Prier Pour Paris

Prier Pour Paris November 13, 2015

Saint Michel Archange, défendez-nous dans le combat: soyez notre soutien contre la perfidie et les embûches du démon-
Que Dieu réprime son audace ! telle est notre humble prière.
Et vous, Prince de la milice céleste, par la vertu divine, refoulez en enfer Satan et les autres esprits mauvais, qui sont répandus dans le monde pour perdre les âmes.
Ainsi soit-il.

 

 

"It is great website, thanks for pointing it out."

Ignatius: A Brief Introduction to the ..."
"Ok, I misunderstood you. I apologise. You said that Catholics did not worship a God ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The references may be clear to you. My point, obvious, is that English-speaking readers are ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"You said: “Perhaps the references to “Gehenna” in the Gospels refer to annihilation...”I responded that ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Lost Dutchman

    These are your beloved Muslim “refugees”. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

    • Dan C

      I think your hate mongering is typical.

      No. Your ignorance is showing. These are the “returned.” Not the refugees.

      • LFM

        No, it isn’t. Not typical, that is.

        I agree that there’s no particular reason to suppose that the terrorists are refugees drawn from the most recent influx of people fleeing Middle Eastern “unrest”, but what difference does that make? At least one held a French passport; in what sense was he “returned”?

        • Dave G

          It’s best to wait and see. But it does make a difference if we want to at least try to keep things like this from happening. There is a balance between not overreacting and not reacting, between not doing the wrong thing and not doing anything. Right now, for my money, it’s best to spend some time in quiet and prayer. Help if we can. And wait for more information (and be prepared to accept it and not twist it to conform to what we hope the information reveals, one way or another).

          • LFM

            I agree with you. You say nothing here that I find inappropriate. Time in quiet and prayer, in order to consider the best course of action, is necessary now.

        • Dan C

          Which terrorist was a refugee? I see all had EU passports. You are wrong.

          • LFM

            Dishonest ***hole. You wait 5 days to respond to me, at which point, of course, far more information is available, and then you tell me I’m wrong. At the time I wrote, it looked as if one of the terrorists was also a refugee. A few hours later, this changed, but as you hadn’t addressed my comment it didn’t seem worthwhile to try to correct it. Now, the story is that the Syrian passport in question was a forgery, and moreover, that the same passport (of a dead loyalist Syrian soldier) had been copied and used several times over by different people. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/were-syrian-refugees-involved-in-the-paris-attacks-what-we-know-and-dont-know/]

            You may find the linked story, above, a perfectly satisfactory reassurance that there is at present no need to be alarmed about the possibility of terrorist infiltration of Syrian and other refugees attempting to enter Europe. I do not share your sanguine views. The story, rather, shows how big the trade in forged passports is and how easy it is for forgeries to get through the system.

            Furthermore, you ignore an even bigger elephant: that the mere fact of being Western citizens is not enough to prevent Muslims in Europe (and North America) from becoming terrorists. There is every reason to suppose that, nowadays, with Western nations at a low point culturally and to some extent economically, immigrants from antithetical cultures are NOT going to be integrated.

            The children of these refugees, in particular, are unlikely to feel inspired by the porn, drugs, and broken families on display here, and will thus be vulnerable to the impassioned certainties offered by revolutionaries and imams, and their own vague memories of home. If I thought that, as a Catholic woman, I’d be safe there, I’d happily move to Morocco tomorrow.

            No. This is a bad time to accept huge waves of Muslim immigrants. Note: when I say huge waves, I am thinking of the numbers accepted in Germany, which I suspect will destroy that country over the next 2 or 3 generations, because the things the refugees fled from will have traveled with them, as is inevitable when immigration occurs on that scale.

      • Eli

        There actually has been some evidence arisen that at least some of them were refugees.

        • LFM
        • Dan C

          Let’s revisit this fallacy. Which terrorist was a refugee of the eight known?

          • LFM

            Once again, your dishonesty stinks.

