The DPI Bullies 'N' Bozos BLOG |
|
|
A Compendium of Reports and Updates on Net-Nazis, Funda-Nazis, KKKatholics, Cultists, Political Hacks, the New Know-Nothing Party and Other Nitwits of the Net and 'Hoes of Babble-On
Archives
|
Saturday, September 13, 2003
DISSING THE VICTIMS AND HEROES OF 9/11: When NetLoons Have Waaaaaay Too Much Time on Their Hands Yesterday we received an email from a concerned friend who had come across a truly weird web site, apparently authored by someone who is trying to pull our collective cyberlegs, either to call attention to himself or to push some lunatic-fringe political agenda. The theme of this site is that the "official story" (whatever that means) of what happened on 9/11 is a "hoax." (You know, just like the Holocaust, heliocentricity, evolution, and man's landing on the moon.) In this person's twisted fantasy of what actually happened (the latter of which was investigated and well established by the world's media and is accessible to anyone interested in learning the facts), (1) the White House knew well in advance and in detail about Al Qaeda's planned attacks; (2) the passenger airliners crashed by radical Islamic terrorists into the World Trade Center were deliberately allowed to hit their targets by US air traffic controllers under orders of US intelligence; (3) the Pentagon was hit not by a hijacked airliner but by a cruise missile launched by US agents; and (4) the plane which plowed into the Pennsylvania countryside after the passengers tried to overtake the hijackers was "really" fired upon by a US military jet and exploded in midair. Whatever. But several of Kaminski's "facts" can be denked right here with one brain tied behind our backs: KAMINSKI: "The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found." Utter balderdash on all counts: (1) Whether is was a jumbo jet or not, an airliner did hit the Pentagon. One witness we know, who was on his way to his office at the time, saw it hit the Pentagon as he was approaching I-395 from the direction of Rosslyn, Virginia, which faces that side of the Pentagon from less than 3 miles away. He testified that one of the aircraft's landing wheels --which he said was about three times bigger than his car-- almost hit him, and that a door, clearly from an airplane, crashed into a guard rail in front of him. (2) According to witnesses who have seen it, the hole in the Pentagon made by the plane, which exploded after it penetrated the outer wall (it was full of jet fuel), took out several floors and the width of it spanned at least a couple hundred feet wide. (3) Almost all the outside windows surrounding the hole were broken and burned. The only windows which remained intact were at the farthest sides of that section of the building, as photographs of the scene show and as eyewitnesses and reporters on the scene have said. (4) There were hundereds of pieces of airplane debris strewn from that side of the Pentagon grounds and onto the roads, ramps, and grassy areas all the way to the Rt.50 exit at the Parkway. The live t.v. coverage about 3-4 hours after the impact showed all of that, and witnesses told reporters that they saw all kinds of debri rain down on them as they were driving. Photos of the scene can be found in editions of The Washington Post publsihed the next day. (5) "There were no marks on the lawn" made by the plane because the plane didn't touch the lawn, it hit the building while it was above ground. (6) It's simply false that "[no] remains of passengers were ever found." The Arlington County Fire Department personnel and other workers on the scene told reporters that they recovered dozens of charred bodies strapped in airplane seats. I heard them say that on both radio and t.v. and read such statements in the Post. KAMINSKI: "The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit." What is Kaminski's evidence that Bush said he saw the first plane hit? Maybe Kaminski can cite us a source. As for Bush continuing to read the story to the school kids, another --and more likely-- reason could've been that he was awaiting confirmation about what happened before saying anything about it in public, esp. in front of a bunch of kids. Apparently, IMO, Kaminski doesn't understand the meaning of the words "mature" and "responsible." KAMINSKI: "... It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner." (1) Of course it wasn't televised. TV news crews aren't paid to televise buildings unless something has already happened at them or to them. Sheesh! (2) The French film crew he refers to must be the Naudet brothers, whose documentary "9/11" does show the first plane hitting the WTC. But neither the Naudets nor the firemen who saw have ever claimed that the plane looked like anything except a normal passenger jet. (3) Also, this week ABC News showed a videotape which they were given by a bystander who shot it which showed *both* planes hitting the WTC, and *both* planes were the same size and shape --of passenger planes. Footage of the first plane striking the WTC was also shown on CNN this past week: The plane was clearly large enough to be a passenger plane. KAMINSKI: "The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky." Apparently, Kaminski has never gone to Pennsylvania and looked at that field, nor has