crises to instrumentalize them for their own purposes .
In 1994 , David Rockefeller — among other things the initiator of the still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear before the U.S. Economic Committee : “ We are at the beginning of a global upheaval .
All we need is a really big crisis and the nations will accept the ‘ New World Order ’ .
” The cryptic sentence can also be understood as a lasting warning .
Such a quotation says little in itself .
Of course , it is occasionally misused by wacky conspiracy theorists .
But if one registers in the last decades the tendencies toward centralization worldwide , one can only call for vigilance .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is manifold : World Parliament , World Court of Justice , World Bank , World Army and World Police .
There is the danger of a successive accumulation of power , which Kant had already discussed in his study Perpetual Peace .
Such developments , with their potential to endanger freedom and democracy , need no further discussion .
The danger can not be dismissed that it is not the peoples who determine their own destinies , but a small elite .
Also those who stigmatize all unpleasant opinions as conspiracy theories can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Felix Dirsch is a Catholic theologian and political scientist .
He is the author of various publications , including Nation , Europe , Christianity and Right Christianity .
Dirsch criticizes the influence of the 1968 generation and “ political correctness.
” Translation by LifeSite ’ s Dr. Maike Hickson .
Professor Dirsch and Boris Reitschuster kindly gave LifeSite permission to publish this text .

May 19, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Professor Felix Dirsch, a German theologian, philosopher, and political scientist, has published a response to the criticism on the part of German media with regard to the May 7 Viganò Appeal concerning the corona crisis and its consequent potential dangers for the various freedoms of our countries. He sees a suppression of dissident voices at work.
In his commentary published on the website of the journalist Boris Reitschuster, Dirsch regrets the “inquisitorial reflexes of the media” that suppress an objective debate of the matters at stake, and he speaks of “a rather ‘subtle dictatorship’ as a result of the tendentious orientation of the leading media of quality: the exclusion and discrediting of dissidents whose own concerns are rejected without examination of the facts, even if the statement finds many starting points in the current discourse.”
Furthermore, Professor Dirsch quotes a recent article published by the prominent globalist and entrepreneur Bill Gates, who explained that the current corona crisis will foster major changes in the world now, one being the promotion of international “institutions to prevent the next pandemic,” thus furthering a globalized society.
Says Dirsch:
One of the protagonists in this field, the U.S. entrepreneur Bill Gates, who exerts great influence on the World Health Organization (WHO), comments on this in a guest article in the renowned Economist. He sees three major medical breakthroughs as a result of the corona crisis. It is obvious that the innovations will bring about fundamental global power shifts. It is no coincidence that Gates associates such research advances with the UN. In the translation of his article on Focus-Online it says: ‘Our progress will not only be seen in science. It will also be seen in our ability to ensure that everyone benefits from this science.’ I think we will learn from the years after 1945 in the years after 2021. With the end of the Second World War, leaders created international institutions like the UN to prevent further conflicts. After Covid-19, leaders will work on institutions to prevent the next pandemic.
Furthermore, Professor Dirsch supports the well reasoned interventions of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who seems to have been especially singled out by critics in Germany, as well as of Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Both prelates have now published extensive defenses of their support of the Viganò Appeal and criticize an atmosphere in the public that suppresses a substantial debate and instead labels critics with derogatory names such as “conspiracy theorist.”
The author also regrets that there is a division even among Catholic conservatives with regard to this debate about the coronavirus and its dangers for our freedoms in society. He explicitly mentions here the criticism of Professor Roberto de Mattei, who had reproached the prelates signing the Viganò Appeal since they should keep to their theological and moral competencies.
PETITION: Tell politicians not to discriminate against churches when reopening society! Sign the petition here.
Speaking with the Tagespost, de Mattei argued that the bishops are leaving their field of expertise — which is that of theology and morality — when making statements on health matters and politics. For him, it is understandable when people criticize the interdiction of public Masses and of the administration of the sacraments during the pandemic. However, he is perplexed when “bishops make statements on the field of health measures taken by government, since this is beyond their field of expertise which is, after all, a theological and moral one.”
About this, Dirsch comments:
Even the historian Roberto de Mattei, known for his orthodoxy, questioned the competence of the bishops. He should have taken into account that Church dignitaries may very well express their opinion on questions concerning the common good. The magisterial authority is of course not as binding in such matters as in matters of faith.
