The DPI Bullies 'N' Bozos BLOG

2003-09-13T18:43:00.000-04:00

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

2003-09-13T18:32:00.000-04:00

2003-09-09T19:12:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-08-09T18:39:00.000-04:00

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.

2003-02-03T14:30:00.000-05:00

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.

2003-01-02T15:39:00.000-05:00

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 at a woman lustfully” extends far beyond the legalistic confines of the mere act of marital infidelity –i.e., to one’s attitude toward the opposite sex. After all, Jesus was addressing married and single people alike. IOW, Jesus –and John Paul— define “adultery” as viewing a woman as a sex object, a play thing to be used for one’s pleasure.

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 good and evil."

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.

2002-12-20T13:40:00.000-05:00

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.

2002-12-19T19:08:00.000-05:00

”NOPE, AIN’T NO ANTI-SEMITES HERE”:
The Remnant Whitewashes Fr. Dennis Fahey

In his “rebuttal” of Sandra Miesel’s Crisis article poking holes in the conspiracy-mentality and “anti-Judaism” of the Sieg Heil wing of the Catholic Traditionalist movement, Remnant writer Christopher Ferrara claims that the famous Jew-baiting Irish priest of the first half of the 20th century, Dennis Fahey, was not really an anti-Semite.

Fahey, Ferrara would have us believe, was only a critic of political Zionism who opposed what Fahey called “Jewish naturalism,” a rejection of supernatural faith and religion as embodied in, for example, the dialectical materialism of Jewish-born philosopher Karl Marx. (But those who try to link "the Jews" or "Zionism" to Marxism conveniently leave out the fact that Marx rejected both his Jewish roots and religion in general as a young man, and never turned back to them.)

The “late great Father Dennis Fahey,” according to Ferrara, really "loved" the Jewish people and (allegedly) opposed anti-Semitism, which Ferrara --via Fahey’s words-- correctly defines (albeit incompletely) as “hatred of Jews” and “hatred of the Jewish race.” To make his point that Fahey was innocent of holding anti-Semitic views (which, after all, is what makes an anti-Semite an anti-Semite), Ferrara provides a few quotes which give lip service to the Catholic Church’s condemnation of hatred of the Jews.

Conversely, Ferrara whines about Miesel “quote[ing] nothing” anti-Semitic by Fahey, “offering only pejoratives in place of a reasoned analysis of Fr. Fahey’s work."

Now isn’t that special!

But apparently Ferrara is not as familiar with Fahey’s work as he would have us think. Consider the following quote by Fahey, which provides a fuller sampling of what Fahey really thought about Jews and “the Jewish race”:

There is, however, no real evidence that the Soviet Government has changed its policy of communism under control of the Bolsheviks, or has loosened its control of communism in other countries, or has ceased to be under Jew control. Unwanted tools certainly have been 'liquidated' in Russia by Stalin in his determination to be the supreme head, and it is not unnatural that some Jews, When all the leading positions were held by them, have suffered in the process of rival elimination. Outside Russia, events in Poland show how the Comintern still works. The Polish Ukraine has been communized under Jewish commissars, with property owners either shot or marched into Russia as slaves, with all estates confiscated and all business and property taken over by the State. It has been said in the American Jewish Press that the Bolshevik advance into the Ukraine was to save the Jews there from meeting the fate of their co-religionists in Germany, but this same Press is silent as to the fate meted out to the Christian Poles.

In less than a month, in any case, the lie has been given to Molotov's non-interference statement. Should international communism ever complete its plan of bringing civilization to nought, it is conceivable that some form of World Government in the hands of a few men could emerge, which would not be communism. It would be the domination of barbarous tyrants over the world of slaves, and communism would have been used as the means to an end.

… The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces, and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.

--The Rulers of Russia by Fr. Dennis Fahey, pp 23-25

Consider also the following quote from a book endorsed by Fahey. This was written in the early 1930s by an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory popularizer named Lesley Fry in a book in which Fry argues for the "authenticity" of the so-called "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a notorious work of anti-Semitic agitprop fabricated by the Czarist secret police plagiarizing the script of a satirical French play from the Napoleanic era. A few years after its initial 1931 publication, this book was revised and updated by Fahey himself (see the references to 1935 and 1937 in the text). In fact, within the neo-Nazi and Christian identity movements, Fahey is so closely associated with Fry's book that some within those movements attribute this quote to Fahey himself:

On 26th June, 1933, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Berne Jewish Community brought an action against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of their publication. The procedure of the Court was astounding, the provisions of the Swiss Civil Code being deliberately set aside. Sixteen witnesses called by the plaintiffs were heard, but only one of the forty witnesses called by the defendants was allowed a hearing. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of proceedings during the hearing of their witnesses, instead of entrusting the task to a Court official.