ever seen any of the TV footage of it. There was a very long plowed gash in that field which ended at a large, deep crater where the plane apparently exploded. If the plane had "broken apart in midair," that gash and crater would not be there. KAMINSKI: "Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones." (1) Once again, where is his evidence --such as the title of Dewdney's report or even a quote from it? (2) Also, it's totally false that "cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground." In fact, such calls are made all the time, as anyone who does a lot of business traveling and makes such calls can tell you. Moreover, the exact opposite is true: When an airliner is close to the ground, such as during takeoff or an approach, passengers are told to turn off their cell phones, pagers, and computers and are not allowed to use them unitl the plane is in flight. Anyone who has done any domestic city-to-city flying on commercial airliners knows this. (3) How can the cell phone calls referred to be "fabricated"??? The voices on the recordings, originating from the cell phone companies themselves, were easily recognized as genuine by the victims' family members who got those calls. KAMINSKI: "Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?" Uh, good luck maybe? Not to mention illness, family problems, doctor's and business appointments, vacation, business trips, etc etc? Are we to conclude therefore that all those who didnt show up for work that day "[knew] in advance that something bad was going to happen"??? But there is something far more reprehensible about this web site than the sheer lunacy of its author's "theories" --which, btw, he apparently lifted from a French book reported about by CNN-- and the bald-faced falseness of the "evidence" and factoids he cites to "back up" his claims. What is much worse than the nonsense he publishes is that the author's claims trivialize both the terrorism of 9/11 and the sacrifices of the police officers and firefighters who acted heroically to help the victims and survivors. He thus demonstrates disrespect for the thousands of people who lost their lives and insenstivity toward, if not contempt for, their surviving loved ones. Only someone with a seared conscience and the most shallow sense of humanity would exploit such an unspeakable tragedy in order to promote whatever addled ideology he or she espouses. He should be ashamed of himself. For more detailed information debunking this and other similar brands of wacko bunkum about 9/11, go to REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES DISSING THE VICTIMS AND HEROES OF 9/11: When NetLoons Have Waaaaaay Too Much Time on Their Hands Yesterday we received an email from a concerned friend who had come across a truly weird web site, apparently authored by someone who is trying to pull our collective cyberlegs, either to call attention to himself or to push some lunatic-fringe political agenda. The theme of this site is that the "official story" (whatever that means) of what happened on 9/11 is a "hoax." (You know, just like the Holocaust, heliocentricity, evolution, and man's landing on the moon.) In this person's twisted fantasy of what actually happened (the latter of which was investigated and well established by the world's media and is accessible to anyone interested in learning the facts), (1) the White House knew well in advance and in detail about Al Qaeda's planned attacks; (2) the passenger airliners crashed by radical Islamic terrorists into the World Trade Center were deliberately allowed to hit their targets by US air traffic controllers under orders of US intelligence; (3) the Pentagon was hit not by a hijacked airliner but by a cruise missile launched by US agents; and (4) the plane which plowed into the Pennsylvania countryside after the passengers tried to overtake the hijackers was "really" fired upon by a US military jet and exploded in midair. Whatever. But there is something far more reprehensible about this web site than the sheer lunacy of its author's "theories" --which, btw, he apparently lifted from a French book written about by CNN-- and the bald-faced falseness of the "evidence" he cites to "back up" his claims (for example, contrary to what any traveling business person will tell you, he claims that cell phone calls cannot be made in-flight, but only when a plane is "close to the ground"). What is much worse than the nonsense he publishes is that the author's claims trivialize both the terrorism of 9/11 and the sacrifices of the police officers and firefighters who acted heroically to help the victims and survivors. He thus demonstrates disrespect for the thousands of people who lost their lives and insenstivity toward, if not contempt for, their surviving loved ones. Only someone with a seared conscience and the most shallow sense of humanity would exploit such an unspeakable tragedy in order to promote whatever addled ideology he or she espouses. He should be ashamed of himself. For more detailed information debunking this and other similar brands of wacko bunkum about 9/11, go to REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES Tuesday, September 09, 2003
