In Oz we do not celebrate 'Thanksgiving', as the first folk here from the Old World were prisoners and soldiers and a fine sense of Law. Religion did not enter into the issue. This is unlike Americans, for whom we raise a Toast here in the Tavern as they are our cousins in the Anglosphere. Americans do celebrate Thanksgiving, in much the manner that we celebrate Christmas, with Turkey on the table.
And it was Thanksgiving just in the past few days. So Here's to you Americans all. (Yes, even the liberals.) But the reason for Thanksgiving has been 'altered' a little over time. We all know that the early 'Pilgrims' were in some strife after they landed in the 'New World'. They were a dour mob who practiced what we today would call 'Communism' rather than Christianity. They were Protestants. And boy did they protest. They even protested against other protestants ! They did that well but their economy was less successful and they nearly starved. They would have done if an Indian Gentleman had not saved them. But that Indian was no 'savage'. He was a fairly well educated CATHOLIC. Both Taylor Marshall and Austin Ruse were in the US Room to tell us.
The story of Squanto, the Indian who saved the Pilgrims,
is quite remarkable. But it is more remarkable than you know.
One day an Indian walked out of the woods of New England, befriended the Pilgrims, and taught them where to fish, how to plant corn, and otherwise saved them from perishing.
What is not well known is that Squanto was a Christian, though the kind of Christian the Pilgrims would have profoundly opposed, in fact, the kind of Christian far worse than the Anglicans from whom the Pilgrims first fled.
Squanto was a baptized Catholic.
In 1614, Captain John Smith of Pocahontas fame captured a number of Indians with the intent of selling them into slavery. Tisquantum, also known as Squanto, was among them. A group of Franciscan Friars intervened. The Friars very well could have bought the Indians from Smith, but the record is unclear how the Friars rescued Squanto from what might have been a far more brutal life.
The Friars baptized Squanto and catechized him into the Catholic faith. And what is clear is Squanto became a freeman and he traveled to England where he worked in the shipyards, becoming fluent in English.
When he returned to New England, he discovered his tribe had been decimated by disease. He was a man alone who one day walked out of the woods and met the Pilgrims. They were shocked to meet an Indian who not only spoke perfect English but who had been in England even more recently than they had.
The Pilgrims had left England because they refused an order of the Anglican King James I to conform to the outwardly Catholic usages in the Church of England, including robes, candles, and bowing the head at the name of Christ. So, it is quite remarkable that the Indian who walked out of the woods that day in 1621 and taught the how to survive was worse than an Anglican, he was a baptized Catholic.
As to the myths of this being the first Thanksgiving; actually the first Thanksgiving was celebrated in what is now the oldest city in the United States, St. Augustine, Florida in 1565 when Spanish settlers and Indians feasted and the Catholic mass was celebrated.
The second Thanksgiving on American soil occurred thirty-three years later in Texas, when Spanish explorer Don Juan de Onate asked for a mass of Thanksgiving when he claimed the land north of the Rio Grande for the King of Spain.
Virginians also claim a Thanksgiving that predates the Pilgrims. Theirs took place on the Berkley Plantation on December 4, 1619
As for the Pilgrims who wrote the history and got the credit for Thanksgiving, they were a persnickety bunch.
It is said they even hated Christmas, refused to celebrate it because it was too Catholic.
Taylor tells too raising his glass.
So, now you know. Odd how many Americans don't know and don't want to know. Enjoy the turkey. We in Oz have to wait for a few more weeks. Pax
I was almost ready to report on the celebrations that happened on 'International Men's Day' but of course, they were cancelled. The entire idea that Men !!! (tm) should have an entire day for themselves is offensive, it seems, to very, very noisy people. These are the 'Rent-a-Gob' hordes that frequent our streets, our Universities and of course our Parliaments. You can find them gnashing their teeth whenever someone mentions 'patriotism' or 'truth', or 'baby' and of course that good old works-for-every-ill, Menz!! (tm) again.