            • Dan C

              So…I didn’t join the “pile on” you eagerly participated in with regard to Syrian refugees, doing the work of ISIS for them.
              And I am dishonest. Nice. “Dishonest” is not the word you are looking for…maybe “correct.”

              • LFM

                I said “dishonest” and that feature is repeated in this your latest comment. You did NOT refrain from “piling on” in this situation: you knew nothing of the terrorists yet you maintained that none were refugees and that those who thought they were, or might be, were “hate mongering” and “ignorant”. Five days later, when it turned out that none of the terrorists were refugees (apparently – who knows what might come out later?) you came back to crow that those of us who thought they might turn out to be otherwise were wrong.

                Dishonest, as I said. Likewise a poor winner, and a nasty bit of work all around.

                • Dan C

                  SO…you are the victim here, I get it. So fragile.
                  Do you need a safe space?
                  You presumed nothing in charity with regard to refugees. You piled on the refugees. You did not await any investigation, again, doing the work of ISI for them.

                  • LFM

                    How in heaven’s name did you get the idea that I thought I was a victim? (I will leave the nonsense about the “safe space” alone.)

                    I presumed nothing in charity with regard to the refugees? Wrong. I assumed most of them were refugees. Unfortunately, terrorism doesn’t require many people to do tremendous damage. (How many 9/11 terrorists were there again?)

                    I did not pile on the refugees, as a quick perusal of my comments here will show. You might, if you want to be more accurate (though I suspect you are indifferent to accuracy; you prefer to win by any means) accuse me of “piling on” Muslims, whose presence in large numbers, whether as refugees or anything else, makes me somewhat nervous. As immigrants, they seem to be permitted every latitude, whether refusing to be interviewed by female consular officers, to importing numerous wives and thus the tradition of polygyny, to cousin marriage, to “honour killings,” to expressing the wish to impose sharia on their new homelands. Some of these things might be readily evident with careful interviewing (well, probably not honour killings). All of them ought to be automatic disqualifiers for residence in the West, but they are not.

                    As for “doing the work of ISI for them”, b.s. You speak as if the responses and decisions of large numbers of urban guerrillas/street fighters, over the course of several years, are entirely predictable: “Oh yes,” you envision some ISIS commander saying somewhere,”if the Infidels are critical of Islam or cautious about refugees, we’ll able able to convince the whole of Islam to join us!” No doubt someone, somewhere, is saying something like that. But the world is complicated and other ISIS people are probably delighted to see the refugees welcomed elsewhere, as long as they leave home. Does it not occur to you that getting rid of refugees who might be Sufis, or modernized Muslims, or Christians, might also be exactly what some ISIS leaders are hoping for?

                    Meanwhile, I’ll enrage many people but perhaps startle you by saying that I do think that many (nearly all) Western policies in the Middle East for the last 50 years have been a disaster both for us and them. From unqualified support for Saudi Arabia; to abandoning allies, however nasty (Saddam Hussein; Gaddafi); to encouraging “freedom fighters” (the Taliban; the rebels in Libya or Syria), everything “we” have done has blackened our reputations there and has certainly contributed to the rise of ISIS. Nor do I support massive bombing in retaliation for its atrocities: just a way of creating more tragic refugees by destroying their homes, their livelihoods, and of course their lives.

    • Shame on you.

    • Tom G

      Jeepers sir.

    • Bemused

      “We shall help no one lest we endanger ourselves.”

    • Bob

      Let’s be fools for Christ instead of wise jerks.

      This is not a clash between civilizations. This is the battle between good and evil, and those of us who wish to follow Christ cannot only be wise as serpents–we must also be innocent as doves.

      • So, you happy how the children’s crusade turned out? Idiocy is not innocence. The parent comment was calling out idiocy. Creating a nation state implies certain behaviors, long accepted within the christian tradition. Mark championed abandoning those behaviors. He got called out for it.