FROM THE SO-WHAT-ELSE-IS-NEW? DEPARTMENT: The Church of $cientology Is at It Again --TWICE! According to an on-line report by NBC News, it seems that one of our pet abominations, the late professional psychopath L. Ron Hubbard's pennyante "self=help" cult, is at it once again. To wit: Several celebrities, along with other members of the Church of Scientology, may have signed away key rights, according to the New York Post, including their right to psychiatric care and the right to see their families. Among those affected, according to the report, are: Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Lisa Marie Presley, Kirstie Alley, and Juliette Lewis. The paper said the church requires members to sign documents giving up those rights as they move up in rank in the church hierarchy. A researcher at Carnegie Mellon University discovered the documents while investigating the Scientology religion. The documents are posted on [CMU Professor] David Touretzky's Web site. At this point, the link takes the reader to an amazingly bizarre "contract" which pretty much enslaves the person who signs it and essentially breaks all legal ties with his or her family in the event of an emergency. Nevertheless, one wonders why such a contract is even necessary in the first place if, as the "contract" states, a Scientology "parishioner" really is "unalterably opposed, as a matter of religious belief, to the practice of psychiatry, and espouses as a religious belief that the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields." O ye of little faith! (We suspect that's why their "church" is run by lawyers and businessmen rather than by ministers and theologians.) Our Prediction: The "church" of Scientology's litigation arm, the Religious Technology Center, will rapidly issue a "warning" to the good Professor's employer that he is in "violation" of US Copyright Law by posting the document he found on his web site and that the University will be sued for "infringement" if the document in question is not removed from public view. Why do we say this will happen? The "church" and its RTC shysters have been using this ploy for well over a decade and for one reason and one reason only: To suppress criticism of the "church." (For our unique look at its head litigator during the RTC's 1990's "infringement" lawsuits, go here: The Heleva Kobra Web Site ) The RTC has a long-standing track record of misusing Intellectual Property law to suppress published criticism and abusing the court system to financially ruin hapless academics and journalists thru deliberately frivolous litigation, most of which gets thrown out by the courts. But by then it's too late: Unless he or she had the foresight to purchase millions of dollars of legal insurance coverage, the victim has already spent all of his or her assets paying legal fees and faces a huge mountain of debt and/or loss of his or her home to finish paying the lawyers. So here we have a "church" which not only destroys family ties but also goes after academics and journalists for daring to bring the evidence to light. And the Catholic Church's critics think we're the bad guys??? Amazing. Saturday, August 09, 2003
ANOTHER O'HAIR-BRAINED ANTIC: The American Atheists Want the Ground Zero Cross Removed The cross in question is a remnant of two intersecting steel beams which was once part of the World Trade Center and was discovered while Ground Zero was being cleared of debris. The remnant uncannily resembled a perfectly symmetrical Christian cross. According to one New York City construction worker who was part of the team which found the artifact, it was standing straight, 20-feet high, and surrounded by many smaller similar cross-shaped pieces of debri. The phenomenon startled those who saw it, including an FBI chaplain who pointed out at the time that "There's no symmetry to anything down there [among the debris] except those crosses." Because of its distinct shape, it has become widely regarded by many Christians as a miraculous reminder of God's providence and presence even in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Moreover, the NYC officials in charge of turning a portion of Ground Zero into a memorial may, at the urging of the men and women who spent weeks searching for survivors and body parts, include the 20-foot tall artifact in its memorial plans. However, American Atheists, the notoriously cranky anti-religion organization founded by late theophobe Madelyn Murray O'Hair, wants the artifact removed specifically because of its resemblance to the central symbol of Christianity. The organization has announced plans to sue the city on "separation of church and state" grounds in order to get their way. (The fact that Ground Zero is neither Federal nor state property seems to make no difference to such empty-headed fanatics.) Whines Ellen Johnson, president of AA, "This is a Christian religious advertisement, and allowing it to stay there is an insult to everyone who doesn't believe in that particular religion." Never mind that many, of not most, of the hundreds police officers, firefighters, and rescue workers who died on that terrible day helping others embraced "that particular religion." And never mind that, as far as we can determine, not one member of her organization were among those hundreds of fallen heroes. Is it any wonder most sane, rational people dismiss these folks as hopeless kooks with waaaaay too much time and money on their hands? What will these morons seek to remove next? Perhaps all the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other religious symbols at the graves at Arlington National Cemetary. After all, that's Federal land, is it not? Nevertheless, we don't understand what the perennial dunderheads who run the AA have to complain about: Over 95% of the proposed WTC memorial will consist of empty space. So the American Atheists will have their symbol there also. Monday, February 03, 2003