Once they were the apples of several daddies' eyes
The mob was an idea created by an un-named Colonel in the KGB many decades ago. He was no doubt promoted to General soon after the idea took off like a wildfire. You see, it isn't about men. It isn't even about women. It certainly isn't about 'Rights' or 'equality'. It is about destruction. And so many people seem to be up for it. Erin Pizzy, a fine woman who started the very first 'Women's Refuge' and was subsequently driven out of the country by death threats, (from feminists, in case you were about to jump to a conclusion there), had this to say....
Now, a reasonable person will ask if she is not perhaps over-stating the marxist angle. So the reasonable person goes to the source. Here is a solid, respectable KGB man, who engineered some of this destructiveness. He spells out the inception, role and destination of the mobs of 'Useful Idiots'.
But that is all in the past. Golly, some people coming into the Tavern were not even born when those two were speaking out. Today, the seats of power are influenced if not commanded by the mob of useful idiots and of course feminists are right in there in the vanguard. Woe betide anyone who speaks up for tradition, men, truth, justice and all the other normal things which have made our civilisation. So Peter Lloyd sat and nursed a pint in the UK room and spoke up, defying woe.
The feminists who want to silence men
If there’s one person who epitomises the University of York’s notable alumni, it’s Harriet Harman.
Deputy Labour Gob.
The Labour MP studied politics there in the early 1970s before becoming a lawyer and, subsequently, a politician who — not long ago — believed that touring Britain in a pink van might dismantle the ‘patriarchy’ (otherwise known as civilisation, to you and I; something men created, but women have long enhanced, benefited from and now co-own).
Needless to say, she was wrong. On paper her approach may have had all the hallmarks of a PR success story, but in today’s climate it simply smacked of tired tactics. Still, by the University of York’s standards, it was probably A-grade stuff. After all, stale with esoteric feminist professors and their wacky take on reality, they too remain locked in Harman’s time-warped mindset.
Earlier this week, the college u-turned plans for a modest International Men’s Day (IMD) meeting — even though it coincided with a parliamentary discussion on the 19 November event.
Melodramatic ‘outrage’ from the sisterhood.
Yep, rent-a-gob gender warriors — who, I often find, are some of the most privileged people in the world — decided that men responsibly discussing their collective issues (suicide, schools failing boys, fathers’ rights, violent partners, MGM, the life expectancy gap, etc) without feminist supervision was too risky of inducing a riot — or, at the very least, a hashtag.
This was despite the fact that, 24 hours earlier, a fellow student had tragically killed himself.
Still, in an open letter signed by 200 people (many of whom were former students or, more worryingly, incumbent lecturers) they declared:
‘A day that celebrates men’s issues – especially those outlined in the university’s statement – does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities [sic]. Men’s issues cannot be approached in the same way as discrimination towards women, because women are structurally unequal to men.’
It continued: ‘We recognise that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women. We do not, however, believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding. The failure of the Equality and Diversity Committee to do so undermines their self-proclaimed commitment to gender equality, and leaves us deeply concerned that their supposed investment in women’s rights is mere lip service.’
In other words: other narratives mustn’t threaten the lucrative status quo they’ve spent years cultivating.
It’s almost like competitive victimhood. Except, err, young women in further education are anything but victims, making feminism increasingly redundant for them.
Granted, this might be bittersweet news if you’re heavily invested in it’s ongoing survival, but, trust me, it’s ultimately a good thing. That’s surely what we’ve been working towards: men and women largely being equal, at least in terms of inequality, or lack thereof.
Perhaps somebody should tell campus feminists this because, judging by their poor level of enlightenment on the matter, they need some serious de-programming.
Earlier this year, spiked published the Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR), which highlighted the scale of the intolerance problem. They found that 80 per cent of UK colleges censor debate and expression; much of this is done by NUS officers preoccupied with Page 3, boisterous sports teams and Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines, rather than anything pertinent.
But why? Certainly not for PR purposes. This latest battle has been humiliating, with the likes of Leeds Becket University — which is hosting its own IMD event - instantly appearing demonstrably younger, smarter and progressive than York by default.