In view of these and similar irregularities, it was not surprising that, after the case had lasted just two years, the Court pronounced the Protocols to be a forgery and demoralising literature. The decision was given on 14th May, 1935, but it was announced in the Jewish Press before it was delivered by the Court?

On 1st November, 1937, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal quashed this judgment in its entirety. Jewish propagandists, however, still declare that the Protocols have been "proved" to be a forgery.

It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focusing more public attention on other revealing utterances.

--Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ (Flanders Hall Publishing Company, LA, 1988, [1st ed. 1931]) by Lesley Fry; Rev. Dennis Fahey, Editor

Yep, sure sounds like Fr. Fahey loved the Jews and didn’t have an anti-Semitic bone in his lily white Hibernian body.

2002-12-19T09:03:00.000-05:00

SLOUCHING TOWARDS NUREMBERG?
When Catholics Flirt with the Lunatic Fringe

On his web site, Catholic writer William Cork brings up some rather alarming facts about Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis’ since-removed web site article “Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary? The Apocalyptic Ramifications of a Novel Teaching,” which, in part, critizes political Zionism. In particular, Cork focuses on some of the sources Sungenis used to form his views:

In the course of his critique of Sungenis' article, Cork notes that one of Sungenis' sources was a book titled The Effects of the Talmud on Judeo-Christianity by a retired US Army Colonel named Gordon “Jack” Mohr, whom Cork identified as “a leader in the ‘Anglo-Israel-Identity Movement.’”

In his reply to Mr. Cork, Mr. Sungenis had this to say about Mohr:

…. notice how [Cork] calls a Lt. Colonel in the US Army a "White Supremacist," simply because the Colonel critiques the Talmud for being a anti-Christian book (which it is); and for exposing what he (and I) believe are Zionist plans to take over Solomonic Palestine. You see, in Mr. Cork's world, there is only one standard of right and wrong in world politics. Whatever favors the Zionists is good; whatever does not favor them is bad. And those that are "bad" in Mr. Cork's Liberal Dictionary are labeled as "white supremicists." Does Mr. Cork ever contest any of Lt. Col. Mohr's material? No, Mr. Cork is not interested in seeing the merits of Mohr's critiques of the Talmud. It doesn't bother Mr. Cork that the Talmud calls Jesus a son of an adulterer and a blasphemer and upon whom demons urinated to keep him in hell. No, Mr. Cork would rather call a US army Colonel a liar and anti-semite, when all Mr. Mohr did was quote from Talmudic sources and Zionist literature.

Apparently, Mr. Sungenis never bothered to check out Mohr’s background and credibility either before using Mohr as an “authority” on the Talmud, or before taking Cork to task for raising alarms about the former’s reliance on Mohr.

Identifying with Christian Identity?

To his credit, Mr. Sungenis has since removed the article in question. But had he bothered to do a little research on Gordon “Jack” Mohr and his ideology before he published his article on his web site he could've saved himself some needless embarrassment, for Sungenis would’ve discovered the following:

As is abundantly evident from his very own web site Gordon “Jack” Mohr is indeed a member, proponent, and leader of the Anglo-Israeli Identity movement, a movement whose “theology” is specifically race-based: According to Identity “thinking,” only white people are “the children of God” and the descendants of “House of Israel,” the real descendents of Abraham. IOW, the ancient Hebrews of the Bible were and are the “white race.” Modern-day non-white Jews are mere pretenders. Indeed, some Identity followers –especially those in the Christian Identity movement-- believe that modern-day Semitic Jews were actually fathered –literally!—by Satan himself.

Here is what Mohr himself says on the matter (underlines added for emphasis):

Who are the people who make up the house of Israel and the twelve tribes of Israel? Some say it is the church, which they believe to be "spiritual" Israel. Some say it is the Jews; these believe the Jews are "God's chosen people." But most of those who have rationally and seriously looked into the matter from an archaeological, historical, and Biblical viewpoint have identified the twelve tribes of Israel as the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples--the peoples who comprise the white race which settled the North American continent, forming the bedrock population of the United States of America.