Memo from DPI's DUMB NOSTRADAMUS PROPHECIES Office One would think the ususal Bozos who inhabit the Internet would give the public a break immediately in the wake of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy, n'est pas? Think again! Along comes yet another dimwit trying to pass off his or her fakery as yet another "Nostradamus prophecy" --and this one less than 24 hours after the loss of the shuttle and all hands aboard. What some morons with too much time on their hands won't stoop to for attention. Thursday, January 02, 2003
REPRISE: An "Evangelical" in the Hefner Zone? BAMBI MEETS GODZILLA: A Protestant "E-pologist" Takes On Pope John Paul II About Sexuality and Birth Control "Birth Control is a name given to a succession of different expedients by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself …. What is quaintly called Birth Control... is in fact, of course, a scheme for preventing birth in order to escape control." --G. K. Chesterton “Impurity in the sexual sphere consists of using another person solely in order to satisfy desire…. Even in marriage, sex for its own sake is sex separated from God. As Hildebrand writes, it possesses a poisonous sweetness that paralyzes and destroys.” –Johann Christoph Arnold Last year a Protestant “e-pologist” attempted to critique (i.e., write a silly screed against) the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality, sexual conduct, and family planning. The results were less than stellar either intellectually or spiritually (in fact, like Bambi under Godzilla's foot, they went "SPLAT!"), but they were enormously entertaining nonetheless: Sex, Lies, and Papal Encyclicals —Oh, and a Book Review, Too (Click HERE to read Svendsen's article) This masterpiece of “scholastic” ineptitude, written by none other than NTRMin's own Eric Svendsen, attacks the Church's teachings on birth control and sexuality --up to and including the Pope's "Theology of the Body," believe it or not!-- as anti-sex and even anti-marriage. And, incredibly enough, even for Svendsen, the writer claims that the Church's "attitude" about birth control and sexuality is "rooted in a third- and fourth-century church that was highly influenced by Gnosticism," an allegation for which he presents no evidence other than an apparently negative view of sexual relations on the part of St. Jerome. But Jerome was, after all, a religious ascetic, one who practiced self-denial and detachment from physical pleasures as an exercise in sanctification --a time-honored Christian practice among Catholic and non-Catholic Christians alike. So what would Svendsen expect an ascetic like Jerome to say? “Let’s have an orgy”? And never mind that the "third- and fourth-century church" fought tooth-and-nail against Gnostic influences in Council after Council during that period.. Svendsen claims, Since Pope Paul VI issued his papal encyclical Humanae Vitae it has been commonplace for conservative Roman Catholics to adopt an almost hostile attitude toward sexual relations with one’s spouse. While they would certainly deny this with words, many Roman Catholics do in fact look upon the sexual act itself with what can only be described as open disdain. His "evidence" for this? A scant few undocumented alleged quotes by a few alleged Catholics waxing negative about marital sexual union (allegedly). But are there some Catholics who "look upon the sexual act itself with ...disdain"? Of course! Just as there are and have been some Calvinists and Fundamentalists who do so. Does this "prove" a causal relationship with Humanae Vitae or any other papal encyclical? No more so than its non-Catholic equivalent proves a causal relationship with Calvin's Institutes or The Fundamentals. Svendsen should no better than to present such a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc "argument," especially one based on hearsay. Svendsen on “Lust”: A Lesson in Cluelessness Even more amazingly for one who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, Svendsen seems unable to tell the difference between marital lust --sexual desire for one's spouse rooted in self-centeredness and adolescent self-gratification-- and marital amorous love --sexual desire for one's spouse rooted in other-centeredness and mature self-giving. For an excellent, in-depth, and thoroughly biblical exposition on this subject, see A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage & God (Plough Publishing House, 1998) by Johann Christoph Arnold, an Evangelical Protestant. Unlike Svendsen’s views on the subject, Arnold’s book has been endorsed by leading Evangelicals such as J. I. Packer (as well as leading Catholics such as Cardinal Ratzinger and Mother Teresa, who wrote the Foreword). “Isn’t