So what gives? Is it more that, like George Orwell once said, the war is not meant to be won, but to be continuous?
Christina Hoff Somers, academic and host of YouTube’s Factual Feminist, thinks so. When I interviewed her earlier this year she told me: ‘In the early 1990s, I — along with several other feminist scholars (Wendy Kaminer, Daphne Patai, Camille Paglia, Mary Lefkowitz, Katie Roiphe, to name a few) — went to battle against the hardline, sex-panicked conspiracy feminists like Andrea Dworkin.
‘My side won the arguments, but their side quietly assumed all of the assistant professorships. So colleges are now full of gender scholars who instruct students on the ravages of the capitalist, hetero-patriachal system and its “rape culture”. Everywhere we hear about “micro-aggressions”, “trigger warnings”, and the toxicity of masculinity.’
At the Battle Of Ideas weekend in London last month, she added: ‘We won the battle, but they won the war. The question now is whether they can hold on to that power…’
The fact there’s already a 1,000-strong petition to reinstate the University of York’s Men’s Day event suggests not. Especially as, rather brilliantly, it was started by a woman.
But of course the next International men's Day is a year away. Plenty of time for the ladies to have several marches, rallies, fun-runs, breast days, protests and mayhem-making - heck they may even find a Cardinal or Archbishop to attack - before they need worry about disrupting that. Time flies. The ladies will weep.
Weep in your beer with them. They were your daughters once.
Perhaps Britain is an exception. Hahahaha. One has to be deaf, blind or incurably optimistic to think that these days. Is America faring better? Denis says 'no'.
American Universities Begin to Implode
For over half a century, American universities, with few exceptions, have ceased teaching and begun indoctrinating. In the last few weeks, this downhill spiral has accelerated. The university is now a caricature of an educational institution. It is difficult to come up with an idea or policy that is more absurd than the ideas and policies that now dominate American campuses.
The University of California, once an elite public institution, now circulates a list of "microaggressions" that students and faculty must be careful to avoid lest they engage in racism and bigotry.
You read that right. The denial of the significance of race in favor of the primacy of the individual and the affirmation of the equality of all human beings -- one of the noblest achievements of liberal Western society -- is now officially listed by the University of California as a racist statement. It is a pure expression of moral inversion.
"America is a melting pot."
The University of California considers this, too, a racist statement. Throughout American history the melting pot idea has been an expression of America's unique ability to transform people of every race, ethnicity, and nationality into Americans. It is now deemed racist.
"I don't believe in race."
Again, this statement -- which is the opposite of racism -- is deemed racist. In terms of the inherent importance of race, the American university is now closer to Fascism than to traditional liberalism.
"America is the land of opportunity."
According to the University of California, this is a "myth" that is also racist. It implies that some of those who fail do so not because they haven't had opportunities to succeed but because of their failure to take advantage of those opportunities.
Meanwhile university after university allows students to take over administration buildings and even president's offices. University presidents and other moral weaklings who administer colleges -- aka leftists -- never demand that these students leave the buildings they have illegally occupied. Rather they give in to just about all of their "demands."
Thus the president of the University of Missouri was forced to resign for allegedly not doing enough about a handful of isolated instances of alleged racism.
The president of Princeton University has agreed to demands of students who occupied his office to consider removing the name of Woodrow Wilson from buildings and institutes. Wilson, president of Princeton prior to becoming the president of the United States, held racist views common to many fellow progressives of his time.
Protesters at Dartmouth College invaded the school's library and screamed at white students studying there. According to the New York Post, "About 150 Dartmouth students this week protested in the school's Baker-Berry Library, chanting "Black Lives Matter" -- and harassing kids who tried to keep studying. Oh, and assaulting them, too, according to The Dartmouth Review, which reported that protesters pinned one girl to a wall while calling her a "filthy white b?-?-?-?h."
Other chants included "F?-?-?k your white privilege!" and "F?-?-?k you, you filthy white f?-?-?ks!"
