The Media tries so very hard to tiptoe around the issue of Nidal's Islamic Jihadist attitudes. As soon as I heard his name, it hit me that this was a terrorist act by a fanatical Muslim. It's really very simple, but of course, our "Chattering Class" in the media and also government refuse to see the obvious.

D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad, wanted to kill infidels, but this was also sidestepped as well. How many rampages do we have to endure before we recognize the obvious?

The government keeps insisting that Nidal "acted alone" and was not part of a conspiracy or terrorist cell. So what. Those peope he killed are just as dead if he is a lone wolf vs a member of a terrorist cell. It doesn't matter.

Stalin had his "useful idiots" on the Left, who would excuse literally any atrocity, and now the Jihadists have their useful idiots, in both media and government, who worship at the altar of "DIVERSITY."

Thus, at airports, my arthritic, white haired, 80 year old mother is carefully searched, before she flies to Florida to visit her sister, while young Muslim men walk through with no detail search, all in the name of "diversity." The whole thing has become Kabuki Theater: The Government pretends to protect us, and we pretend that it actually works.

Sooner or later, we need to wake up, before it is too late.

Mark,

Thank you so much for this. I'm an Army wife, and I can't tell you how much this tragedy hurts. We're not stationed at Ft. Hood right now, but we were in 2003 when my husband deployed to Iraq at the start of the war. He was in that building on countless occasions, as was I with our babies. I shudder to imagine...

The Army's cowardly political-correctness has cost 13 families the ultimate price, and the Army should be profoundly ashamed. It means that even on our own installations, we're not safe anymore. That's what this says to every single military family. Even on our home base, we're not safe. They can have the greatest security at the gate and demand ID's all they want, but it doesn't matter a bit if they won't root out the terrorist hiding in an Army uniform.

My heart breaks for these families, and I am damn angry at the Army and the US Government for this completely preventable slaughter.

I'm not holding my breath to see if Obama will have the guts to prosecute this guy as a terrorist... I think we all know where his loyalties lie and it ain't with us.

Thank you for saying it so plainly and unapologetically. God bless you.

In light of the masacre at Fort Hood, I've already heard the following from an atheist relative: Religion poisons people's minds. So, thanks, radical Islam. Now non-religious types think that all religions breed violence and hatred.

"Instead of pretending the beast of Radical Islam is not there, the West will sooner or later have to learn how to educate itself about theology again -- or perish."

I do not understand the motivation to explain away Maj. Hasan's actions or to quickly distract any discussion of his actions by foisting up stories about a backlash against Muslims.

Do we make such excuses or bend over backwards to explain away the actions of a white supremacist who burns a cross or commits a violent act?

Has political correctness made some of us to afraid to have an honest and frank discussion about this violent event?

Mark,

Thanks for a well-written and honest portrayal of this story.

While I am upset with most of the media’s attempt to downplay the role Hasan’s religion played in his actions, I expect better than that from those who are charged with protecting our country from these types of attacks.

What has happened here is nothing short of political correctness costing the lives of American soldiers. Based on the information out now about Major Hasan, it is obvious this man had no business in the U.S. Military, let alone counseling those who have returned from battle. It’s also obvious those who knew his behavior posed a threat to other military personnel lacked the courage to have him removed. Why? Likely due to the fear of being accused of bigotry against Muslims, it would seem.

I hate to say this, but I fear we are now in more danger from terrorism (due to political correctness and the fear of being labeled an Islamophobe) than we were before 9/11. It’s one thing to not notice a terrorist threat going on right under your nose because you’re not expecting it. It is much worse to notice a potential terrorist threat and do nothing out of fear of losing one’s job for the ‘crime’ of violating society’s standards of political correctness.

It’s as if we’re supposed to stand back from this atrocity and say: “So 13 Americans have been killed, and 30+ injured, but hey, at least we didn’t offend anyone by labeling Hasan a threat. That would have been a far worse crime.”

God help us all.

Religions don't kill people. People kill people.