lust identical to sexual attraction, after all?” Svendsen asks. Well, actually, NO! They are not the same thing, and the question itself betrays an almost adolescent level of sexual understanding and a rather shallow view of the place of sexuality in the Christian life. Contra Svendsen, Evangelical writer Arnold notes: “Impurity in the sexual sphere consists of using another person solely in order to satisfy desire…. Even in marriage, sex for its own sake is sex separated from God. As Hildebrand writes, it possesses a poisonous sweetness that paralyzes and destroys.” (p.41, A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage & God) Mere sexual attraction in and of itself is morally neutral and passive in nature, while lust is an active --and actively nurtured-- desire for someone to whom one has no right, namely, (a) someone other than one's spouse or (b) one's own spouse for illicit or impure reasons. That there is also a radical ("at the root") difference between lust for one’s spouse (which is morally disordered, because it is selfish, and to be avoided) and mere sexual attraction to one’s spouse (which is morally neutral and to be embraced and nurtured in the context of Christ-like self-sacrificing love) is a foundational principle of biblical sexual ethics, a principle of which Svendsen --a Bible scholar, no less-- seems utterly unaware. Yet this very same principle is one of the central themes of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Pauline Books and Media; 1997), a book Svendsen would have us believe he actually read: From the ”There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute" Dept. One of Svendsen’s methodological principles seems to be, “If you didn’t really read the book, then make up your own quotes. The hoi poloi will never know the difference." Citing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body , Svendsen makes this rather bizarre claim about the Pope’s views [emphasis via underlines added]: More recently, Pope John Paul II, commenting on Jesus’ words that "everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28), in his The Theology of the Body, has stated that: "Christ did not stress that it is ‘another man’s wife, . . . Even if [a man] looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart" (159). So, according to the pope, a man may have sexual relations with his wife; but he may not enjoy her beauty, femininity or sexuality in the process— that would, after all, be lusting after her. One wonders just how it is possible to become sexually aroused without these things… But is this what John Paul II really said? Not on your life. First of all, Svendsen's "quote" appears nowhere on page 159, or page 160, or page 161, or page 162, or page 163, or..... You get the idea. Second, nowhere does John Paul II advocate or even imply the looney view Svendsen attributes to him, or anything like it. In fact, on pages 161 through 167, John Paul both explicitly and implicitly repudiates such anti-Christian "thinking," which he attributes to the ancient Manichean views of sexuality. Moreover, through his lofty and often poetic Theology of the Body (in his younger days, the author was, after all, both a poet and a philosophy professor), John Paul actually glorifies human sexuality and marital sexual union, virtually elevating them to the level of sacraments. But Svendsen would have to actually read the Pope's book to know that. Svendsen vs. Classical Christianity on the Purpose of Human Sexuality .... Isn’t lust identical to sexual attraction, after all? When Jesus gave the mandate not to lust after a woman, he obviously meant nothing other than that a man should refrain from sexually desiring a woman other than his wife....[emphasis added] Not quite. For someone supposedly well-versed in biblical theology, Svendsen seems utterly clueless about God’s two-fold purpose for sexual attraction and marital sexual union as revealed in Scripture, namely (a) the transmission of human life, God’s highest creation (the chief reason ALL Christians churches from 33AD to 1930 AD opposed artificial means of birth control), by which man and wife together image their Creator; and (b) the joyful, nurturing, and loving union of husband and wife as they image, in their intimacy, the self-giving loving union (1) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and (2) of Christ and His people. As both Arnold and John Paul II point out in their books, the intense pleasure which accompanies that union between husband and wife is not supposed to be an end in itself, nor even the purpose of the union. Rather, sexual pleasure accompanies, and is but one part of, that union –which was ordained by God to be both procreative and unitive. Contrariwise, and not too unlike the average non-Christian, Svendsen’s view separates sex from procreation, reducing God-created human sexuality to a pleasure principle and sex itself to another toy –-albeit a toy for husband and wife alone. Covert Ops for Margaret Sanger? Not surprisingly, Svendsen has swallowed hook, line, and sinker the secular humanist birth control philosophy first promulgated 100 years ago by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a philosophy universally condemned at the time by Evangelicals and Catholics