The topic was basically asking why the double standard and I was just writing some thoughts down. We are inundated with moral relativists who assume that feelings are the standard for judging morality and they’re growing in number. Take prop 8 and the Mormon Church who voted en masse for it. The relativists literally attacked some of their churches because they felt wronged. They don’t judge with faith and reason which is why people of faith are going to be persecuted in the future. Recently Catholic Charities had to shut down some of their charities because they won’t comply with handing out contraceptives. Soon it will be mandatory to do abortions and the Catholic hospitals will have to shut down or abolish their OB/GYN departments – thousands of them. Currently, the so-called Fairness Doctrine is lurking in the corner because they feel they’re not getting a fair shake despite the fact that the market dictates who we listen to.. Their are two ideologues at work here, one of them judges on feelings, while the other judges on morals. They’re in a stronger position now with Obama in power. It won’t stop.

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.” —Benito Mussolini

Now all of you are totally off on the history thing, the Catholic church was held, mafia like, in the hands of very powerful families in the middle ages and had very little to do with God. They also used the Jewish people, as they weren’t Christian, and so were not held to the false anti money themes that still dominate the Catholic church today, so they allowed the Jews to exist only in the capacity of money lenders, and part of the Inquistion was backlash against the poverty created by the loans, plus the wealth that the large families realized was escaping their grasp (outside of the church), which is also the agruements that Hitler used to raise hate against the Jews. The Protestants were protesting the abuses of the Catholic heirarchy, and the lack of actual faith in Jesus Christ and God. The Protestants in Ireland were persacuting the Catholics( See Mr Andrew Ian Dodge’s anti Catholic very 1800 British anti papist attitude), and importing the French Protestants, who had the right to convert, death or exile in very Catholic France(which by the way doesn’t admit this happened) and these same Protestants turned around to torture and mistreat the local Irish Catholics… Oh by the way I am a Catholic,and descended from Irish and French (and Scots espicopalians -spelling) catholics, but I was always taught that Jesus was the one who died on the cross, not the church, and that is the salavation. I basically have become one of those evangilicals, partly because it’s so nice to not have to justify who you are (which gets really funky for me), plus you get to recognize that Jesus is a Jew ( he never claimed any other religion), and you can claim Peter too. ok enough religion stuff!

And, most importantly, as for the thread of the article, I believe it’s fear of muslims, too many too different and too well them, plus there is one person in the Catholic church therefore it is very easy to point a finger at the single person, rather than the less politcally correct group name calling thing.

Finally sorry for the typos, spelling errors and total disrespect of the English language,I’m typing fast and dealing with my children, in our traditonal franglais (french and english)

Lynn, Islam wasn’t “content” to stop expanding; it did so because it was stopped by superior military forces. The only reason we aren’t all bowing to Allah today was because they were stopped at the Gates of Vienna and their spread into Europe was halted. And the technologically advanced Christian Europeans colonized the New World, so Islam was unable to get a foothold here or in South America. But being “content” with their little corner of the globe had absolutely nothing to do with it. They stopped expanding when someone else stopped them.

Now they’re expanding again, because the West has weakened both demographically and militarily (in Europe).

Yes, what you write about is repugnant and an insult to your church. It’s an insult to humanity in general. What’s wrong is wrong.

I think that there are also many brave Westerners who do not defend, justify, or excuse the hate and often violent expressions of hate toward the Jewish People. Many westerners have also been the target of that same hatred and they are fighting at this moment against it here and overseas with words and with deeds.

I come from German, Irish, French and English ancestors and I take ownership of their words and deeds good and evil. I am a believer in G_d and a believer in Jesus. I am not a believer in Mohammad. I am an infidel.

Donna, Yes, there were periods where we didn’t uphold Church Doctrines however it was not as extreme as the revisionists portray.

GW Bush did more for Aides in Africa than any other world leader past or present yet was rarely, if ever, mentioned by the MSM.

“Why is the moral bar set very high for Bishop Richard Williamson, but extremely low for the Muslim world?”

I got off on a tangent in my previous post while attempting to answer this question. Briefly, I would say Double Standards. The MSM follows moral relativism for some and moral absolutes as the standard for others. The criteria for relativism is changeable, subjective and individual. While moral absolutism claims that there are moral principles that are unchangeable, objective, and universal.

Moral Relativism assumes that feelings are the standard for judging morality. Traditional morality says morality is the standard for judging feelings.

It’s not reason, but the abdication of reason that is the source of moral relativism. Relativism is not rational, it is rationalization. It is not the conclusion of a rational argument. It is the rationalization of a prior action. It is the repudiation of the principle that passions must be evaluated by reason and controlled by will. People in our culture are being convinced that this is oppressive and unhealthy and inauthentic. If we embrace the opposite principle, and let passion govern reason, rather than reason govern passion, there is little hope for morality or for civilization.

Moral relativism appeals to no moral law so what will deter a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to disenfranchise. It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Respect for the elderly and infirmed today, Euthanasia tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow. In fact, the same absolutism that homosexuals fear because it is not tolerant of their behavior may end up being their only secure protection against intolerance of their persons.

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.” —Benito Mussolini