(Come on now, folks. You swallow it hook, line and sinker when the NRA spews it.)

The MSM may be afraid to look at the violent aspects
of Islam. Doing so might cause people to examine Christianity
as well, with the risk that Christianity wins more converts.
Additionally, George W Bush may come out looking justified
in the war on terror, and the MSM and liberals cannot afford
that.

Hi Just Saying,

Please read the Quran and let me know if you change your mind. You can find on on www.jihadwatch.org, but use another source, but by all means, do you research before "just saying" it.

PS - I think that any military person in Fort Hood would have been grateful to God to have been in possession of a sidearm at the time of the attack. Many lives would have been saved, especially when the people bearing arms are trained professionals.

PPS - Believe it or not, I am not necessarily against some forms of gun control!!!

My post reminded me of a joke...

What did the London police officer say to the criminal while he was chasing him as he ran away from the scene of the crime?

"Stop... or I'll tell you to stop again"

Possibly one of the best analysis of the events at Fort Hood I have read anywhere.

You now have a new fan of your blog.

http://tinyurl.com/ycbu9yk

D. Tracy - Yes
Just Saying - yes,It is true
Christine - What forms would you like, that weren't already in place there @ Ft. Hood?

God Bless

Racial profiling deserves to be massacred. It is ideas, not skin color, that should concern us.

Thanks for saying precisely what needed to be said, Mark.

"Homeland Security" is turning out to be just as big a fraud as public education. The preening officials who dropped the ball on this should be fired and forced to walk around Fort Hood in sackcloth and ashes for a month, asking forgiveness from passersby.

Starting with the Commander in Chief.

NOT singling out for increased scrutiny those you know to be the enemy is deadly.

Although, to be fair, it does put all of us, not just soldiers fighting overseas, in harm's way,

Racial profiling deserves to be massacred. It is ideas, not skin color, that should concern us.

Returning to your house, you see a young black man speeding away from your driveway. Upon entering the house you discover your entire family has been killed.

You call the police and give them the info and description only to later learn the perp skated because the police stopped every 7th car whether it was driven by a young black man or an old white woman.

Of course that would be ideological insanity totally divorced from the real world real men and real women must live in and that would never happen in America - wait - sorry, I was thinking about Dead Old America.

Mr. Shea, in an otherwise good article, keeps reaching for some Christian terrorists to compare with muslim ones. I don't think the IRA fits that mold, however. The IRA was never fighting for Catholicism, the IRAs fight was for a united Ireland. Some members may have been devout, believing Catholics{just as I suppose there were devout Catholics in Hitler's Army} the battle between the IRA and the British government was never a religous crusade. The fight was between ethnic Irishman who wanted self-determination, no matter how hard the Rev Paisley tried to spin it.

Mark Thank you for your intelligent and well thought out article. I agree that we have to state evil for what it is, and murder for what it is. Not all Muslims are evil, and not all Catholics are good. Evil is defined by the lack of love for others. The more Evil you are, the less concerned you are for the well being, or lives of those with differing opinions & practices from your own.
I support calling extremism EVIL no matter what form of it it is, when it calls for the killing of all those with opposing views. We need to pray for conversion of hearts and minds to Christ's. We need to teach THOU SHALT NOT KILL! We are examples to the world of turning the other cheek, but apparently it's not enough for us to be tolerant of all. We cannot tolerate EVIL. We need action and to express our outrage at those who commit acts of VIOLENCE!

Well done Mark. This article is cogently and fearlessly written. There is no doubt that the West must relearn its traditions, faith and culture. I try not to be pessimistic about whether this will ever happen but people like you give me hope.

Consider how you would feel if you too were a Palestinian and had to witness everyday the Israeli atrocities against your people, which is paid for and backed by the self-righteous USA.

I am only surprised that these acts don't occure everyday.

An intelligent Nation would think to reconsider changing its lopsided Israei/Palestinian policy.