This doctrinal belief --this newly-rediscovered truth-- has been labeled "Identity," because it correctly identifies the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So just as it may be said that some Christians are "creationists" and others are "evolutionists," it may also be said some Christians are "Identity" and others are not....

Like it or not, by any and all sane standards, such looney “theories” and “doctrines” (which were first espoused, and widely debunked, in the late 1800s!) make Mohr an ipso facto white supremacist, Sungenis’ fanciful dancing around that issue notwithstanding. More importantly, they demonstrate that Mohr is a kook of the first order, someone whose credibility vis the Talmud or any other subject is suspect at best. After all, Sungenis does not indicate anywhere that he himself read the actual Talmudic references Mohr and other white supremacists cited in their "studies."

Had he done so, Sungenis would've quickly discovered that those "texts" his "experts" cite were misquoted, or were ripped out of context, or were completely fabricated. I know this because I romped through this very issue in debates with Christian Identity advocates and other anti-Semites two years ago: I had checked out their "references" myself by consulting modern English translations of the Talmud and Mishnah, which can be found in any good college or seminary library. Guess what? There was no "there" there!

Hysterical Reviewing

In addition to Mohr, Mr. Sungenis cites as a "very credible source" on "Zionism" one Mark Weber, head of the Holocaust "revisionist" group known as the Institute for Historical Review. The IHR, as has been well establshed and widely known since its inception in the 1970s, was set up by Liberty Lobby founder Willis Carto specifically to “prove” that the Holocaust was a “Zionist hoax,” Sungenis wrote the following:

First, let me say again that the website I consulted had no reference to Weber or the Journal of Historical Review. If I had known that, you can depend upon it that I would have cited it as a source, since the Journal of Historical Review is a very credible source!

But here is the irony of Mr. Cork's issue. Notice how he just skips right over the fact that Mark Weber has written an article on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution, an article that is included in a highly prestigious and credible magazine, The Journal of Historical Review! You can't get much more credible than that, as far as history goes.

So let me ask, is not Mr. Weber confirming my thesis that Jewish Zionists were instrumental in the Bolshevik revolution? Of course he is. But you would never know that from reading Mr. Cork's little snippet? Of course not. His view is so myopic in his quest to destroy me, that he doesn't even notice the forest for the trees. I think this is very telling, indeed. It shows precisely what kind of person with whom we are dealing. Mr. Cork is so bent on discrediting me with the charge of plagiarism, that he doesn't even notice that his very citation of Weber destroys his whole thesis that I am an anti-semite who got his facts all mixed up about the Bolsheviks! Thank you, Mr. Cork. I couldn't have done better myself.

Notice, please, how Mr. Sungenis dances around the issue of Mark Weber’s and the IHR’s credibility as “sources” –an issue Sungenis seems to care not one whit about.

But just for argument’s sake, let’s give Mr. Sungenis the benefit of the doubt: Maybe in his eagerness to "go to print" (as they say in the hard news biz) he was overly careless and neglected to check up on the backgrounds, credentials, and connections of both Weber and the IHR. But this is especially stunning when one takes into account the fact that reams of investigative journalism have been written about the IHR –including its current director, Mark Weber-- going back at least 20 years.

Mark Weber's and IHR's Neo-Nazi Connections

As can be easily discovered, Mark Weber, a long-time writer and “expert” for the IHR's Journal for Historical Review, a publication most bona fide historians dismiss as the work of cranks and kooks, has also been a close ally of and served as “house scholar” for a leading neo-Nazi and white supremacist group known as the National Alliance, which he joined in 1978 and served as the editor for their “newspaper,” the National Vanguard. At the same time, Weber began writing for Carto’s weekely, The Spotlight. From that position, Weber went on to become an editor, and later director, for the IHR. From the early 1980s through the present, Weber has served as the IHR’s chief representative and conferences speaker for neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, and other white supremacist gatherings. Since the 1980s, Weber has also served as treasurer for the National Alliance’s Cosmotheist Church, a pseudo-religion based on “Aryan” racial and cosmological “theories.”

