There is a lot of hate and insanity being spewed around the Syrian refuges and I just want to set the record straight: I don't support it. I don't support the hate and propaganda against Muslims any more than I do against Jews, Catholics or Protestants. A free republic supports the freedom of religion. That's all there is to it. Adapting a single state religion is as bad as abolishing religion altogether. Both roads lead to the same place.
Christ taught in parables. One of them was called the parable of the good Samaritan. I think it's really important to put it in context of the times so we can correctly apply it to our day. Samaritans at the time were hated. They were a different race and religion. Christ picked someone from a class everyone hated to show the world what his religion was really about. It's about serving others and treating others the way you want to be treated. If Christ was here today he could just as easily and more likely call it the parable of the good Muslim. The message is the same.
Now we have people hating on the Syrian refuges. Aside from being unChristian it is unCanadian. It's Christmas for God's sake. They are women and children fleeing a war torn country. We should be bending over backwards showing them the Christmas spirit. We have been discussing the censorship of comments on blogs and newspaper articles. One blog reader said I need to clearly define my parameters so people don't think I just censor things I don't like. I jokingly responded but I do. This is not a Hells Angels support group.
If people want to ramble on and on about how the Hells Angels are a nice bunch of guys that don't sell drugs or pimp crack hoes, they are free to do that in one of the many main stream support sites on the Internet. Just not here. My site is for the alternate view. I do believe in free speech. People can say whatever they want all over the Internet. Just not on my blog on my dime. Likewise if people want to spew neo-Nazi hate I'm not going to approve those comments. I support a free republic and the freedom of religion. That is what this blog is all about. I support the Hamilton model. That is the type of society I want to live in.
This is the link to the video about the Hamilton model.
Hello Dennis. I think your view represents a lot of Canadians' views. A lot of people think that to not welcome these refugees with open arms is to be uncanadian. I think it is fair to say that a fair number of people simply don't want people of other races/religions migrating to Canada. I also think that those people are the minority. Canadians, by and large, have been welcoming to people seeking to immigrate here, and have welcomed them with open arms.
ReplyDeleteThe difference, in this particular situation, is the security threat inevitably posed by accepting these refugees, when that it is impossible to provide an adequate screening process for these refugees in the timeframe that the government has decided to place such a rigid timeline on. Keep in mind, these are people coming from a country in anarchy. Official documentation is rare, and forgeries are rampant. This is a process that is supposed to take 2-3 years in order to adequately screen these refugees. ISIS has specifically stated they are hiding operatives within these refugees, and one must only look to Europe to see that, yes, they have been hiding operatives within said refugees coming from Syria.
So if one is to suggest it is unCanadian to not welcome any and all refugees with open arms, despite these risk factors, I suggest that is painting all Canadians with one brush, as well as ignoring what are real and legitimate security concerns.
On top of that, there are official reports stating that 72% of these refugees are military aged men. Does that not strike you as odd?
"Perhaps the most telling statistic is the ratio of men to women and children in the overall migrant population: 72 percent to 13 percent and 15 percent, respectively, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Given the typical profile of economic migrants, this dramatic disproportion suggests that many men are seeking economic opportunity, not sanctuary from violence."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424416/give-me-your-tired-your-poor-not-your-terrorists-ian-tuttle
Keep in mind, this is an official quote from the UN High Commissioner for refugees. Why do you think that the proportion of men is so high? Don't you think that the majority should be made up of the most vulnerable (women and children). Why would all these able bodied men willingly leave behind women and children, who are now much more vulnerable, because they have less men left to protect them. I think these are legitimate questions, and am wondering what your response to them are? As always, appreciate your tireless work to make a difference in your community and country.
I completely disagree. MI6 sent out false press releases to the media about Iraq's WMD and the press reprinted those lies for them. Hating on Muslims based on the same lies Hitler used on the Jews is indeed very UnCanadian. Hating on Muslims and turning our back on refugees during Christmas is something that I want absolutely no part of.
DeleteMost Canadians (maybe all, including the government!) do not know much about the refugees that Canada may be getting.
ReplyDeleteThey may not be Muslim at all - they may be Catholic. It all depends upon who they are. Almost all of the Iraqi refugees that have come to Canada have been Catholic - NOT Mohammedans. There are a LOT of Iraqi's who have come to Canada as refugees. They have not caused any trouble. In fact, all the ones I know (and I know quite a few) work 2 jobs. They had to leave everything they had behind - they could not sell their houses. They could not bring their possessions with them. They could not bring their vehicles with them. They could not bring heirlooms. They came with the clothes on their backs.