alike. In fact, until the mid-1900s, most American state and local governments –most of them run by Protestants, not Catholics-- had outlawed artificial birth control since the Revolution; and American churches --most of them run by Protestants, not Catholics— had preached against it long before that. Also not surprisingly, and for much the same reason –i.e., inconvenience to sexual self-gratification— Svendsen belittles Natural Family Planning (which he seems to know little about; and which is employed to space births, not prevent them altogether) as “the rhythm method.” Moreover, amazingly enough, he equates the passive and natural NFP approach –which requires several days of self-denial and self-restraint per month— with active and anti-natural methods such as the Pill (an abortifacient, btw), the condom, and other artificial interventionist routes –which require no such forms of self-denial and self-discipline at all. God is Sovereign, BUT… Ironically enough, for a member of a school of Evangelical Christianity –Calvinism— which emphasizes more than the other schools, and almost to the level of mantra, the Sovereign Will of God and His Providential control over our lives, Svendsen seems to harbor an odd antipathy toward the notion of surrendering this area of life to the Creator’s Sovereign hands, or at least toward those who do. Perhaps he will be eager to explain why this does not qualify as both intellectual schizophrenia and a theological inconsistency, for Calvinists despise intellectual schizophrenia and theological inconsistency above almost anything else. Jesus vs. Svendsen on “Adultery” Except for his one proviso of restricting sexual relations to marriage (for which he is to be commended), Svendsen’s thinking on sexuality differs little fundamentally from the purely utilitarian and hedonistic sexual thinking of the average secular humanist. For example, in his interpretation of Jesus’ warnings in Matthew 5: 27-28 (“everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart") says the following: … When Jesus gave the mandate not to lust after a woman, he obviously meant nothing other than that a man should refrain from sexually desiring a woman other than his wife. Jesus calls such action adultery. Adultery, by definition, is the act of sexual infidelity with someone other than one’s spouse. So, by its very definition, one cannot commit adultery by lusting after his own spouse. Clearly, the locus of Jesus’ –and John Paul II’s-- definition of “adultery” is much deeper than Svendsen’s: Namely, the self-centered condition of the fallen human heart. This is why Jesus’ admonition against “look But unlike Jesus’ and John Paul’s definition of “adultery,” the locus of Svendsen’s definition of “adultery” is the object of one’s libido, i.e., “one’s own spouse” as opposed to “someone other than one’s spouse.” A more utilitarian --and less Christ-like-- approach to sexuality has been promulgated only by Hugh Hefner. The main difference is that Hefner doesn’t try to use the Bible to justify his. When the Issue Becomes Sexual Assault…. ….instead of sexual infidelity, Svendsen’s “logic” becomes downright frightening: Read again what Svendsen says (emphasis added): ”Adultery, by definition, is the act of sexual infidelity with someone other than one’s spouse. So, by its very definition, one cannot commit adultery by lusting after his own spouse.” Obviously, Svendsen defines “adultery” in a narrow ”legal” sense (i.e., an “ACT of sexual infidelity”), not in the wider moral and spiritual sense that Jesus did –the same sense John Paul and Arnold repeat. Why? Because, from Svendsen’s “Bible alone” perspective, especially in the Mosaic laws, “adultery” is implicitly defined as “the act of sexual infidelity with someone other than one’s spouse.” Likewise in the Mosaic laws, rape is implicitly defined as “the act of sexual infidelity with someone other than one’s spouse” by force. The biblical law in Deut. 22: 25-27 condemning rape does so in the context of men sexually attacking women to whom they are not married The fact is that not one of the Mosaic laws condemns a man for sexually attacking a woman to whom he is married. IOW, the Bible is silent on the issue of marital rape. Therefore, following Svendsen’s line of reasoning –i.e., ”one cannot commit adultery by lusting after his own spouse”— one cannot commit rape by forcing sexual relations upon his own spouse. On such grounds, there is no such thing as sexual assault with one’s spouse just as there is no such thing as sexual infidelity with one’s spouse. This is not to say that Svendsen would think of marital sexual assault as morally permissible, nor that he would ever commit such an act against his spouse. Of course, he would do neither. But that’s not the point. The point is that Svendsen’s legalistic definition of “adultery” combined with his legalistic “Bible alone” approach to morals and conscience formation can leave the door wide open to just that kind of abuse. ”…and a Book Review, Too”??? As a final exercise in bone-headed cluelessness, Svendsen closes with the following “book review”: What prompted me to write is a fairly recent book by Garry Willis, titled Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. Willis is a professor of History at Northwestern