        • Bob

          And I write to support Mark and those like him who advocate for a deeper Christianity than what it is to many: a thin veneer on middle class values and the culture of the capitalist, neo-liberal, quote-unquote “enlightened” West.

          And I’m unclear as to what I said that made you think I would support the children’s crusade or any crusade for that matter.

          • False condemnations of other christians are a deeper christianity? Really?

            Now that you’ve clarified that you wouldn’t endorse any crusade, I await your remarks on Pope Francis’ description of this struggle as WW III with interest.

            • chezami

              I’m sorry. I offered a prayer for Paris. How is this championing abandonment of Christianity again?

              • LFM

                Mark, Mr Lutas didn’t say “abandoning Christianity”; he said “false condemnations of other Christians”. The words really do mean rather different things.

                It is not clear that Mr L was addressing you when he used that phrase, either, rather than commenter “Bob”. I didn’t read it that way initially, but you could be right. Certainly it was Bob, on this occasion, who said that he wanted to champion a “deeper Christianity” than the variant embraced by the capitalist, neo-liberal etc. West, although he appears to think that you share his views on this subject.

                Incidentally, I don’t know if “Bob” is right about that and I hope he isn’t. If he is, however, you should both remember these lines from The Screwtape Letters: “If I,” wrote Screwtape, speaking from the pov of Wormwood’s patient, “being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of the people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?”

                • chezami

                  “Creating a nation state implies certain behaviors, long accepted within the christian tradition. Mark championed abandoning those behaviors. He got called out for it.”

                  I repeat. I offered a prayer and got scolded by one guy who wants to blame all refugees for the crimes of the people killing them and another guy who took the ocassion of mass murder to tell me he hates Francis–pardon me: my senile boyfriend–and me. And somehow *I’m* the one falsely condemning other Christians and I had it coming?

                  You people make me puke. I am so sick of you guys, sick of all this shit. Does it occur to you people that these kicks to the groin hurt? What is wrong with you people? Just leave, will you?

                  • LFM

                    I have offered to leave before; I will do so now. Before I go, however, may I point out that I defended you against that foul-mouthed commenter who attacked both you and Francis? So, too, did TM Lutas.

                    • chezami

                      Look. I’m sorry I lost my temper and I retract my request that you leave (though Lutas finally reached his sellby date). I’m just unbelievably sick of having a prayer request turned into yet another bitch fest at my expense. Lutas was slightly less out of line than the other jerks. But what was wrong, exactly, about my posting a prayer request, for crying out loud?

                    • LFM

                      There was nothing wrong with it at all, Mark, and I greatly appreciated it. I’m not a Quebecoise, but I’m sufficiently French Canadian (see my name) to feel a kind of bond with France. I can’t really speak for anyone else, but I don’t believe that other commenters thought there was anything wrong with the prayer you posted either. That said, perhaps you should remind yourself from time to time that comment threads tend to take on a life of their own, and may not have much to do with the original post after a while. When I still had a blog, I was often astonished at the direction the comments took.

                      I don’t of course know of all that Lutas has written here, but from those of his comments I’ve read, I do think you’d be ill-advised to turf him out. He looks at the world from a pov quite distinct from that of the typical North American of whatever political persuasion. However, it’s your blog!

                    • chezami

                      All right. I’ll unblock him. But gee whiz, people. When there’s a tragedy and I post a pray request, is it not possible to just pray?

                    • LFM

                      Yes. We’ll pray. And I, for one, will try to be more graceful about it in the future.

                    • Dave G.

                      Technically, when I first started visiting your blog, Lutas would not have passed a sellby date. He simply disagrees, sometimes strongly, with positions you and many of your readers hold. In the day, that was allowed. That was one of the selling points for CAEI. Perhaps you should have directed these folks to your post above, where you give some ideas about the reactions and what they should or shouldn’t be. That would have been better than folks discussing these things on a post dedicated to prayer, which is absolutely fine to have. Just an opinion from a long, long time reader sitting in the stands and watching things unfold.