Why did they come? Simple, because of persecution and murders by the Mohammedans. The reason the war in Syria is being fought in the first place. It is not because Assad is some type of tyrannical monster. He is not, nor has he ever been.
However, there have been numerous terrorist attacks carried out around the world by these same Muslims. Paris, Ottawa, London, ... etc.
Especially in light of information like this: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees
In light of the, literally, countless examples of atrocities: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/623049/Islamic-State-mass-graves-bodies-300-people-Sinjar-Iraq?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/22/isis-magazine-calls-for-attacks-on-canada
How can anyone be blamed for wanting to stop and wait before anything rash is done?
As for the theological reality of the parable, Christ would not give such a parable. As Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity He cannot contradict Himself nor any of His teachings. Muslims have persecuted Christians since they came into existence - they are the reason the Catholic Church in Africa was destroyed (that and the admission it was the lack of strong theological teachings and practices among those destroyed).
Muslims acting like Muslims (conversion by the sword - the exact opposite of Catholic teaching in which conversion must be voluntary and done with full knowledge) is what has caused the Crusades a thousand years ago. Given the historical precedence and background, you cannot blame people for being wary of letting possibly more Muslims come to Canada.
The Christian thing to do is to convert these people to the only True Faith so when they die, they will do so with Sanctifying Grace upon their souls. Without it, they will not go to Heaven (nor the cleansing of Purgatory) - that only leaves on other place...
I disagree. It is true that it's quite possible not all of the refugees are Muslim. I used to work with a guy from Lebanon. He said he used to play soccer with the Israeli soldiers when he was a kid. I was shocked because that's something that just didn't happen in Belfast. The kids would throw rocks at the soldiers they wouldn't play soccer with them. Then later I noticed the guy was wearing a cross. He was Catholic. That made sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I completely disagree that Christ would not give the parable of the good Muslim in our day. That is exactly what he would do. Samaritans were a different race and a different religion. Christ never said if we convert the Samaritan to the true religion, then he would be a good example. He said the opposite. He said how you live your life is more important that what you profess to believe.
The parables of the New Testament refuse to be handled like Aesop's fables; they were intended from the first to shadow forth the "mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven", and their double purpose may be read in Matthew 13:10-18, where it is attributed to Christ Himself.
DeleteModern critics who deny this (and I am not pointing a finger directly at you), affirm that the Evangelists have deflected the parables from their original meaning in the interest of edification, suiting them to the circumstances of the primitive Church. In making such accusations these critics, following the example of Strauss, not only reject the witness of the Gospel writers, but do violence to its text. They overlook the profoundly supernatural and prophetic idea on which all Scripture moves as its vital form--an idea certified to us by the usage of our Lord when quoting the Old Testament, and admitted equally by the Evangelists and St. Paul. That they run counter to Catholic tradition is manifest. Moreover parables thus detached from a Christological significance would hang in the air and could claim no place in the teaching of the Son of God. A valid exegesis will therefore be prepared to discover in them all not only the relevance which they had for the multitude or the Pharisees but their truth, sub specie sacramenti, for "the Kingdom", i.e., for Christ's Church. It is on this method the Fathers have expounded them without distinction of school, but especially among Westerns, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory the Great, as their commentaries prove.
The good samaritan is certainly authentic; it can be explained mystically in detail, and is therefore as much an "allegory" as a parable. If it was spoken by our Lord so was the wicked husbandmen. It does not exactly reply to the question "Who is thy neighbour?" but propounds and answers a larger one, "Whom in distress should I like to be neighbour to me?" and gives an everlasting instance of the golden rule. At the same time it breaks down the fences of legalism, triumphs over national hatreds, and lifts the despised Samaritan to a place of honour. In the deeper sense we discern that Christ is the Good Samaritan, human nature the man fallen among robbers, i.e., under Satan's yoke; neither law nor Prophets can help; and the Saviour alone bears the charge of healing our spiritual wounds. The inn is Christ's Church; the oil and wine are His sacraments. He will come again and will make all good. The Fathers, Sts. Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, are agreed in this general interpretation. Mere philanthropy will not satisfy the Gospel idea; we must add, "the charity of Christ presseth us" (2 Corinthians 5:14).
Aesop's fables? The thing I like about the parable of the good Samaritan and the Sheep and the Goats is that they weren't written for the scholar or brain surgeon. They were simple allegories that even the commoner could understand. I'm sure the scribe and the priest the parable condemned would like to think of it as a fable. There is no mystery about it.