University. It is a fascinating read, and in it Willis demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of some modern Roman Catholic sentiments regarding sex, birth control, marriage and divorce —oops, I mean annulment; Roman Catholics aren’t allowed to divorce, but sixty-thousand of them are allowed to "annul" their marriages every year. Even if they have been married 15 or 20 years and have several children, such a marriage "didn’t really exist" because of "invalid form"—whatever that means. The book is published by Doubleday. One wonders if Svendsen ever really read the book, and instead merely lifted some other reviewer's opinions of it. Why? Because the author's last name is "Wills," not "Willis." But to give Svendsen the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he sometimes gets confused and has a hard time telling the difference between movie star Bruce Willis and history professor Garry Wills. Who knows? At least Svendsen got the name of Wills' publisher right.* ”Ye shall be as God”: Anti-Catholicism, Antinomianism, and the Lust for Autonomy Svendsen’s choice of “experts” on Catholic teaching should not be too surprising. I have long suspected that at the deepest roots of most anti-Catholicism --along with most other brands of anti-Christianity-- lies a deep-seated antinomian lust for autonomy ("self-law") which characterizes man’s fallen condition, particularly in the area of sexual ethics. As Svendsen himself once wrote in a different context, “The final arbiter, for every single human being, is--must be--private judgment and reliance on one's own fallible reasoning faculties.” Truly, a peculiar position for a supposed Evangelical to adopt. But of course, Svendsen did not make up this principle on his own; he got it from the Bible –specifically, a certain individual quoted in Genesis 3: 1-5: The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing To be fair, Svendsen ties his role of "final arbiter" to "what the Bible says," but guess who decides in the final sense what the Bible “really” says? Especially scratch an ex-Catholic anti-Catholic deep enough, and you'll find --more often than not-- someone who left the Catholic Church not so much for "doctrinal" reasons (though they may have had such reasons), and not even because he or she "couldn't find Jesus" there (despite the fact that millions can and do, and have done for 2,000 years). You'll find instead someone who left because he or she wanted to do what he or she wanted to do no matter what, and that was that. In fact, most ex-Catholic anti-Catholics who become atheists or agnostics instead of Fundamentalists or Evangelicals are much more honest about this: They will tell you upfront and in a straightforward manner that they left the Church specifically and chiefly because they objected to the Catholic Church’s teachings in the areas of birth control and sexuality. This lust for autonomy may well explain why Catholic-bashers, secular or religious alike, side with liberal baptized humanists-in-Catholic-clothing like Garry Wills, who has at least as long a track record of hostility to Catholicism in general and Catholicism’s uncompromising plea for purity in particular as they do. After all, it’s easier to deflect Jesus’ command to “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me” inside a worldview which glorifies Convenience, Giving In, and Taking the Easy Way Out and regards radical self-sacrifice, self-denial, and self-restraint --especially including in the marriage bed-- as perverse. With friends like Svendsen, the future of Evangelicalism in the area of procreational and sexual ethics needs no enemies, and the Culture of Death needs no better ally. ----EDITOR'S NOTE------ Finally, after a whole year --and after reading the blog immediately above-- Eric Svendsen found the time to save himself some needless embarassment by correcting his misspelling of Garry Wills' name. See his response to this blog in the footnote he appended to his newly revised but still lame "book review.") No doubt, Prof. Wills is deliriously happy. But no need to thank us, Mr. Svendsen. :-) We are all too happy to be of service pointing out your mistakes. Also in fairness to Mr. Svendsen, he does make the effort in his footnoted response to point out that he does indeed know the difference between NFP and the old "rythm method" (life is indeed full of surprises): Some Roman Catholic epologists ...have taken swipes at my articles above, citing my supposed ignorance of the distinction between the rhythm method (an earlier version of Roman Catholic birth control) and its offspring, NFP (Natural Family Planning--the modern version of Roman Catholic birth control). I am, of course, aware that Roman Catholic apologists make a distinction between these, but it is a distinction without a difference --one is simply a more effective form of birth control than the other, and the difference lies chiefly in the length of the period of abstinence... But, of course, no one said otherwise. Nevertheless, the difference between NFP and the old "rythm method" was NOT the main point of our critique of Mr. Svendsen's views on birth control, which seem indistinguishable from those of Planned Parenthood, as we said: "...Moreover, amazingly enough, he equates the