                    • chezami

                      In case it’s not clear yet, I posted a prayer about a tragedy that pains me. For my troubles I got multiple assholes coming up and kicking me in the groin, followed by Lutas wagging his finger at me as I lay on the ground in pain. It’s got nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It about being a clueless git. Just shut up, will ya? What is *wrong* with you? Can’t you just just. shut. up and get a freaking clue that I’m not made of stone?

                    • Dave G.

                      We understand that. We’re not made of stone either. I merely said that Lutas disagrees with you, and based on what I’ve seen here, didn’t do it in any way disrespectful or finger-in-the-eye. For that matter, he doesn’t seem to have disagreed that much. Others appear to have, though many posts have been deleted and I don’t know what they said. But Lutas didn’t, unless there are posts of his that have been removed, but that would be uncharacteristic of him, to say the least.

                    • chezami

                      Just. Shut. UP. Will you? I posted a prayer request in grief and got kicked in the nuts for it. And Lutas has to stand there and blather stupid shit about how I had it coming. And you have to blather stupid shit about how mean I am because I don’t say, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?” What in hell is *wrong* with you? Just. Shut. Upl Not another word. Shut up.

                    • LFM

                      Mark, I don’t get it. Seriously, I don’t. I don’t see what there was in that comment to provoke such a response from you.

                      Still, as my presence here, along with that of some others, has clearly become painful to you, I will go, in spite of the fact that you have said that I am not banned. I repeat, I don’t understand what’s happening but don’t wish to be the cause of such offense.

                      I will miss this blog. I learned a great deal here.

                    • PalaceGuard

                      Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

                • To clarify, first para was about Mark, second was about Bob. Both were addressed to Bob.

              • You were condemning those who raised the warning flag of terrorist infiltrators not so very long ago. That’s the issue at hand that I took you to task for.

                Prayer is necessary as I’ve said elsewhere in thread. It’s also not sufficient to solve the violence but should be part of a balanced plan of action that has a good chance at victory.

                Glad I can post here again after yesterday’s try at responding and being told I was blocked on this forum.

                Update: Wow, I posted this before I read the downstream bit. The whole point I had was to try for a “go now and don’t do that again”. It wasn’t intended as a kick in the nuts. It was intended to briefly talk about the kicks in the nuts that you’ve been aiming in the immigration restrictionist direction for some time. My position has been and remains that you can be a good Catholic and take either side of the argument.

                But once again, I’m the bad guy.

    • chezami

      Here’s an idea: how about prayer?

      • Yes, prayer is never a wrong answer. It is occasionally insufficient. In the case of loved ones being threatened, it is definitely a good part of the actual solution but should not be done as a substitute for a comprehensive, and well executed plan of action.

        Let us pray while we find the evil doers, pray as we prevent them from further evil, and pray to change our situation so that the islamists do not ever get the opportunity to do this again.

        Details to be worked out in the appropriate forums.

  • Thibaud313

    Merci. I live in Paris. This is one of the most horrifying day of my life.

    Please pray saint Denis, saint Joan of Arc, saint Louis of France and Our Lady of Lourdes for us.

    • Reader Yesterday

      Our prayers for you. All Christians owe a debt of gratitude to the Church in France for her glorious saints. May they intercede for you all and bring peace and healing, through Our Lady and the Sacred Heart of Our Lord, Amen.

      • St. Genevieve, patronesse de Paris, priez pour nous!

  • Dave G.

    Horrible to see. Pray.

  • NordOst.

  • Marine LePen has called for the eradication of Radical Islam. One feels sympathetic, but be sure that what eradication really means is total war.

    That’s not the only total war we may be contemplating.

    We’re going to find out if this species of ours has a future.

  • Tom G

    Mr. Shea, do you know of any ways we can help in addition to our prayers? I appreciate your guidance.

    • chezami

      I just posted a link.

      • Tom G

        Thank you sir. Again, I appreciate it.