The response of Dartmouth? An apology to the racist attackers: "The school's vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, told the BLMers [Black Lives Matter] "I'm very, very sorry that you feel this way. We don't want you to have this experience here. ... We told them [the protesters] that ... the protest was a wonderful, beautiful thing."
As reported by Newsweek, more than 400 students at Occidental College took over the school's administrative building "stating that they intend to stay until a list of 14 specific points relating to diversity and inclusion of students of color are met." Occidental immediately agreed to 13 of the 14.
The universities, along with the rest of the American left, have repeatedly told students that America is a racist society, and many black students now believe it, even though they live in the least racist multiracial country on earth and attend the protective cocoon known as college. Likewise, the left has repeatedly told American women that the universities are rape cultures where they have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped.
So, the universities are imploding by their own doing.
They produce aggrieved and angry young Americans whose primary identity is that of victim.
And there may be worse to come. There is little that produces violence as surely as does a victim mentality.
At this time, if you donate money to an American university, you are doing much worse than wasting your money. You are subsidizing the most anti-liberal, anti-American institution in America.
I do like a good Knight and here we were shown a fine 'double'. A Jedi Knight of an order a tad less eminent than my own but 'forceful' nonetheless and simultaneously a Knight of the Queen of England too. How very like m'self ! Dwight Longenecker - now there is an almost fitting name for a Knight - a Friar of another Parish dropped in to reveal a little about Obi Wan Kenobi.
My sword does not glow in the dark.
The Force was with young Obi well before he was even conceived in the mind of whoever it was who wrote Star Wars. For Alec Guinness nearly didn't make it. Alec was always in his Maker's mind.
In 1914 Agnes Cuff, a flighty and unstable young woman with few prospects and little money found herself pregnant. The father didn’t want to be involved. She was alone, shamed, poor and pregnant.
Today she would be encouraged to get herself to an abortion clinic and end the unwanted pregnancy.
Instead a little boy was born.
English actor Alec Guinness, most famous for his role as Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars was Agnes Cuff’s only child.
On his birth certificate he is named “Alec Guinness” but those were only his first names. The place for the child’s last name is blank. So is the column where the father’s name is listed.
It has never been confirmed who Guinness’ father was. Some speculated that he was a member of the Anglo-Irish Guinness family. Alec Guinness himself thought his father was a banker named Andrew Geddes.
Alec Guinness converted to the Catholic faith in 1956 and was a faithful Catholic for the rest of his life.
His delightful conversion story is told in his autobiography "Blessings in Disguise". He was playing Father Brown (another fine Catholic imaginary chracter) and filming in France. Wandering home from the film set in costume as a priest a young boy ran up and took his hand, chatting animatedly and cheerfully before scooting off with a sweet, “Au revoir mon pere!” Touched by this show of childlike trust, and astounded by an answer to prayer, Alec Guinness came home to Rome.
If abortion had been easy and legal in England in 1914 the world would never have experienced the witty, smart, subtle art and the quiet, steady witness of Alec Guinness….
…and Star Wars would have had an enormous void.
As nearly half a million young people converge on Washington DC for this years’ March for Life we should remember the great loss to our nation and our world of all the murdered unborn.
We will never know what other great talents never lived. What other Alec Guinnesses would there have been? What advances in science, medicine, technology, business, the arts and sport might there have been?
March for Life is a joyful event which celebrates life, but there is always an elegiac quality to the March.
It may be a March for Life but it is also a March for Grief.
Alec is not the only celebrity to have had a narrow escape from 'Choice'. One wonder just how many great and fine folk are out there, but for your edification and mine, we are reminded.
Celine Dion credits her family’s parish priest for convincing her mother not to abort her.
Cher's mother backed out last minute at the abortion clinic. In an interview she stated, "I can remember the chairs were chrome, and I was sweating."
"The sweat was just coming off of me on this chrome and when the door opened and it was my turn, I said, 'Mother, I can't do it.' So, that's how she's here."
