This Just In: Civilization Ends

IC ^ | August 10, 2010 | Robert R. Reilly

[Melian]

The forces of evil are circling. The Catholic Church is the target.

However, I rejoice that I live in a time when it is not easy to be Catholic. I am grateful that, despite the many secular pressures of our society, I have been able to persevere. It isn’t easy and we are often mocked.

In this very small way, we can suffer along with the martyrs for the glory of God.

Hold fast until the end!

[Liberty1970]

I hope so, and if nothing changes I think we can eke out a 5-4 decision. Pray for it.

[NYer]

In this very small way, we can suffer along with the martyrs for the glory of God.

Father Ragheed, a Chaldean Catholic priest, is one of my favorite martyrs.

---

Fr. Ragheed Ganni
Martyr for the faith

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Baghdad (AsiaNews) – An armed group gunned down and killed Fr Ragheed Ganni and three of his aides. The murder took place right after Sunday mass in front of the Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul where Father Ragheed was parish priest. Sources told AsiaNews that hours later the bodies were still lying in the street because no one dared retrieve them. Given the situation tensions in the area remain high.

---

In the car were 3 of his deacons and one of their wives. The terrorists told the woman to get out of the car, asked the men to convert to Islam and when they refused, executed them on the spot. They then booby-trapped the car which prevented authorities from removing their bodies until a team could defuse the devices.

Fr. Ragheed was born in Mosul in 1972. In 1993, He received his Civil Engineering degree from the University of Mosul. He studied in Rome from 1996 to 2003 where he received a master's degree in Theology.

Two nuns and a layman carry the pictures of the three deacons who were murdered with Fr. Ragheed.

I posted a thread on this topic earlier this year.

Choosing to be Hated for Christ

And, the bottom line is just that. This is a choice we make. It is not imposed on any of us.

[Antoninus]

Perhaps it’s just a different path that God has for civilisation, not the end?

Yeah, Nero put Rome on a different path, too.

Whatever "god" condones calling two sodomites the moral equivalent of a married couple, it surely isn't the Lord of Hosts. Ba'al or Dionysus, maybe.

[stuartcr]

By people I would agree, by God, I can’t say for sure, but I believe not.

[stuartcr]

I believe God knows what each of us is going to do, at any given time...even before He creates us.

[stuartcr]

Yes, it is.

Do you believe God knows what we are going to do, even before He creates us?

[stuartcr]

I believe there’s only One God.

[Forest Keeper]

I wonder how many people realize that the laws and court rulings allowing homosexual “marriages” make polygamy a virtual certainty.

I agree with you, and I doubt that many do realize this. Although he was criticized for alarmism in his dissent in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Justice Scalia saw this coming a mile away, just as he did in his earlier dissent in Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996). (See III, para. 9, et seq.). In LAWRENCE (which overturned the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Bowers v. Hardwick that laws against homosexual activity were Constitutional), Scalia wrote:

...... State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” ([Scalia's underline] emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2 (FK's bolded emphasis added).

I think Scalia accurately saw the snowball effect coming in that logically, if homosexual marriage is allowed to be forced by the courts then other unions would also have to be allowed using the same reasoning. The only way around this would be for a future liberal Court to further embarrass itself by throwing all manner of logic and reason out the window by artificially creating a carve-out for two people based on nothing. I think Scalia fears, as I do, that today's judicial activism has largely given up on even the pretense of reason and consistency in arriving at its desires by fiat. If Roe v. Wade can last this long on the utterly ridiculous standards of penumbras and emanations, then perhaps anything goes, no honorable justification required.

[SaraJohnson]

If sexual oreintation dictates what society must accomodate, it is even a bigger problem that polygamy. That is just the next step. Then comes NAMBLA with their sexual orientation to man/boy “love.” They will “progress” there! We are going down all the way off a cliff.

[Forest Keeper]

If sexual orientation dictates what society must accommodate, it is even a bigger problem that polygamy. That is just the next step. Then comes NAMBLA with their sexual orientation to man/boy “love.” They will “progress” there! We are going down all the way off a cliff.

I completely agree. In order to get what they really want, the common acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, they will be handing the law over to the NAMBLAs and the like on a silver platter. The trail to the promised land has already been blazed. All the other behavioral factions have to do is follow it, and they'll get their "rights" too.

[FreedomPoster]

>>There is no reason for homosexuals to marry one another.

Actually, there is. As in most things, follow the money. The issue here is spousal insurance benefits from employers.

On that note, should this ruling stand, how long will it be before we find two same-sex *heterosexuals* getting married purely so one can take advantage of the other’s employer’s insurance?

[wmfights]

The issue here is spousal insurance benefits from employers.

Not true. The practice of having the spouse and children on the policy was because the spouse stayed home and raised the children. 2 homosexuals will not produce children and one doesn't need to stay home. Thus there's no reason they can't get it either at work or buy it.

[wmfights]

...by God, I can’t say for sure...

There is no question the act is condemned by God. We don't write the rules. The rules have been given to us and we either obey , or we don't.

I think sometimes in these discussions it's forgotten that homosexuals aren't the only people who have desires that are wrong. Everybody has something they deal with. It doesn't mean we normalize these temptations and say they are okay.

[stuartcr]

You also choose to believe the rules you read are for everyone...even those that do not believe as you do.

[Albion Wilde]

***Walker dismisses morality altogether as an insufficient basis for legislation.*** How might he apply this nonsense to the most immoral act of murder?

Since a prohibition of murder is cited in the Ten Commandments, prosecuting murderers must therefore violate the separation of church and state. Same with stealing, lying, etc. And if you can't prosecute lying under oath, then you have complete anarchy. Which is what libtards want.

[sodpoodle]

That judge is guilty of malfeasance. He should be impeached and removed from the bench.

[FreedomPoster]

I’m not arguing how it should be; I don’t think we’re in disagreement there. I’m telling you why this is being pushed for by the homosexual lobby.

Again, follow the money. This isn’t just “principle” for the homosexuals.

[Niuhuru]

I’m glad you appreciate my post. I think, the worst thing to happen to the US in a way, was GW. Mainly since he did all the work (aside from our military) to keep this country sheltered from more attacks and full blown economic collapse. Strong leaders like him are great, but they in a way enable to populace to not work to maintain the country, society, and industry.

For example, Augustus the Great revived Rome, but he crippled the country in the sense that it relied overmuch on the leaders/emperors to keep things going and not make any fundamental changes to society on their own initiative. The most successful societies are ones that don’t rely on ‘Strongmen’ to run everything successfully. The society is run from the ‘ground up’ and not from the ‘top down.’

When America basically ran itself outside of overt interference, then it was great. Same with any country for that matter. But America is learning helplessness and a lot of Americans are always waiting around, waiting to be told what to do. Now increasingly Americans are like French peasants screaming at the government to give them bread while they ignore their farms.

It’s horrible and it’s going to, unless America is forced to take a long hard look at this downward spiral, what will happen is that America will collapse or literally become a Third World country.