The facts about Weber and the IHR have been documented over and over again by journalists (including well-known Evangelical Christian journalist Richard Abanes), by hate group watchdog organizations, and even by hate groups themselves. Moreover, a brief romp through the National Alliance’s web site –where both Mark Weber’s name and the names of other IHR “experts” are quite prominent!-- will quickly reveal the true nature of Mark Weber, the IHR, and the NA itself. Some of the other “sources” featured prominently at this site include:

(1) THE TURNER DIARIES (no publisher listed)

This novel about an Apocalyptic race war, written by a National Alliance founder "Dr." William Pierce under the pseudonym “Andrew MacDonald”, is THE “bible” of home-grown white supremacist and Neo-Nazi terrorist groups like The Order and Aryan Nations, of whom Oklahoma bomber Timothy McViegh was a member. (Until his death last year, Pierce also headed the National Alliance’s Cosmotheist Church.)

(2) BOLSHEVISM FROM MOSES TO LENIN: A DIALOGUE BETWEEN ADOLF HITLER AND ME (National Vanguard Books, whose cover editor apparently does not know the basics of English grammar)

This book, written by Nazi sympathizer Dietrich Eckart, claims to be “A penetrating look at the role of the Jews in world history, from Biblical times to the 20th century, by the poet and playwright to whom Hitler dedicated Mein Kampf. Lucid exposition of Jewish psychology, motives, and methods of operating. Provides new, valuable insight into the meaning of the Old Testament.”

(3) THE LIGHTENING AND THE SUN (no publisher listed)

This “classic philosophical work about the historical inevitability of cultural decay and rebirth” was written by “Savitri Devi,” a British female who in the 1930s became enamored of pagan “Aryanism,” changed her name to an Indian one (the Nazis believed Indians are descendents of the Aryan race –believe it or not!), and was “one of Adolf Hitler's most devoted admirers,” according to the web site’s summary of this book.

We are also told that Devi “…couches her arguments in metaphor, using ‘lightning’ to refer to forces of destruction and "sun" to refer to building in accordance with nature's eternal laws. [Note that lightning figured prominently in Nazi symbolism and "thinking." --JE] Both are necessary, says Devi, since to build the pure and new one must first sweep away the rotting debris of the corrupt old order. Violence, per se, has no moral assignment; it's either worth its while or not, depending on what it aims for. For illustration, the author examines in detail the lives of three figures from history: Akhnaton, Genghis Khan, and Adolf Hitler. She argues that we are at the end of a cycle of history in which corruption and lies prevail over honor and truth, and that the time is ripe for the storm of violence that will precede the next golden age.” (underlines added by me for emphasis)

Nice lady.

Will Robert Sungenis soon cite these "experts" as “highly prestigious and credible" sources also?

Wither Sungenis and Company?

The fact remains that at the very best Robert Sungenis exercised extremely poor judgment by relying on “studies” and “expertise” concocted by extremists, kooks, and incoherent “researchers” like Mohr. So if Sungenis’ standing within the Catholic community has now gone belly-up, he has no one to blame but himself. But –judging from his published attempt to justify himself – it seems Sungenis has no interest in accepting responsibility and culpability for his mistakes and instead wants to blame his critics for “destroying” his career as a Catholic apologetics writer.

But Sungenis seems to forget that none of his critics put a gun to his head and force him to throw discernment out the window and rely on anti-Semitic and lunatic fringe propaganda for his “data” --especially about the Holocaust, whose very well established and documented victim numbers Sungenis now “questions.” For example, Mr. Sungenis claims there was no real difference between the number of Jews alive in Europe in 1939 and those alive in 1945. But this is misleading: A post-war comparison of pre-Nazi-occupation census records with counts taken immediately after the war showed a drop of almost 10 million Jews alone. Where did they all go during the war? New Jersey and Miami? Certainly not Palestine, since the British government blockaded entry until years after the war ended.

Nor did his critics force him to fail to do his homework properly by consulting a wide variety of reliable academic sources, not only those “teachers” who “tickled his ears.” Nor did his critics write his misguided article for him and brainwash him into throwing in his lot with misguided “anti-Zionist” nut cases.

But on the other hand, maybe Sungenis is really part of The Conspiracy and his article was really a cleverly-disguised Secret Global Freemason-Liberal-Zionist Plot to Make Catholic Apologists Look Silly.

2002-12-18T16:21:00.000-05:00

THE IN-CREDIBLE SHRINKING APOLOGISTS:
"By their fruitcakes, ye shall know them.”

