April 24, 2013

… The Soup Nazi would be proud.

American authorities have told the family that they can have Tsarnaev’s body, and an uncle approached the mosque to request a burial and funeral but was declined, said the aunt, Patimat Suleimanova.

She said that she did not know the name of the mosque but that it was one the family attended. A mosque in Cambridge, Mass., has said that Tsarnaev attended and occasionally caused disruptions and that mosque leaders threatened to kick him out.
A spokesman for the mosque, run by the Islamic Society of Boston, has said that congregants have been questioned by the FBI. The mosque did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday from NBC News.

Earlier this week, Imam Talal Eid of the Islamic Institute of Boston told The Huffington Post: “I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person who deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.” [SOURCE]

This smacks of unforgiving callousness. Sure Tsarnaev was a despicable and disturbed individual but can you imagine the pealing public outcry from amnesty groups if we started refusing proper burials for prisoners? Are not convicted murders who “deliberately killed people” deserving of human dignity as well? What is the difference in this instance?

The Catholic Church teaches that burying the dead is a corporal work of mercy and to pray for the deceased is a spiritual work of mercy. Mercy is seriously lacking in this particular example. Can you imagine hearing that there was no room for you as a Catholic?

What does Islam teach about mercy and forgiveness? Perhaps one of our writers in the Muslim portal can address this and explain the Iman’s actions. Can it even be explained and excused? Personally, from what Catholics know and believe about God and His infinite mercy I can’t really see any justification. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not interested or open to a discussion on the matter. As appalled as I am, I am equally curious. It would never in a million years even occur to me to refuse someone a burial. It seems so… so, inhuman. Disturbingly inhuman.

As someone commented on facebook, wouldn’t it be something if the archdiocese of Boston agreed to give Tamerlan Tsarnaev a burial; not a Catholic burial, but out of charity saw to it that the arrangements were made at least.

Updated: Shows ya what I know. Apparently Catholics used to do it too. Most notoriously, in 1986 mobster Anthony Spilotro was denied a Catholic funeral. So how does that jive with our own spiritual and corporal works of mercy then?

April 24, 2013

Reading about Katherine Russell/Karima Tsarnaev, the widow of Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, reminds me specifically of two woman. The first was an old friend who married a seemingly wonderful man too young, had his children, then watched him transform into a controlling and abusive “devout” Muslim.

The second woman was me.

Sarah.

My friend “Sarah”* met her husband in college and fell quickly in love. Sarah was a cradle Catholic and her husband, “Hassan”*, was a Muslim but not practicing. He was Americanized, having been born in the US, and even showed interest in her faith. After they married Hassan started attending RCIA and was in the process of converting to Catholicism. Then she got pregnant and suddenly everything changed.

His parents refused to have their grandchildren be anything but Muslim and other family members stepped in and begin intimidating her with threatening phone calls and emails. But as long as she stayed in Virginia* near her family Hassan could never have a complete hold on her. That’s when Sarah disappeared.

A few weeks before she moved away she confided to me that she was expecting twins and the prospect scared her. I believe her husband latched on to this fear to emotional manipulate Sarah and get her to agree to move away. She was moving to New Jersey*, she told me, to get away from meddling family, his and her own. Her parents wanted her to leave Hassan because they were concerned about his dramatic changes in behavior since her pregnancy- he no longer wanted to convert to Catholicism and quit RCIA, started practicing his religion and demanding Sarah convert to Islam. She wasn’t allowed to hang out with us any more or go to mass. She started wearing a head scarf and stopped returning our calls.

And like that Sarah was gone.

Four years would pass before I heard from her again. She and her daughters moved back in with her parents and Sarah returned to the Church. When she called me she sounded happier and freer, but very very tired. She proceeded to tell me a very familiar tale; one of isolation and abuse.

Hassan couldn’t keep a job because of his militant views and prosthelytizing at work. He was violent and quick tempered and didn’t allow Sarah to leave the house without him, quoting from the Koran to justify his abuse. It wasn’t until they had been evicted from their apartment that Hassan allowed Sarah to work outside the home because they desperately needed the income. Her new job just caused more problems as he grew jealous and suspicious of the non-Muslim friends she made at work. He was humiliated that he had to ask her for money and to make himself feel better started beating her and sleeping with other women.

The final straw was when she threatened to leave. Enraged, Hassan said if she tried to divorce him he’d kill her and their children before he’d allowed that to happen. She knew then the man she loved and married was gone, if he ever truly existed. There was nothing to salvage from their marriage and for her children’s safety left him when he started working again. He came home from work one evening and she was simply gone.

Thankfully, his threat proved empty. He simply moved his new girlfriend into their old home and his focus was turned elsewhere. He never hunted her down or attempted to make good on his promise of harm other than a few angry calls to her family’s home. Once the number was changed that was the end of Hassan. They lived on edge for a brief while but it soon became clear Hassan could have cared less that she was gone. He was only interested in Sarah and the children as long as he could control them.