  • Global instability is increasing, and not just on the front against radical Islam. We are probably going to be tested, perhaps severely, and there may be many changes, including political ones.

    As a species, we have not adjusted socially and economically to technological and other changes.

    I think we can expect more disorder. And then, perhaps, more order than we anticipate now. If we survive.

  • Dave G.

    I think Pavel’s observations are better to reflect on, if reflect on anything other than prayer right now is what we need. One of the blessings I’ve received since I began working at my job has been to get to know a sub-deacon from the Antiochian Orthodox Church. I’ve learned quite a few things from him. Arabic Christians from the Middle East have a completely different take on things than what I’m used to, certainly from any of the options from our various media narratives. It’s enough to say that the Pope’s labeling of this as a sort of WWIII is probably closer to the truth than anything else.

  • orual’s kindred

    Security is a good. Still, it’s a matter of course for terrorists to take advantage of the refugees fleeing from them and the devastation they wrought. It would be stupid of them not to. And to say that there are really no refugees, or to refuse all of them help because a probable majority of them are young and male, I’m afraid is wrong. When did being young and male become such a disqualifier for assistance anyway? Neither is there a guarantee that those who are offered refuge, male or female, young or old, will always conduct themselves with the utmost decency.

    When asked who our neighbor is, we know how Jesus Christ answered.

    • LFM

      Are you really prepared to insist that the possible casualties that might result from lax security are insignificant, as long as we show mercy? Checking each and every person entering Greece (or wherever) as a refugee is a costly and above all a time-consuming affair, but if it is to be done as thoroughly as it should be, then would-be refugees and those who support them will have to show patience, and not grumble that they are being mistreated if not “processed” immediately.

      As for how Jesus would have defined his neighbours and how they should be treated, well, yes, of course. But – and this is always a vexed question for me – how far are we meant to model ourselves on Him? I do not mean to be irreverent or disrespectful, but generals and politicians must make decisions using different criteria than Jesus did, or risk betraying their charges and the offices to which they were appointed. No doubt His approach is ultimately the correct one, sub specie aeternitatis, but on this side of the grave, it is generally considered righteous to defend ourselves from traitors (e.g. Judas), unjust arrest, hostile crowds and so forth.

      • chezami

        Have we established security is lax? We are talking about eight guys, one of whom claimed to be a refugee out of millions.

        • LFM

          There have been a number of stories in papers like The Guardian lately about German agencies being “overwhelmed” by the number of refugees they are trying to handle. These stories do not specify security agencies being overwhelmed, but it’s usually easier to organize food and shelter for masses of newcomers than it is to do even cursory background checks on them.

          You’ve never worked as a civil servant, have you? Meaning that you won’t have much experience either with investigating other people’s histories or with being asked to fill out out security forms, and what a headache that can be. Just imagine being asked to fill out a form in which you had to list every place in which you had lived for the last 20 years, along with the address, telephone number and Zip/postal code of the place; and similar information for all your previous employers. That’s what doing thorough security checks on people involves.

          Then, of course, there’s the fact that many of these people will have arrived without papers because they were, or *say* they were, bombed out of their homes, or forced to leave by police/military groups, or threatened by mobs. Any of this could be true, or not, but it adds to the difficulty of determining that people are who they say they are, and that they have no history of violent activism in their pasts.

      • orual’s kindred

        Are you really prepared to insist that the possible casualties that might result from lax security are insignificant, as long as we show mercy?

        I said nothing of the sort and will say nothing of the sort. “Insignificant”! I daresay you at least cannot read my mind. And no, I did not mention anything about self-defense, or at least not specifically. Of course people have a right to defend themselves. What I would dispute are certain matters lumped with or excused in the same of self-defense.

        Checking each and every person entering Greece (or wherever) as a refugee is a costly and above all a time-consuming affair

        I would certainly think so!

        would-be refugees and those who support them will have to show patience, and not grumble that they are being mistreated if not “processed” immediately.