The Catholic professor also addresses the fact that several German bishops and dignitaries had distanced themselves from the Viganò Appeal and especially criticized Cardinal Müller in person. “That state media such as ARD and ZDF [two German public-service television broadcasters] reject divergent views as a ‘conspiracy theory’ without defining this multifaceted concept,” Dirsch explains, “is anything but astonishing. But the fact that the German Bishops’ Conference dissociates itself from the appeal may be considered a bit much.” He especially shows himself astonished at the lack of charity toward fellow bishops, as well as at the eagerness of German bishops to please the spirit of the times, something that they just recently bemoaned with regard to their episcopal predecessors during the reign of Hitler.
In light of such regrettable conduct, Professor Dirsch also points out that indeed, there are serious researchers and experts who bring forth similar arguments to those of the Viganò Appeal, adding that there are taking place developments toward a world government — such as the World Bank, a World Court of Justice, and so on — which very well may be a cause of concern. He concludes by saying: “The danger cannot be dismissed that it is not the peoples who determine their own destinies, but a small elite. Also those who stigmatize all unpleasant opinions as conspiracy theories can hardly want such a trend.”
Translation of full statement by Professor Felix Dirsch: All Against Some
Instead of an objective discussion, the debate about the Viganò Appeal shows the usual inquisitorial reflexes of the media.
In our times characterized by the plurality of media, obsessed with clicks and gigabytes with which one can earn an enormous amount of money, it is not easy to bring it about that a topic is widely discussed. Often only excitement makes it into the leading media – and from there into countless secondary channels.
The appeal Veritas liberabit vos has achieved the feat of a controversial, if largely one-sided reception. The document was produced by some within the Vatican (in cooperation with various experts). Curial cardinals and curial archbishops such as Gerhard L. Müller, Joseph Zen Zen-kiun and Carlo M. Viganò were the first signatories. Numerous supporters, doctors, lawyers and others — mostly believers — put their name under the letter since its publication.
That such an appeal is not the last word of wisdom is self-evident. This text, too, which is addressed to all people of good will and does not contain any specifically dogmatic topics, can only vaguely hint at some things. More precise justifications of some theses are missing. So far, the objections are correct. Of course, such a paper is written to stimulate reflection. It is not intended to replace a comprehensive treatise.
He who is interested in contemporary events will detect numerous topics that are widely debated worldwide: These include the reference to the dangers of new tracking apps, which might make possible improved controls worldwide, the criticism of restrictions on freedom and of corona panic-mongering, which has been pointed out by a whole phalanx of [German] virologists and other experts (from Sucharit Bhakdi to Karin Mölling and Hendrik Streeck). The prohibitions of worship are justly being targeted. The reference to the dangers of a world government has provoked a particular rejection.
As in other debates in recent years, one particularly worrying fact stands out: Although dissenting opinions can certainly be expressed, one basic feature however dominates, which points to a rather ‘subtle dictatorship’ as a result of the tendentious orientation of the leading media of quality: the exclusion and discrediting of dissidents whose own concerns are rejected without any examination of the facts, even if the statement finds many reference points in the current discourse. One of the co-signatories, Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop in Astana (Kazakhstan), expressed his dismay at the omnipresent ‘demagogic and popular rhetoric.’ In a personal statement he refers among other things to the consequences of the compulsory vaccination which endanger freedom. Not only in the case of the so-called Viganò document, one can only shake one’s head over the deficits of the prevailing culture of debate.
That state media such as ARD and ZDF [two German public-service television broadcasters] reject divergent views as a ‘conspiracy theory’ without defining this multi-faceted concept is anything but astonishing. But the fact that the German Bishops’ Conference dissociates itself from the appeal may be considered a bit much. Even more worthy of criticism is the way of dealing with the fellow bishops. The usual speech bubbles (“right-wing populism”, “conspiracy theory” and so on) prove that the notorious left and left-liberal propaganda arsenal has been adopted. Not only the vicar general [Klaus] Pfeffer from Essen revealed himself as a follower of the zeitgeist [“Zeitgeistlicher”]. The conformist Church, it can be pointed out, has struck again. Quite a few may remember well-known Church statements on illegal mass immigration, which reached its peak in 2015/16. The fact that prominent Catholic laymen such as the ZdK [Central Committee of German Catholics] chairman Thomas Sternberg raised their voice with a pathetic commentary is really outrageous. As if it were self-evident, and without any content-related discussion, Mr. Professor sees the reputation of Cardinal Müller ruined, on whom the shitstorm focused. Aha, that is to say: Impulses to current debates that are not politically correct ruin the reputation of the contributor! And here, Müller himself did not even write a line of it. A journalist even labeled this steadfast churchman as “Hans-Georg Maaßen of the Catholic Church” [a German lawyer and former president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution]; Müller may well understand the comparison with this excellent lawyer as praise.