Just when you think it's safe to go back into cyberspace, along comes yet another exercise in kookery from yet another conspiracy-theory-oriented web site in the tradition of lunatic fringe Fundamentalists who push everything from Exposing the Giant Global International Zionist Plot to Dupe the World for More Loot for Israel; to Well, Maybe the Holocaust Never Really Happened Except in the Movies; to Return to the Non-Rotating Planet at the Center of the Universe; to the Attack of the Young-Earth Six-Day Fundamentalists. (See, for example, the web site of Fundamentalist Catholic apologist-turned-pundit-on-science-and-everything-else Robert Sungenis’ Catholic Apologetics International (see above), whose motto seems to be, "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off")

The web site in question, which refers to itself as nothing less than The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st Century, urges us to read all about The Plane That Never Hit the Pentagon.

In this goofy article we are told –among other things—that during Al Queda’s attacks on the USA on September 11, 2001 the Pentagon was not really hit and damaged by a hijacked airliner at all. Instead, this “report” claims, “…there is no trace of significant debris, no engine, no black box, no undercarriage. Nothing!” Not only that, while there were “small pieces of aircraft” and “small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway” there were “no [large] fuselage sections and that sort of thing.” Also, the writer, who claims to have been on the scene interviewing fire and rescue workers moments after the crash, asked “Where is the jet fuel?” and “What became of …[the] sixty-four passengers?”

Never mind that just minutes before the disaster, the plane’s fuel tanks had been completely filled with highly volatile jet fuel (for a non-stop flight to the West coast), fuel which not only can produce a very high explosion, but also generate enough heat to melt steel, turn concrete into powder, and almost vaporize just about anything softer –such as human tissue— caught inside it.

And never mind that scores of commuters (including a co-worker of mine) traveling on the two highways leading from Rosslyn, Virginia to the Pentagon along the Potomac River –specifically, the George Washington Parkway and Route 110-- saw the plane fly very low over them, plow into the Pentagon’s southwest wall, and explode –resulting in being rained upon by all manner of aircraft debris, including intact landing gear (one hapless fellow had his windshield and roof bashed in by a flying aircraft tire).

But the writer goes even further: Not only did no hijacked plane crash into the Pentagon, neither did any terrorists hijack any planes and crash them into the twin towers at the World Trade Center:

The clearly established fact of a first deception at Washington leads one to ask questions about the attacks in New York. The entire world looked on horrified, their eyes riveted to the television screen. Surely no deception was possible here? And yet… Numerous readers have warned us to be wary of Thierry Meyssan, well known as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for the information. It is true that he is writing science fiction when he imagines American Airline’s Flight 11 and United Airline’s Flight 175 transformed into drones: By pirating the on-board computers before takeoff, it is possible to take control of the plane in flight thanks to the Global Hawk technology developed by the Department of Defence. We have questioned our French specialists: this scenario does not stand up.

Nonetheless, it remains true that the plane crashes do not explain the collapse of the towers, nor the fall of a third building, Tower 7: The hypothesis of a destabilisation of the foundations has been dismissed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. In fact, Tower 7 did not topple over, but collapsed in on itself. The question is no longer: “Was it dynamited?” but: “What other hypothesis can one formulate?”

Now, the firemen claim to have heard explosions at the base of the buildings and have called for the opening of an independent enquiry.

Many other questions still need to be asked.

Many other questions indeed!

Questions such as,

How long has the writer of this “report” been off his medication?

And why in the world would anyone –-let alone supposedly sane "traditionalist" Catholics— give an ounce of credence to the speculations of lunatic fringe hacks, quacks, and conspiracy theorists?

What’s next from the In-credible Shrinking Apologists? Alien abduction conspiracies? Endorsements of the views of the Flat Earth Society?

Stay tuned!

(PS: Thanks to Bill Cork for calling our attention to the above-described foray into Quasi-Catholic Lunacy)

2002-12-09T09:42:00.000-05:00

DOCUMENTATION, PART TWO:
NTRMin’s Eric Svendsen on “Privacy” and Quoting

The following linked Exhibits contain (1) complete copies of my November 13, 2002 correspondences to Mr. Eric Svendsen the day after he sent me his confidentiality agreement (see Exhibits A-J); and (2) my records of his replies to those correspondences.