Jack Nicholson's mother was pressured by her peers to have an abortion. Luckily she did not go through with it, otherwise we wouldn't have this legendary actor in our lives!
Andrea Bocelli's mother was advised to have an abortion after she was misdiagnosed with appendicitis while she was pregnant.
Pope John Paul II's mother was advised to have an abortion after losing her daughter shortly after birth. His mother decided to defy the doctors' orders.
NFL player Tim Tebow was almost aborted after doctors advised his mother to abort him due to her health issues.
Justin Bieber's mother got pregnant at the age of 17. She was encouraged by several people to abort the child but she chose to give birth instead.
Yoko Ono considered aborting son Sean Lennon, but decided to go along with the pregnancy after husband John Lennon convinced her to go through with it.
An interview with Steve Jobs for his biography reveals that Steve was almost a victim of an abortion. He states "I wanted to meet her mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion. She was 23 and she went through a lot to have me"
There are so many that had a narrow escape, but perhaps the last words should go to one who went right up to and over the line. She talks about it.
Gianna’s mother was a 17-year-old girl who was not ready to have a child and decided to have a saline abortion in the third trimester. Gianna spent over 18 hours in the solution, but eventually forced a birth. Delivered at just over two pounds, she was put up for adoption. At a very early age, she was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the saline burning and her foster parents were told that basic tasks such as walking and talking would be incredibly difficult for her.
However, Gianna hasn’t let this stop her. Though her muscles throughout much of her life were very weak, she worked hard to exercise them and eventually ran the London Marathon. She maintains an active lifestyle and now spends much of her time as a speaker, motivating young people to make good choices.
We are all here, by the Grace of God. He's my Supplier, by the way. And we serve Grace here. Drink to Gianna and all those who survived abortion. Pray for those who did not. The world is sliding down a broad road to perdition. Jedi Knights and Knackered old Knights like m'self are in need of fresh squires.
Never Mess with an Old Man in a Profession where even the Young and Brave Die all too soon.
Let us leave 'Fire' aside for a while. Bushfire season is upon us again and we shall have plenty of that. What the talk in the Tavern was about today, what little talk there was in the sunshine, was about the very essence of the place, Tasmania. My friend James in the UK loves the water. He would love it here and indeed he often mentions that he may like to live here. It does not suprise me. This is an island of waters. Shores, beaches, lakes, inlets, rivers. Tides. And wildness. Nature raw and beautiful.
And tides are pressing upon me these days. I had to move my living quarters and will have to again in a few months. I ask myself should I stay here of go over the sea to the Big Island to the north. I love this place. The Tavern photographer accompanied me on a jaunt today. His pictures (some) are below.
From my Mountain today.
500,000 people are enough to meet and mix with. On an island the size of England. Well, Ireland at any rate. But far and away more beautiful.
Even Darwin loved this place
It is from the air, which is my medium of choice if not ability anymore, that we get the sense of the place. So my customers today were letting their memories and dreams loose and take flight. Enjoy. I did.
It is odd. To me. Tasmania is ideal for sea planes, amphibians, but we have so few. This mob tried very hard to drum up a good business, but the Hillary Village regulations hampered it right out of existence.
Dogs love it too. Not just Knights and Kings.
Individuals do try though. Occasionally.
They wax lyrical about Tasmania, with good reason, if not great poetic skill.
And this strange little town that sits like a sparkling carpet along the shores of a wide and quiet river as it enters the Great Southern Ocean.
I may have to leave. But the sights, sounds, smells and peacefulness..........
Beaches here are never crowded. Barely anyone else around.
I may stay. At least for coffee and cakes.
A change from the Tavern patio, but splendid nonetheless.