It was always about control. Not about religious differences or meddling family. It was all just about control. Sarah could have been telling my story, just change the names of the characters and rewrite a few minor details and *bam* … they narrated story of Kat. That’s why we remain close to this day.

Me.

I was already isolated from my family when my now ex-husband first met me through a group of mutual friends. It made the job of deception that much easier for him accomplish. He never had to face parental scrutiny and probing questions by a grim scowling father and suspicious mother. There were no dinners with the folks. He was outgoing enough to charm all my friends but once we got married that charm vanished – almost immediately.

We no longer entertained friends at the house and girl’s night out was halted. Then we moved three states away and no one ever saw me again, also for several years. My phone calls were monitored and he intentionally did not have long distance added to our land line phone plan. If I wanted to talk to my family and friends I had to wait for them to call me. When they did I wasn’t allowed to take the call in another room. He sat right at my side listening to every word said.

Oh he was so clever about it too, disguising it as concern for my emotional well being because he knew how much my family and friends hated him and wanted to turn me against him. They were jealous and wanted to break up our marriage, he said. He needed to “protect” me from their deceitful influence, he purred.

I actually believed him. Just like Sarah believed her husband had her best interests in mind when he made her move away. I’m sure Katherine Tsarnaev felt the same way about her Boston bombing husband.

In two short years the man I married was completely gone. In his place was a jealous, controlling, emotionally manipulative monster who threatened and intimidated me. He wore me down to a raw little nub of a woman who actually believed she was worthless and deserving of the abuse. Then one day he came home from work and I was gone.

I’m not sure what my point is. I know I had a point to make in here somewhere. Maybe the red flag was my point. The blaring, beeping, alarms going off red flag that should set any woman on high alert whenever a man tries to isolate her friends and family. Ladies, men do this because they know they can fool you, in the gooey haze of loooooove, but they cannot fool both your entire circle of friends and your family. Don’t be let them talk you into being “whisked away”. It’s a trap.

Gosh, that’s sounds silly to write. It sounds so common sense. But the heart plays tricks on our common sense… that damn deceptive internal organ. Stupid, stupid heart.

[Jeremiah 17:9] The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse — who can understand it?

I remember refusing to talk about the situation of my divorce for years. Years. I still don’t like to go into the depth the level of abuse I endured. Mostly because it makes me look like a desperate fool and pathetic judge of character. My friend feels the same way. We’ll talk about it to ourselves and she supposes one day she’ll to explain it to her daughters so they don’t make the same mistakes… but yeah. It’s not something you share freely or brag about. “So I was this stupid young girl and feel in love with a con man” is never polite conversation.

Maybe the point of this post was just an exercise in catharsis. I’m not entirely sure. I just know that reading about Katherine Russell certainly stirred up a lot of past emotions that needed to get out. I feel sorry for her and what she is going through. Everyone knows she married a bad guy and everyone is secretly wondering what was wrong with her to marry him in the first place. And I can relate to that. Every woman in a shitty abusive marriage wonders that about themselves… what is wrong with me? That’s why women stay or it takes them awhile to pluck up the courage to leave. Because they are scared and it takes a great deal of courage to admit to yourself and everyone else in your life that you made a huge, ginormous foolish mistake. The finger gets pointed squarely at the abused wife.

When a woman is abused I suppose we can all share in the blame, maybe a little. I could have tried harder to get Sarah to stay, warned louder, even at the risk of our friendship. We think, oh that person is a grown up capable of making her own decision, she must be with him because she wants to be, is stupid, or is addicted to the drama. Again, the victim is blamed. Sometimes it is easier to stay and hope things will get better than leave the situation and face all the finger wagging and told-ya-so-s.

So, yeah. Maybe this post has a dual nature … mullet post. Red flag warnings in the front, mercy in the back. Whatever. I just feel better for having written it.

Resources.

Warning Signs of an Abusive Relationship

Domestic Violence and Abuse- The Signs

Sts. Rita & Monica, pray for us.

*names and locations changed for anonymity.

April 10, 2013

… News That Never Was; highlighted news items ignored by the politically bias, liberal agenda driven mainstream media.

Gay Connecticut Couple On Trial For Raping Their Adopted Children… media outrage? Nope. Crickets.

I’m less outraged over the media’s blind eye than I am about the fact that they almost entered a plea deal* that would have given them both probation instead jail time. Can you believe it?! Two grown men stand accused* of raping their adopted child and some judge is OK with letting them go. It was even up for debate regarding whether these would have to register as sex offenders.

So what could have kept these two from walking away and evading justice served if they accepted the plea deal*? More raped children…

But more allegations came to light Friday in the explosive case, and prosecutors said they want to go to trial. [Ya think!]