passive and natural NFP approach –which requires several days of self-denial and self-restraint per month— with active and anti-natural methods such as the Pill (an abortifacient, btw), the condom, and other artificial interventionist routes –which require no such forms of self-denial and self-discipline at all." Svendsen misses that point completely, and focuses on the NFP side-issue instead. Ironically enough for one who castigates both Catholicism and Orthodoxy for their allegedly "Gnostic" influences from the 3rd century AD onward, Svendsen's understanding of sexuality and its purpose seems more akin to that of Manicheanism than to that of classical Evangelicalism: As most well-informed students of Gnosticism know, both the ancient Manicheans and later Manichean cults (such as the 13th century Albigenses and Cathari) also took a Svendsenesque utilitarian view of sexuality. The main difference is these sects were more consistent intellectually than Mr. Svendsen. Consequently, such sects radically divorced sexuality from spirituality, typically going from one extremist position to its exact opposite --and both based on the same presupposition. Thus they either endorsed complete sexual hedonism on the one hand, or condemned any and all sexual activity, including within marriage, on the other. What Mr. Svendsen really needs to set the record straight on are (1) his apparent fabrication of a quote he attributes to JPII's Theology of the Body; (2) his batty claim that "according to the pope, a man may have sexual relations with his wife; but he may not enjoy her beauty, femininity or sexuality in the process"; (3) his humanistic definition of "lust"; (4) his reduction of "adultery" to a purely legalistic definition; and (5) his surprisingly reductionistic and even anti-biblical thinking on human sexuality and procreation, especially when compared to that of real Evangelicals like John White, Elizabeth Elliot, and Johann Christoph Arnold --as well as countless generations of Evangelicals before them. Of course, since Mr. Svendsen regards all such points as "slander" --just as he seems to regard any and all criticisms of or dissent from any of his views as personal affronts-- one ought not hold one's breath awaiting a reply to these points. Friday, December 20, 2002
BEYOND LUNACY: The Remnant Disses Science and Technology The self-styled "traditionalist Catholic" publication The Remnant looks loonier and loonier the more we read its articles, as well as other drivel penned elsewhere by its key writers. It seems that back in Nov. 2000, The Remnant, through veteran house weirdo Solange Hertz, trashed modern science and technology. In fact, in her book Beyond Politics: A Metahistorical View of What Keeps on Happening, Hertz "argues" (cf., pp.47-56) that both electricity and electronics are demonic and were inspired by Ol' Scratch himself, all as part of a supernatural conspiracy to overthrow Christianty and usher in the Anti-Christ. Moreover, Hertz "reasons," the progress of modern technology overall has caused faith and the True Religion to plummet and the forces of atheism, secular humanism, and the New Age movement to flourish and take over. Hmmm. Might be time to move to Lancaster, PA, buy a horse and buggy, and take up farming. But we digress. Such twaddle is to be expected from Hertz, who, in the very same book, also endorses Geocentricity, among other long-discredited notions. Here is part of what one mainstream traditionalist Catholic --a priest no less!-- had to say in his response (The Remnant: Church vs. Science) to such nincumpoopery masquerading as "traditionalism": ...Normally, I would recommend that someone like Mrs. Hertz read Providentissimus Deus to gain a knowledge of how the Church interprets Scripture in the light of the realities of science -- but her low regard for Pope Leo XIII would probably make that a waste of time. Her failure to distinguish democracy from republican government, her identification of socialism and communism with the former, her claim that Leo XIII ordered the republicanization of Europe, and her contention that democracies and republics must separate Church and state, would likely make that Pope's writings meaningless to her. A pity, really, for Pope Leo's works are key to understanding the Church's teachings on Its relationship to the modern state. ...The Remnant is getting to be more and more of an embarrassment to traditional Catholicism as time goes on, and it becomes increasingly clear that it is a journal devoted to seventeenth century antiquarian thinking. Acceptance of the 'indult' without orthodoxy, the purposeful isolation of Catholics from the Mass, the wistful desire for monarchy, and now the denial of physical reality! HEAR! HEAR! Editor's Note: After pointing out the supreme irony that Hertz uses a computer to do her "work," one Remnant reader was told by editor Michael Matt that this was okay because Hertz (whose last name --ironically enough-- is also an electronics term designating computer processing speed) is "clear-eyed" about the devilish nature of electonics. Hmmmm. In that case, we here at DPI shall contact our city's ex-mayor Marion Barry poste-haste and procure a kilo of crack cocaine. After all, we're "clear-eyed" about the harmful nature of narcotics. |