'Twas my Birthday the other day. One is mindful amongst the congratulations - ( many - thank you) - and the best wishes that we live some years and they get fewer ahead as we move ahead. And we sometimes pause, as I have done, to reflect on matters pertaining to Quality of Life. Some folk are unfortunate in life. Quality is a pressing issue for them. They are born into strife from which they may try hard to escape. They seek refuge. I will come to that in a moment. Others do not even make it to the day of their birth, let alone a succession of birthday anniversaries. For them no chances are given. Their very life is snatched away by deliberate - wicked - acts of others, while still in the womb. In some eras of human life we have faced and continue to face huge challenges both of physical and moral existence.. For some poor souls, they are doomed to be born into societies that will turn them into monsters by the time they reach ten years. Palestinian kiddies, for example get lessons in killing Jews.
In our western society we wait until they are 18 and go to University. There are 'safe spaces' there where cant and dissembling can be safely taught by lunatic feminist and marxist Professors.
How we grow and take control of our lives matters a great deal when one is near to the day of leaving it. But that control is for the very few. Try as one may there is always some bastards who will try to deny even the recognition of distress. So, just yesterday was International Men's Day. Not that anyone actually celebrated it. Universities - those Institutions of thoughful discussion and learning - banned any mention let alone acknowledgement of celebration. The University in York, England 'objected' and shut down any talk of a 'Men's' day. The tears of the cry-bullies drowned out any positive mention of men.
But other men did make the news, as they have been for a while now. Men we are told by our Politicians that we must be compassionate toward. They are streaming in from the middle east, mostly without the women and children one has been more used to seeing in crowds of refugees. And while we are to ignore the plight of men in our western societies where they have been brought up to dedicate their lives to their families and society - and such plight includes high suicide rates, high work-death rates and high rates of banishment from the feminist world - we are supposed to have extraordinary compassion for those refugee men who shout for any and all of us to be beheaded. The world is turning mad. Which brings us to that idea of Compassion. And Mercy. Loving one's neighbour and so forth. The concepts themselves have been turned on their heads.
What do we do when faced with a flood of refugees?
As a very old Tavern Keeper, Knight, King, Catholic and the rest from my long life, and having an extraordinarily fine mind (I have had a blessed life, eh?) to go with my abated wound and silent daughter, I should expect to know much and be able to say much to my customers. But I stand behind my bars and pull pints and let others do the talking in the main. So my friend the Doc, clever youngster Taylor Marshall spoke up when asked. He too has a fine mind and he too refers to his betters for answers.
Islamic Refugee Crisis:
Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both
What would Thomas Aquinas Say?
What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?
He does well to seek St Thomas' view on the matter. I paused to listen carefully. He started with a personal note:
We as Christians are debating among ourselves about whether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.
This is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire article until the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writing incendiary comments. This might be one of the clearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics of Thomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age.
As Christians we remember Our Lord’s parable about the Good Samaritan recounting how the outwardly religious clerics (the priest and the levite) passed the injured man in the road, but how the Samaritan proved to “be his neighbor” and care for him. Christ rebukes the outwardly religious hypocrites and commends the good Samaritan.
When it comes to the refugee crises, none of us wants to be the hypocrite who turns his steps to the opposite side of road to avoid caring for an injured victim.
Or Are We Good Maccabeans?
Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you’ve been listening to the book of Maccabees this week in the daily Mass readings. These biblical lessons approvingly recount how Mattathias along with his Maccabean sons and companions rightfully used physical violence against their political oppressors the Seleucid Greeks who were actively using force to undermine the conscience and convictions of the People of God.
So which are we?
Are we the caring Samaritans or the crusading Maccabeans?
The Good Samaritan helped the victim NOT the Robber.
The Catholic political theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas can help us with this question:
Let’s first suspend all emotional appeals, and set down a few logical and calm points of agreement to get us all on the same page:
•In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas places politics under the civic virtue of patriotism which is itself a sub-virtue of justice. Our discussion is ultimately not about “politics” but the virtuous duties of justice toward God, our families, our nations, and all of humanity (in that order).
•For Thomas Aquinas, all political human laws must be: 1) in accord with reason; 2) published or promulgated; 3) by rightful political authority; and for the common good (See STh q. 90, aa. 1-4). If a political law is lacking in any of these four attributes, it is for Thomas, not a law at all.