To set the record straight, the Gazan Palestinians were driven off their ancient properties by the European Jews through brutal slaughter of the villagers. these people fled dow nto the seaside to escape the mass murder, and therre thye sit today hearede up and surrounded by the European and American Jews that have no valid deed to the land other than the gun in their hand.

The entire world recognizes this outrage, but the lone USA veto has kept the UN Security Council form acting. We have vetoed saving the Palestinians over and over again.

The Palestinians have acted with great restraint towards the USA.

Hasan did not one damn thing to help the plight of the Palestinian people (a plight with which I strongly empathize). He is a man who murdered a bunch of innocent people. Period.

IANS:

Your analogy is bogus. If you *know* the perp was black then, of course, it's stupid to stop other people. We are talking about something else besides skin color here.

The question to ask ourselves is not what his motives are but why on a military base (You know that place with lots of guns) the shooter got a chance to shoot more than one round?

The scenario SHOULD have been. Shooter hops up on table. Soldiers that notice think it is a joke.

Shooter shouts "Allahu Akbar" and pulls out his pistols (if not already out)

15-20 Soldiers around him (realizing this is not a joke) pull their service pistols, Drop to kneeling position and take aim.

Shooter discharges 1 round wounding a soldier.

15-20 Soldiers, seeing that they are firing up (no people behind the shooter) discharge their weapons 1-3 times each.

Shooter meets Allah.

News headline
"1 dead, 1 wounded in attack on military base."

At most 2 dead.

No need to care about the shooters motives.

Unfortunately because of a Clinton (Bill) policy from the early 1990's all military bases are "gun free zones". All of our highly trained soldiers were forced to stand around like sheep in a slaughterhouse.

It took a traffic cop with a gun to neutralize the attack.

This insane behavior MUST stop.

No wonder conservative catholics get such a bad name among the general community when they publish drivel like this. I guess all the previous gun wielding crazies who were Christians were Christian terrorists? I always love a columnist who begins with "the chattering classes". Mark, who exactly are the chattering classes?

Israeli soldiers are not only allowed but *required* to carry weapons on their persons at all times if they are on active duty. Our soldiers are not allowed to do this. Enough said.

Your analogy is bogus. If you *know* the perp was black then, of course, it's stupid to stop other people. We are talking about something else besides skin color here.

You are talking race when it comes to Muslims Massacres and Muslim attacks in America. I am not writing it is only about race but agreeing that it is ok for the Govt to exclude race as a factor in their actions is to surrender intellect and common sense in becoming a Dhimmi to institutionalised liberalism whose Dogma is The Principle of Non-Discrimination (except against white male heterosexual christians).

The physical appearance - race and "presentation" - of a few of the 911 hijackers in Portland, Maine caused a Mr. Touhey to state:

TOUHEY: They had a tie and jacket on. All right? And as I'm looking at them, you know, they're holding their IDs up, and I'm looking at them. It's not nice, but I said, "Jeez, if this doesn't look like two Arab terrorists, I've never seen two Arab terrorists."

TOUHEY: I don't know. Immediately, I felt guilty about thinking something like that. I just said, "This is awful." How -- you know, I've checked in thousands of Arabic people over the years. You know, doing the same job. Businessmen. I said, "These are just a couple of Arab business guys."


Poor Mr. Touhey. He was right as rain but Institutionalised Liberalism had been so implanted in his intellect, so drilled into him in his professional training, that he condemned himself for his sharp and right reaction.

BECAUSE he used race as a marker, he felt guilty. And he felt guilty because EVERYONE tells him (and everyone else) that using race as a marker is evil.

Institutionalised Liberalism is the death of America. I did not write "will" be the death of America. America is dead and Liberalism killed it.

And,as I pass through the Morgues, otherwise known as Airports, I know that there is as an equal chance that my Mother-in-law (82 y.o. white woman) with an English surname will be subjected to a search as will an 18 y.o. Arab male named Mohammed.

again in English?

again in English?