The actions of the clergymen who are part of the regime seem particularly embarrassing against the background of the bishops’ letter on occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of the war [World War II]. In it connections of numerous Catholics to the National-Socialist tyrannical state are admitted, which are anyway relatively undisputed. In fact only few remained without guilt. For that reason alone the raised warning finger, which has long become customary, is not due to those born after the war! The many opponents among the Christians who raised their voices are not being discussed in detail because of the gesture of subservience to the spirit of the times. The fact that this circle was rather manageable can hardly surprise us also in light of today’s experiences. German Civil Service Catholicism – like large parts of the post-war society – presents itself as “executioner” (Walter Cardinal Brandmüller). One does not get the impression that today’s Church leaders are more critical of the state authorities than they were back then. While in the dark 12 years [under Hitler’s reign] the fear of reprisals by the rulers understandably prevailed with many, today it is the fear of the virus, which is admittedly often only advanced in order to reduce civil rights and liberties.
The author of these lines, who has also put his name under the document, regrets that the Catholic-conservative camp is also divided with regard to the [Viganò] appeal. At least, the weekly newspaper Die Tagespost let two well-known signatories, Müller and Schneider, speak for themselves [see here LifeSite’s reports]. Even the historian Roberto de Mattei, known for his orthodoxy, questioned the competence of the bishops. He should have taken into account that Church dignitaries may very well express their opinion on questions concerning the common good. The magisterial authority is of course not as binding in such matters as in matters of faith.
A word on the hot topic “world government” is appropriate here. No one will claim that it is just around the corner. Global-centralist tendencies are nevertheless frightening and should be debated beyond any speculations of conspiracy theories. Recently, the media reported extensively on the search for and financing of a new vaccine. One of the protagonists in this field, the US entrepreneur Bill Gates, who exerts great influence on the World Health Organization (WHO), comments on this in a guest article in the renowned Economist. He sees three major medical breakthroughs as a result of the corona crisis. It is obvious that the innovations will bring about fundamental global power shifts. It is no coincidence that Gates associates such research advances with the UN. In the translation of his article on Focus-Online [a German magazine] it says: “Our progress will not only be seen in science. It will also be seen in our ability to ensure that everyone benefits from this science. I think in the years after 2021, we will learn from the years after 1945. With the end of the Second World War, leaders created international institutions like the UN to prevent further conflicts. After Covid-19, leaders will work on institutions to prevent the next pandemic.”
The appeal by the dignitaries and the many lay people who support it can help to remain vigilant against an even greater increase of power by leading globalists who look for major crises to instrumentalize them for their own purposes. In 1994, David Rockefeller — among other things the initiator of the still influential Bilderberg Conference — made it perfectly clear before the U.S. Economic Committee: “We are at the beginning of a global upheaval. All we need is a really big crisis and the nations will accept the ‘New World Order’.” The cryptic sentence can also be understood as a lasting warning.
Such a quotation says little in itself. Of course, it is occasionally misused by wacky conspiracy theorists. But if one registers in the last decades the tendencies toward centralization worldwide, one can only call for vigilance. The globalism that has been institutionalized long since is manifold: World Parliament, World Court of Justice, World Bank, World Army and World Police. There is the danger of a successive accumulation of power, which Kant had already discussed in his study Perpetual Peace. Such developments, with their potential to endanger freedom and democracy, need no further discussion. The danger cannot be dismissed that it is not the peoples who determine their own destinies, but a small elite. Also those who stigmatize all unpleasant opinions as conspiracy theories can hardly want such a trend.
Professor Felix Dirsch is a Catholic theologian and political scientist. He is the author of various publications, including Nation, Europe, Christianity and Right Christianity. Dirsch criticizes the influence of the 1968 generation and “political correctness.”
Translation by LifeSite’s Dr. Maike Hickson. Professor Dirsch and Boris Reitschuster kindly gave LifeSite permission to publish this text.
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share