As in the case of Exhibits A-J, I have deleted the body texts of Mr. Svendsen's e-mails, but have retained only the subject lines, date-stamps, and his signatures where provided. The reproductions of my own e-mails include all subject lines, date-stamps, and body texts, uncut and unedited except for deleting my quotes of Mr. Svendsen's words from his e-mails. (All comments in brackets do not appear in the originals.) As in Exhibits A-J, I have deleted all references to Mr. Svendsen’s direct e-mail address.

However, as in Exhibits A-J, I have included, for clarity and context purposes, synopses and/or paraphrases of Mr. Svendsen's statements and questions. Also as in Exhibits K-O, to provide authentication of the Exhibits, I have included the headers and footers attached to the e-mails I received from him, sans references to his e-mail address.

Exhibits K - O: Correspondences between “The Curmudgeon” and Eric Svendsen on 11/13/02 regarding (a) the then-newly implemented closed-to-public-viewing status of NTRMin Discussion Board and (b) the ethics and legality of quoting others.

These e-mails include my query about the closed-to-the-public nature of Mr. Svendsen's message board; his replies explaining his concerns about and reasons for that status; and my responses to those replies.

NOTE: Nowhere in these exchanges did Mr. Svendsen propose, request, mandate, or otherwise and in any other way, shape, or form indicate the implementation of a non-disclosure agreement of any kind, either temporary or perpetual, on my part or on the part of any other new member or prospective member.

It should also be noted that NTRMin added the following new Rule 9 on 11/20/02, two days after I was banned: ”9. All board members agree to refrain from posting in any other forum any correspondence that takes place on this board.”

2002-12-09T09:39:00.000-05:00

DOCUMENTATION, PART ONE:
Exhibits A-J: NTRMin and Eric Svendsen’s “Confidentiality” Agreement of 11/12/02

The following linked Exhibits contain (1) complete copies of my November 12 and 13, 2002 correspondences to Mr. Eric Svendsen during and immediately after signing up to participate on his message board, NTRMin Discussion Board; and (2) my records of his replies to those correspondences.

Per my promise to Mr. Svendsen that I would refrain from posting the content of his e-mails without his permission –and per the basic rules of Netiquette-- I have deleted the body texts of Mr. Svendsen's e-mails, and have retained only the subject lines, date-stamps, and his signatures where provided. The reproductions of my own e-mails include all subject lines, date-stamps, and body texts, uncut and unedited except for deleting Mr. Svendsen's words. Also, in order to respect Mr. Svendsen’s privacy, I have deleted all references to his direct e-mail address.

However, where necessary for clarity's sake, in both sets of Exhibits I have included synopses or paraphrases of Mr. Svendsen's statements and questions. And to provide authentication of the Exhibits, I have included the headers and footers attached to the e-mails I received from him, sans references to his e-mail address.

EXHIBITS A-J: Correspondences Between “The Curmudgeon” and Eric Svendsen on 11/12/02 and 11/13/02 regarding profile requirements and anonymity

These e-mails address NTRMin's 11/12/10 Profile Deadline Notice and related sign-up requirements; my request to post anonymously under my standard Internet ID name since 1997, "The Curmudgeon,” and Mr. Svendsen's replies to that request.

NOTE: Nowhere in these exchanges did Mr. Svendsen state, imply, or hint that his agreement to keep my legal identification data confidential was anything but absolute and unconditional. Nor did he at any time require, demand, or request any pre-conditions on my part, or impose or mandate any restrictions on my activities outside his board in exchange for his maintaining that confidentiality.

2002-12-02T13:19:00.000-05:00

AN OPEN OFFER TO ERIC SVENDSEN

Dear Sir:

In order to set the record straight in the court of public opinion regarding our confidentiality agreement of 11/12/02, I wish to post, as "Exhibits A thru O," complete and unedited copies of our e-mail exchanges of 11/12/02 and 11/13/02 relating both directly and indirectly to the matters of (a) your assurance of my anonymity and (b) the conditions laid out for that assurance, including any and all promises or agreements I made regarding the privacy of your message board while I was a member there.

Because I promised to refrain from publishing any e-mails you sent me, I am free at this time to publish only my e-mails to you, with quotes from your e-mails removed. However, in order to present the readers a complete and accurate picture of this issue, it will be necessary to include complete and unedited copies, including all headers and footers, of your 11/12 and 11/13 e-mails in addition to mine of that same period.

I am sure you desire as much as I do to "come clean" with the truth on this matter and to thereby lay it to rest once and for all. I am sure that you also believe, as I do, that further evasion on either your part or mine will accomplish nothing more than deeper suspicion on the part of others toward you or myself or both.