•The duty of the political magistrates (the Republic or Kingdom) are by the virtue of justice different than the duty of the civilian person. Citizens are not de facto judges, soldiers, police officers, or legislators (STh q. 90, a. 3).
Now, at this point we need to consider the place of the individual, his years on this earth, his wisdon and understandings, and his Integrity. In our Democratic societies, all authority is derived from YOU. I even upbraid the Policemen (and women) with their guns and 'mace' at the ready, sent to accost me as I pray outside the abortuary - "Where is your Integrity?"
•Muslims explicitly affirm that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of God.
•Muslims explicitly affirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly not the Son of God.
•These two Muslim affirmations place all Muslims in implicit or explicit theological contradiction with Christians who profess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and consequently conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet.
•For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society (England, France, Poland, USA, Mexico, etc.)
So how does this apply to Refugees from Islamic nations?
When we move through the logical points above, we begin to discover a few logical conclusions:
1.Muslims are bound by conscience to erect Sharia law in your nation. This is a bad thing for baptized Christians. At best it means being taxed at a higher rate (the Muslim jizya tax for Christians). At worse it means death.
2.If you live in a democracy, a 51% political Islamic majority will allow “we the people” to promulgate Sharia law. They are following their conscience and religious beliefs in this matter. They will do this just as they have done in any other community where they captured the majority (Mecca, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc.)
3.It is a duty of of justice for Christian people to strive to prevent the promulgation of false laws (i.e. those contrary to reason or the common good). Christians are called to be politically active and advocates for the common good and natural law.
4.While we have the Christian duty to care for the refugee, the sick, the victim, and the injured, we have a greater common duty by justice to preserve the state of law and our religious liberty first and foremost.
We see this principle in our Scriptural readings. When it comes to the Samaritan, he rightfully cares for the victim. However, when it comes to the nation and the threat of terrorism (Seleucid Greeks), false laws, and the danger of our children, military, and civic peace, we (like the Maccabees) are politically obliged to resist, protect, and expel…for the common good.
The Analogy of the Familial Home
I am the head of a household. I earn an income to feed my wife and my children. With my surplus, I care for orphans, widows, the church, pro-life causes, single-mothers, and other apostolates that I feel God has called me to support.
Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.
I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner.
The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support.
The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings.
Since we live in a democracy (“we the people”), political refugees de facto gain a measure of political authority over our laws, taxes, finances, military, religious holidays, and legislative bodies.
This principle applies to refugees universally. It applies even more so when the refugee in his conscience believes that he is morally obligated to introduce and vote for the enshrinement of Sharia law.
There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West.
If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?
So what would Thomas Aquinas say?
I’m afraid that Thomas would be much harsher than most of us would feel comfortable with.
Thomas prizes the “common good” so highly under the virtue of political justice that he openly promotes arms and capital punishment against those who are publicly “dangerous and infectious.”
The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed.
Thomas Aquinas also taught that anyone that fomented “danger to the community” or heretical movements is worthy of the death penalty:
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.
It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.
Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good.
The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and implicitly Muhammad’s doctrine and example of political violence.
What’s our Catholic Response?
The Samaritan Uses the Hotel
We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.
Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him.
Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.
We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.
But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
OK, so I am a man of War. I have been from my early years. I know war. I know death. I know necessity.
I also know that one can kill one's enemy without hatred. A high and difficult 'compassion' but achievable. For the Knight ( or soldier), judgement and mercy are not called-for. That is God's job. The Knights job is to send the enemy to God. Efficiently. And he must be able to discriminate between the Robber and the Victim. And I know that an opportunity should be given, where possible for one's enemy to cease and desist and be nice. Their refusal seals their fate. It is absolutely incumbent on those in 'Authority' to screen refugees. Effectively. Failure to do so is culpable neglect of their duty, which I might add is paid for by you and me. I would approve the death penalty for such neglect too.
Do NOT aid the Robber if you want to play the Good Samaritan.
Now, I must go to the Crypt and pray for Wisdom and Strength. Pax.