        And they shouldn’t. Why should those who behave badly have such a hold on your or anyone else’s attention, though? We know that there will always be grumblers. The Church teaches that people are sinners, regardless of the religion they profess (or do not profess). Are we supposed to make (potential) grumblings the basis of our policies? In other situations, we would rightly expect employees, officials, and others to do their jobs properly while remaining civil to grumblers, whoever these may be. Why should certain scenarios then demand that rules be built around and primarily out of concern that someone might throw a tantrum?

        I have neither plans nor strategies. Nor do I expect that all problems will be solved in the best way possible. But it remains that we ought to look for the best way possible. We need to remember what we as Christians have been commanded to do, what our most important goals are. Let our ideals at least be actual ideals! When we start out immediately otherwise, then I would think that something is wrong somewhere. That is what I am prepared to insist on.

        how far are we meant to model ourselves on Him?

        Before I start on that, I think I should address this first:

        but generals and politicians must make decisions using different criteria than Jesus did

        What do you mean by ‘criteria’? The times, the cultures? Are we going to make decisions primarily according to the times and cultures? Isn’t this what relativists do? Some standards do not and cannot be changed, or bent to suit the current situation. There will be particulars that are different given the particular scenario, but it is our duty to discern how certain timeless truths are to be applied to them.

        I am reminded of this dialogue:

        “How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’

        “As he ever has judged,” said Aragorn. “Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.”

        Interestingly, this other exchange happened a few pages earlier:

        “Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?”

        “A man may do both,” said Aragorn. “For not we but those who come after will make legends of our time. […]”

        “Time is pressing,” said the Rider, not heeding Aragron. “[…] Let us leave these wild folk to their fancies. Or let us bind them and take them to the king.”

        J.R.R. Tolkien lived through World War I and II, so I would think he knows something about difficult times. As for the generals and politicians you refer to, I’m afraid I wouldn’t know much about them. I know that Pilate, Caiaphas and others like them were going by the currents of the society they were surrounded with. There was much unrest throughout the land already and the Roman Empire was barely even waiting for someone to make the wrong move. And so they sentenced one innocent man for the sake of others.

        “God has not called me to be successful; He has called me to be faithful,” said Blessed Mother Teresa. How far should we model ourselves on Our Lord? We are sinners, so I don’t know if it can be rightly said that we could ever go too far. We fail. We falter. Sometimes the best we can manage are baby steps, with lots of failures in between. But if we are to follow Him, if we are to call ourselves His followers, should we not make it our priority to act accordingly? When we defend ourselves, should not our terms be in accord with His terms, and not the world’s?

        • LFM

          I have not been banned, but have decided, as my words appear to cause Mark great distress, that I should not comment here any more, at least for the immediate future.

          Update: I’ll permit myself a photo which should indicate why talk about “security” at borders is meaningless these days:
          http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55f6ce4abd86ef18008ba0e2-3000-1994/rts10vu.jpg

          • chezami

            Look. Comment away. But for the love of God, when somebody posts a prayer in sorrow, don’t make excuses for the people who take the occasion to kick him in the nuts.

            • LFM

              I’m truly sorry I sounded as if I were making excuses for these people. I ignored the “Dutchman” but did try to suppress “Dr Mabuse” or whatever he called himself. I only intended to try to persuade him to calm down and to stop using such foul language, not to excuse him. But things like that often don’t come off the way one intends, especially when written rather than spoken aloud. I don’t want to go back and read them again but will accept that I was too lenient in my efforts to deal with him.

              On the other hand, if you are referring to Lutas, I really did not think that Lutas had been vicious, so that was why I tried to excuse him. He was severe, but not more so than you have been in referring to positions with which you disagree. Indeed, I was rather surprised that you appeared to find him more offensive than Mabuse’s ranting, which you simply deleted without comment.

              Anyway, I do thank you for encouraging me to continue to comment, and I’ll try to be more temperate in my expression of my views.

              • chezami

                Thank you. Sorry for my anger. Please forgive me.