Therefore, I hereby ask your permission to include in Exhibits A thru O complete and unedited copies, including all headers and footers, of your 11/12 and 11/13 e-mails to me in addition to the ones I sent you during that same period. I shall post these in two places: Gary Hoge's General Discussion board and here.

If I do not receive a public reply from you on this matter at Mr. Hoge's board within 48 hours of the date of this post (i.e., 12/4/2002 1:19:08 PM EST) I will post a version of Exhibits A though O which will include (1) my complete and unedited e-mails and (2) only the headers of your 11/12 and 11/13 e-mails along with brief descriptions of your messages in place of the actual texts.

I look for your reply at Mr. Hoge's board. A reply via e-mail will not be acceptable.

2002-11-26T16:15:00.000-05:00

TAKING LESSONS FROM L. RON HUBBARD:
When "Christians" Act Like Lunatic Fringe Cultists

Apparently, Protestant "e-pologist" Eric Svendsen does not take kindly to public criticisms of either his ideas or his conduct, for according to the NTRMin post reproduced below, Svendsen has instructed his sycophants to make me their newest "research" project.

So much for Ministries Researching the New Testament! Eric the Yellow should change the name of his organization to New Critics-of-Me Research Ministries. LOL

For those in the know about cults and how they operate, especially in reaction to critics, Svendsen's tactics are straight out of the paranoid pages of L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology:

Scientology's FAIR GAME Policy

and:

Scientology's DEAD AGENTING Policy

and:

Scientology's Harassment Practices

A very Christ-like way for supposed Christians to behave, hey?

-------(begin Fair Use repost of NTRMin article)-------

Subject: The Curmudgeon

Just wanted to remind all the amateur sleuths on board; once you figure out the true indentify of "the Curmudgeon," we're counting on you to do your part in spreading the word to as many others as you possibly can . All those who own a web site, I'm certain you know how you can help out the most.

ES

Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.
Director, NTRMin

Edited by: NTRMin at: 11/25/02 10:56:36 am

------(end Fair Use repost of NTRMin article)-----------

Apparently this nitwit thinks such sleazy tactics will accomplish something. But what? Hmmmmm.

Maybe he thinks such under-handed modus operandi will silence me about him and his shenanigans. (If so, then the man has been spending waaaaaaay too much time in Ted Kaczynski's cabin.) Or maybe he wants to get some of his "representatives" to come to my home and "reason" with me. Or maybe he has plans involving dead cats on doorsteps, or rattlesnakes in mailboxes. LOL

Who knows???

But whatever the case, what Slippery Svendsen has succeeded in doing is GUARANTEE that I won't shut up and go away --EVER. He has also succeeded in making himself look like an even bigger jackass than before.

So, Mr. Svendsen, let the games begin!

2002-11-25T22:26:00.000-05:00

AT LEAST HE DOESN'T REQUIRE CREDIT CARD NUMBERS:
When "Christians" Behave Like Bill Clinton

In the year 2000, an anti-Catholic Protestant writer named Eric Svendsen, who operates something called "New Testament Research Ministries," once perpertrated on the Internet a P. T. Barnumesque “$100,000 Challenge to Catholics.” This was a quiz of essay questions written is such a slippery and tricky way that no one --not even Pope John Paul II and the entire Vatican-- could possibly provide a "correct" answer to any of them without first developing the skill of telepathy, in order to read what passes for Mr. Svendsen's mind.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Svendsen's prize money turned out to be as evasive as his "true" quiz answers: There was no independent panel of scholars set up to evaluate the quiz submissions. Nor was there any disinterested party with power of attorney to reward the winner and disburse the funds. And all for two good reasons: (1) Mr. Svendsen, you see, was the first, last, and sole judge of the "correctness" of the answers given; and (2) Mr. Svendsen saw to it that there could never be any winners. The only thing he accomplished --and this may have been his real intention all along-- was to get a lot of Catholics to waste a lot of time chasing after so many pseudo-intellectual Cheshire Cats.

Can you say "rigged"?