I know not every gay parent is a rapist. I would lose street cred to even suggest such a wild baseless claim on this one single incident, even if I highly suspect this will not be last we hear of things like this happening. Bad people with all manor of perversions look to harm and sexually exploit innocent children; straight people, gay people – it matters not. Bad people exist and will continue to do so.

No, what I find absolutely appalling is that this couple was so clearly given preferential treatment based solely on their sexual orientation. Imagine for moment the media lynch mob if I teacher at a Catholic university or a Scout leader were arrested for raping several of their adoptive children. When a gay couple does it it’s swept under the rug because it doesn’t fit into the narrative of the liberal media’s agenda that seeks to sanctify all things LGBTQ.

The Anchoress notes;

There is a saying in the news industry: “if it bleeds, it leads…” But not always. Perhaps the saying should be changed to, “if it bleeds and is politically expedient it leads, otherwise, it gets buried.

In this particular instance of news that never was, Elizabeth Scalia was referring to the Gosnell Abortion/Murder Trials. The Gosnell Trials also do not garner big media outlet attention because it too fails to fit into the narrative.

If you haven’t been following this grisly case; Kermit Gosnell is an abortion provider on trial for murder. This sick twisted piece of flesh doomed to the torments of hell lest he repent is standing trial for “performing late-term abortions, marveling once that a baby was “so big, he could walk with me to the bus” before he used scissors to snip its spinal cord. Sometimes, he would sever the feet to keep around the office, like trophies.”

The testimony of the witnesses is horrific. Gosnell was killing children who were born alive and screaming. He abandoned one women to die on his abortion table, legs still in stir-ups, after receiving an abortion from his filthy facility. He kept “trophies” of dismembered babies, for hell’s sake!

I thought the morbid-centric media ate this gruesome shit up. But no… again, it doesn’t fit the narrative so it’s not worthy of letting the public know that this is what abortion is. Abortion is murder. Abortion is dead infants. Abortion is sick and twisted, like Saturn devouring his son.

And why haven’t we heard more about this? Trust me, it’s not because the story is too horrifying to comprehend. It’s not considered newsworthy because the talking heads providing the narrative don’t find butchered infants all that shocking. They heart abortion so much they have absolutely no objections to murdering infants.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said.

She doesn’t know how to answer that? Mother of God.

Also not considered “newsworthy” … Catholicism has been classified as “religious extremism” by the US Army Reserves. The Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services is not impressed.

Meanwhile in Egypt, Coptic St. Mark’s Cathedral has been under attack by real religious extremists.

“… gangs of Muslims attacked the Christian mourners, resulting in the deaths of two more Copts, including one shot through the heart. Hundreds of Christians retreated back into the cathedral — both to get out of harm’s way, and to protect their holiest site. They were trapped there all night, enduring projectile and firebomb attacks. State Security also opened fire on the cathedral, including through tear-gas.”

We don’t hear about this because Christians are supposed to be the only religious fanatics perpetuating violence. That’s the narrative; therefore, the media stays keenly focused on our intolerance and “H8” with little room for much else.

Welcome to the new world where all your information are belong to us.

*I wanted to call attention to a few edits made in this post from it’s original content regarding the gay couple on trial for rape. 1) The disparaging remarks were removed, because it was ugly and I should be above name calling, 2) I added the word “accused” because they have not been proven guilty and guilt should not be presumed with out full evidence, and lastly 3) to note the plea deal was denied by accused couple because the men maintain their innocence and want a trial to clear their names.

I still firmly stand by my assertion that the couple is being given preferential media treatment via lack of coverage because it fails to fit neatly in the narrative.

May 1, 2012

… I’m no legal expert or canon lawyer but this sounds like quite a stretch;

Last month, South Dakota passed a law that seeks to prevent the enforcement of “any religious code.” The very brief bill stated simply: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

It seems quite innocuous, but clearly, it was intended to target the threat of sharia law. In many other states, similar laws do not mention sharia explicitly, but rather “foreign law” or “foreign codes.” As many have pointed out, this is a solution looking for a problem, as nowhere in America are Muslims seeking to supplant the Constitution with sharia law. If you think about this and delve into South Dakota’s law and similar laws in other states, one thing starts to become clear: Leaving aside the fact that these laws are discriminatory by their very nature, any law that bans “foreign codes” should cause Catholics to take heed.