                • LFM

                  Of course.

                • Dave G.

                  Was that a general apology, or simply one for LFM? Just curious.

          • orual’s kindred

            I don’t know that it’s meaningless. That claim rather sounds like despair. And I find that pictures like this, with little to no context to go on, hardly demonstrate anything. This seems to be taken Germany, but can I be sure? What’s happening? Are the not-very-Germanic-looking people refugees? If so, where are they from? Are all of them Muslim? How can I be sure there are no Christians (or others) in the group? It doesn’t seem to be a large crowd, either. What’s even happening? Some children seem very upset, but no one seems to be violent. What point or argument is this picture supposed to illustrate?

            • LFM

              If you click on the picture you will get its particulars, I think. Yes, it was taken in Germany. No, I do not know if the people there are all Muslims. That was not the point. The point, which should have been perfectly clear given the context of our exchange here (which was about the difficulty of security in times like these) so that only willful blindness could be obscuring it, was that THERE ARE TOO MANY DESPERATE REFUGEES for existing agencies to handle. The authorities are overwhelmed.

              • orual’s kindred

                Clicking on the picture increases the size. If there was a link included, I’m afraid it’s not showing for me.

                I would say that comment was a little unflattering for the authorities in the picture, who seem to be displaying unharried competency and care towards the people in the crowd. That I can say without reserve. As for basic courtesies, I think we are called to observe them especially when we don’t feel like it. I’m not sure there’s anything discourteous in what you said, though. Despairing, I think, but not discourteous.

                I suppose you are feeling more than a little troubled. I hope, once your feelings have settled, you realize that not all who disagree with you harbor no sympathy for your fears and uncertainty.

                • LFM

                  It’s always a mistake to try to psychoanalyze strangers, especially in a comments box. It makes you look as if you are losing the argument, rather like gratuitous mentions of Hitler.

                  I am not despairing, not fearful, and most of all not uncertain. Rather, I am furious, frustrated and baffled by the obtuseness of people like you who appear to be otherwise intelligent but who keep misreading arguments, throwing up bafflegab that they evidently mistake for argument, and generally acting as if a handful of bromides is a substitute for policy.

                  • orual’s kindred

                    Interesting. I comment on what your statements, (as well as express sympathy), and you inform me psychoanalyzing. And since you’ve misread post after post that I’ve made, I suppose you have some authority on the subject.

                    • LFM

                      You expressed sympathy for a state of mind, or rather feeling, that I was not in, based on a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say to you.

                      If I have misread your posts, it is because of the lack of clarity in both your thought and your expression of it. That you want to offer sympathy (to me, to the refugees, to the people who worry about there being too many), I know. But feeling is not thought.

                    • orual’s kindred

                      feeling is not thought

                      I am glad you are able to say as much! I am of the hope that soon you will learn to live by that reality better. We might be able to have an actual discussion yet 🙂 Till then, God bless you!

                    • LFM

                      Funny how often I have to say this in comboxes: tu quoque is not argument – any more than feeling is. Really, you’re at the level of a 9-year-old who, told that he is being nasty/obnoxious etc., can think of nothing better to say than “I know you are but what am I?”

  • Pete the Greek

    This will happen again. Security can be excellent, but there is no way, short of instituting a truly barbarous police state (and even that wouldn’t fully work) to stop every single attempt.

    Security can’t afford to miss once. Terrorists can afford to miss all the time, they just need to get lucky once.

    Prayers for peace to the dead, and health to return to the wounded.

  • virago

    Well, Mark, I have to your blog and the comment threads they generate are both interesting though the longer threads can be hard to follow. This one lost me at point.
    It is good to remember that many of the immigrants that live here now are nervous about those coming in now.
    I work with many immigrants at my hospital, many of them Muslims.
    And they are afraid. ISIS and other jihadist extremists have targeted them as hard as they targeted Christians.

  • Dave G,

    Wow. There’s nothing else to say.

  • virago

    I’m gone.