Now, two years later, along comes another Svendsen enterprise to demonstrate even further that trusting Mr. Svendsen may be risky at best, that his ethics may be no better than those of a certain ex-President who once felt our pain:

Earlier this month (November 2002), I signed up Svendsen’s board in order to participate in discussions and debates on topics of interest common to both Catholics and Evangelicals --including Catholicism, a subject on which Svendsen and colleagues claim to be “experts.” One of the requirements for joining this message board was to reveal to Svendsen my full name and other personal information including a brief bio. I expressed some personal security concerns about my giving him this information. In an e-mail reply, I was assured by Svendsen that any information I sent him would remain confidential. (More on this in due course.)

So far, so good.

Expecting opportunities for civilized dialogue and debate, I began engaging some of the members there, including both asking and answering questions. For the first few days, the exchanges were mutually courteous, polite, and respectful. I found the NTRMin staffers, especially Tim Enloe, and most of the other board members, pleasant and thoughtful conversationalists, though occasionally a tad strident and suspicious.

That is, until one fine day when one of Svendsen’s colleagues, one David T. King, an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in America, decided to do pick a fight: First King took great umbrage to a bit of light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek banter on my part, which he insisted was “sarcasm.” I cheerily admonished him, “Dude, lighten up!”, and tried to assure him that my previous post was intended to be whimsical, not “sarcastic.”

But Mr. King would have none of it. His ruffled feathers apparently wanted to stay ruffled and that was that, and things went downhill quickly from there. The more I tried to reason with this fellow, the more strident, contentious, and even paranoid he sounded. At one point, he demanded that I reveal my full name to the board. (Hmmmm. Maybe, like the Scientologists, he wanted to send “representatives” to my house to “reason” with me. LOL) When I refused to do so and told him to ask Svendsen my reasons for the refusal, he began accusing me of being irresponsible, dishonest, and having hidden agendas.

Finally, after three or four such intemperate responses, I wearied of this nonsense and responded with the following:

And since your first “reply” of today recalls to my mind something G. K. Chesterton once said –“one is sometimes a little provoked towards the very un-Christian logic of answering a fool according to his folly”— I bid you “adieu” and will refrain from responding to any further remarks by you directed at me until you decide to behave like a gentleman instead of a jackass.

Within minutes of my reply, I found my access to the board blocked. When I objected via e-mail to Mr. Svendsen, I was told that I was banned because my “language” was “coarse.” Translation: “You dared to talk back to my buddy and fellow Funda-Nazi David King.”

When I replied by stating an intention to go public about my experiences on the board with Mr. King, Svendsen responded –not just once but twice-- that he would retaliate by breaking his word to keep the my private information confidential (e-mails date-stamped 11/19/2002 6:02:28 AM EST and 11/19/2002 5:05:19 PM EST). A better student of cultic paranoid tactics one will seldom find: Clearly, Svendsen’s intention was to try to repress or suppress any dissent or criticism even beyond his own walls!

I then reminded Svendsen of my Constitutional rights under the First Amendment and warned him of possible legal action if he carried out his threat of retaliation in response to my report. I also filed a complaint with the Legal Dept. of EZBoard, which hosts Svendsen’s message board, and forwarded to them copies of Svendsen’s threats. A representative of EZBoard Legal replied that he would keep an eye on both Svendsen’s EZBoard and his web site, and that “If your personal information should show up on the site, these letters will certain[ly] dispose us toward stronger action against the user..."

I also told Mr. Svendsen that I intended to keep my word to him that I would not post his correspondences to me, although IMO his decision to issue threats relieves me of that obligation. Moreover, because he sent them from his organization’s e-mail address (ntrmin.org), not his personal e-mail address, they do not qualify as private correspondences, but as business correspondences.

Nevertheless, unlike Mr. Svendsen, I believe in keeping my word, so those correspondences will not be posted here, or anywhere else. (Unless, of course, Mr. Svendsen gives me cause to change my mind such as posting my e-mails to his message board or web site.) But even that level of scrupulosity seems not to “plague” the inimitably slick Mr. Svendsen, whom I’m convinced is trying to be the Bill Clinton of the Evangelical Christian camp, for instead of actually posting my information verbatim, he gives his message board a detailed lesson on how to do some “detective work” to find out –but “detective work” he would not have been able to carry out himself without me first giving him my last name IN CONFIDENCE. .

Yes, indeedy. Once again, it seems the relationship between Eric Svendsen and Christian ethics is much like the relationship between the color green and the number seven. Thank God I never gave this jerk any of my credit card numbers. Lord only knows what he'd do with them!

So a warning to all who would do ANY kind of business with the slippery Mr. Svendsen:

CAVEAT EMPTOR!