DeleteThe Protestants are just as guilty of obsessing over the only true church as the Catholics and everyone else. This parable clearly shows what's really important. It helped the commoner see that what many of their religious teachers were doing was wrong. That's why Christ called them liars, hypocrites and extortionists. There was nothing allegorical about it.
Hypothetically speaking, lets say the Catholic church is right and everyone else is wrong. When a Priest rapes a boy being a member of the true church doesn't save him, it condemns him just like anyone else.
Well, it is proven (Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas) using irrefutable logic (which is why the man is still known as the 'Greatest Mind that Ever Lived") that the Catholic Church is the only Church (and this written centuries before Martin Luther and his heresies). A simple cursory glance at history proves it also - there was only one Church in the entire world until Martin Luther founded his own religion which has now been sifted, like chaff, into over 40,000 different sects, each contradicting each other and rewriting the Bible (the book the Catholic Church compiled) and removing what they did not like. So there's no hypothesis about it.
DeleteAs for any Priest who commits grave sins, those who have been given more, more will be required (Luke 12:48). If there is a God, then His teachings must be true therefore there must be a Satan and his demons (angels of hell (aka hell's angels)). Since Satan is real and is known as the most brilliant of the angels (or was, rather ...) - Lucifer means dawn of the morning light because of his immense supernatural intellect (basic theology acknowledges the angels had all their knowledge, like Adam and Eve, given to them - they did not have to learn, only humans after the Fall of Man (Original Sin) did we have to learn to acquire knowledge).
So, what does this supreme intellect do? Wages war on God and all His followers. Why? Because he hates God and everything He stands for. How? As many different ways as he can think of.
That is why the Catholic Church on earth is known as the 'Church Militant' because of the constant fight with Satan.
If Satan can get a Priest to commit sins, think of how damaging this is to the Church? (You brought it up, so by your own admission you acknowledge the damage it does.)
Why would a Priest commit sins? For the same reason everyone does, our fallen nature.
If you are fighting a war, do you just concentrate on the rank and file soldiers or do you go for the leaders? Do you kill them or wound them? (when I was in the army, we were told to always aim for the centre of mass because it will take a minimum of 12 people to care for one wounded soldier while if you kill your opponent just they are taken out of the fight - not to mention the drain on supplies and what it does to morale).
Make no mistake we are fighting a war - a spiritual and supernatural war. Ultimately, that is what is causing the troubles in the world - and said troubles are not getting any better as we become, supposedly, more "enlightened" and move away from the Church; quite the opposite (yet another proof).
Somehow I think many people would disagree with the infallibility of that logic : )
DeleteI do however, appreciate you insights. Everybody thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong. Logically, no one would join a particular religion if they didn't believe it was true. The problem arises when people say I'm right and your wrong that means you are of the devil and if I kill you, I'm doing God a favor. That is satanic. God supports freedom, the devil does not. Ian Paisley boldly claimed the Pope was the anti Christ. Yet Ian Paisley was more of an anti Christ then any Pope I ever read about because Paisley taught hate and intolerance over the pulpit. The flag for the republic of Ireland is green, white and orange. Green for the Catholics, Orange for the Protestants and White for peace between the two. That is a free republic. I'm not comfortable approving comments that mention or link to hate on the Muslims any more than I am comfortable approving comments that mention or link to hate on the Catholics or the Jews. It takes us in the wrong direction.
I will note that I had a guy trying to post all kinds of horrible things about the Catholic church. I did not approve those comments because I don't feel they are constructive. Now I have someone trying to post trash about Mother Teresa. That is astounding. Is nothing sacred?
Deleteagree with Dennis. If terrorists want to commit act of terror they most likely are not going to go through refugee processes. It takes too long. Send a tourist and they'll take care of the terror business. Sneaking into North America is easy. That is how you send terrorists. Not via the refugee process.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion is, ISIS would like us to not take refugees. it makes their job easier. They have people as hostage, they have a better group for recruitment, they have people they can kidnap and force to work for them. All sorts of things work better for ISIS when people are forced to stay where they were. If the west wants to buy into that, well O.K. but its like buying into the weapons of mass destruction bullshit.
Assad is a nasty bit of business as was his father. Now, he maybe a better alternative than ISIS just as Saddam Hussein and M. Gadafi were better than the various groups now running those countries.
As to why many of the refugees are younger men, that is easy. they are more likely to be able to complete the journey. the hope is they get to the west and then send for their families. This has been done by various groups since people started arriving here.
I was told most of the refugees coming to Surrey are women and children.
Delete