That is because the Holy See, which is the source of Catholic canon law, resides in the Vatican, a city-state that is a sovereign, independent country. Thus, technically, Catholic Canon Law is a “foreign code” or “foreign law,” and those state laws that prevent courts from enforcing or taking “foreign laws” into account should also then apply to Catholic Canon Law. [SOURCE]

My understanding is those looking to impose sharia law want separate courts to enforce their religious laws. You know, to protect people that carry out honor killings and junk. Sharia law looks to circumvent laws that everyone else has to follow by claiming a religious exemption, like exempting women in burqas from TSA pat downs. Catholics haven’t called for separate legal systems and we still follow civic laws so I don’t follow the extreme leaps in logic of this statement, from the same article;

This is significant because any marriage officiated in a Catholic Church under Catholic religious rules cannot be enforced by the courts if anti-Sharia bills become law. Couples need to get a marriage license, but if they choose to have, for example, a Catholic religious ceremony—which brings the marriage into being—in a church rather than a courthouse, then those marriages are performed using a “foreign law.”

If, God forbid, such a couple were to then divorce, the court cannot do anything because the marriage was officiated with a “foreign law.” If one spouse were to die, the court would not be allowed to enforce the deceased’s will, because, again, the marriage was officiated using “foreign law.” If a spouse is sick and incapacitated in a hospital, how can the health care providers take the spouse as a surrogate decision maker if, in the first place, the marriage cannot be enforced because it was officiated using “foreign law”?

Um… yeah.

I guess one could make a connection with anti-sharia bills and Catholics current fight against the HHS mandate, but I see our fight as one against the government looking to impose laws preventing us from practicing our religion. Anti sharia bills, as I understand it, are about preventing foreign religious groups from establishing their own laws and legal systems that trump pre-existing civil laws and prevent those laws from being upheld. That’s a significant difference. When Catholics get divorced we get divorced in the same courts as everyone else so I fail to see the connection this author is trying to make. In all honesty, it just sounds like he is trying to win support – support I will never ever ever give – for the idea of sharia law being established here in the US by creating a strange series of events that may or may not effect Catholics.

Again I am no legal expert or canon lawyer so I ask, do you think the intentionally vague language of the bill could be a threat, because I don’t. But I would love to hear your take on it since I am obviously biased and suffer from bouts of misanthropic xenophobia.

Sound off.

PS – To be very very clear, I would like to add that I will never ever support sharia law here, or anywhere for that matter, due to the heinous and vicious persecution suffered by Christians living in Muslim dominated countries where sharia law is practiced. It is this author’s very strong belief and opinion that Islam is not a religion of tolerance and peace. Suggesting a discussion on this topic does not imply I think sharia law is OK or that I entertain the slightest possibility that sharia law should be upheld in US.

March 15, 2012

… “The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.”

The reason, stated a Times official responding to accusations of media bias, “…fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.” [source]

But Islam is so peaceful. What is this “danger” of which you speak?

Riiiiiiiight. Not even the Times believes that, or else they would have found the testicular fortitude to run the ad. At the core of their own explanation is an admission of fearing Islam. They fear retaliation, beheadings, and riots in the streets. Not a completely unfounded fear I might add.

We really need to stop kidding ourselves here. It’s not about being crassly un-PC and desiring not to cause offense. It’s not even about the liberal media’s hatred of Catholics and their favorite pastime, Catholic bashing. It’s quite plainly about fear. Fear of Islam and it’s adherents. And why fear? Because we have seen this religion practiced out in nations where it’s the religious majority and we understand it’s main objective – to dominate by force.

Unlike Christ who sacrificed himself to death on the cross for our sins, harmed no one, and only flipped a table in justified righteous indignation, Muhammad conquered and converted by the sword. And not much has changed since.

We really need to stop the cowardice now for the sake of our nation and Christianity. Nothing can be gained by continuing to deny and state the obvious. Period. The end.

November 16, 2011

proofs in the pudding.

“The French Benedictine friars gave us champagne. Chartreuse is still made by the Carthusian monks. Jägermeister is under the patronage of Saint Hubertus and Saint Eustace. Buckfast Tonic Wine – known affectionately as ‘Wreck the Hoose Juice’ in Scotland – was made by Benedictines. Frangelico was originally created by a hermit and is shaped like a Franciscan. Good beer was brewed almost exclusively by monasteries up until the twelfth century. You’ve got the Crusades to thank for the fact that we aren’t under Islamic Prohibition. And Catholics were a great source of alcohol during the American Prohibition – we were allowed to keep our vineyards running for communion wine. Catholics bootleged like nobody’s business.”

August 23, 2011

… I’ve often remarked that I better try and see as much of Europe as possible before it’s too late. I hope I haven’t waited too long.

Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of “no-go” areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

Many of the “no-go” zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations. [read more]

May 6, 2010

… I think I might have an idea who registered my email addresses [yes, all of them] with various islam websites and forums. Great, now allah is spamming me. I suppose this is pay back for the Jehovah Witnesses, eh? I heard they still come by your house even after all these months.

I love my friends, they’re the bestest ev-vah.

March 5, 2009

terrorist muslim front group CAIR sponsor their own bus campaign in San Francisco. True to form; the liberally biased media takes no notice.


Browse Our Archives