Race is a factor in Muslim Massacres.
It is not the only factor.
It is wrong for the Govt to exclude race as a factor.
To agree to exclude race as a factor is to become a Dhimmi under Institutionalised Liberalism.
A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living with limited rights under Muslim rule and a dhimmi to Institutionalised Liberalism is one who is a non-liberal in America who has limited rights under Liberal Rule.
The Principle of Non-Discrimination as defined by Mr. Auster:

Friday, September 25, 2009
Larry Auster

...To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let's say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today's society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration.

Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible. […]

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us.

The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

If the vast majority of Muslim Jihadists are: male, are ethnically Arabic and between the ages of 20 and 35; why in the world would a prudent security system employ racial profiling as one of its tools? This does not mean arresting/interrogating people because they are arabs. It means using it as one, among many, means of identifying possible jihadists.

Absolute prohibition of racial profiling is politically correct nonsense. Stipulating that "skin color" ought not concern us is simply ignoring the obvious.

This article is certainly not drivel. I understand "the chattering classes" to be simply a euphemism for the MSM. But really, what difference does it make? The article does not consist of one introductory sentence. Furthermore, conservative Catholics only get a bad name from liberals - of what consequence, its not about popularity, its about the truth.

Steve, your comments about the Christian gun wielding terrorists? other then a few one off's,,who indeed were Christian terrorists, how many examples can you give?

On the other hand, not much effort required to list off Muslim terrorists...

Open you eyes...these Muslim terrorists dont hide the facts they want to destroy us,,they proclaim it,,yet people like you still deny it....

Hi VR,

I think that there should be a background check and waiting time for gun purchases, as well as gun licensure that would require people to take a course on proper gun use and storage (like a driver's license).

My family is from Texas. We had guns in the house and we were taught about the things I mention above. I never understood how a child could get a hold of a gun and play with it...

I am no lawyer, but I think that with the right of bearing arms, there should come responsibilities. I don't think that what I propose, therefore, would be unconstitutional. It would just make a lot of people who sell guns at gun shows and pawn shops nervous.

I wasn't asserting that there are Christian terrorists at all. I was pointing out the illogical assumption that because the shooter in Ft Hood was a Muslim he was a Muslim terrorist.

Mass shootings are not an uncommon occurrence in America. Just try a web search for "gun massacre America." - The article below was published on mj.com in Feb 2008.

What was the religion of the shooters in this article (the massive death toll from just one month)? Or Columbine, or Virginia Tech?

Is it relevant? Probably not. That's my point.
If the shooter IS an Islamic Jihadist, then it worries me that he had a job on a US Army base, for which I assume he would have needed a high security clearance.


February 17, 2008, 8:53AM

The past couple of weeks have been a dangerous time to live in America. We witnessed a skein of high-profile, multiple victim shootings, many causing the deaths and woundings of several innocents and police officers. Meanwhile, the world looked on in shock and disgust.

The shootings included:

~Saturday, February 1: 15-year old honor student shoots and kills parents and two brothers in Baltimore suburb;
~Saturday, February 1: Gunman shoots and kills five women in suburban Chicago clothing store;
~Sunday, February 2: Gunman shoots and kills three at suburban Washington, DC pizzeria after argument over Super Bowl;
~Thursday, February 7: Gunman shoots and kills police officer, three others in fiery Los Angeles stand-off;
~Thursday, February 7: Disgruntled citizen shoots and kills two police officers, three others in rampage during Missouri city council meeting; and
~Friday, February 8: Nursing student shoots and kills two other students and self at Louisiana college.

What would have likely been the most damaging shooting of all during the period occurred mercifully without death or injury Sunday, February 2, when a man armed himself with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and approached the Super Bowl near Phoenix intent on massacre, but had a last-minute change of heart and turned himself in before opening fire.

The series was capped off this past Thursday, Valentine's Day, when a disturbed gunman shot and killed 5 students and wounded 16, before killing himself, in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University.

Mr Shea more accurately descibed the situation in one of his replies:
"He is a man who murdered a bunch of innocent people. Period."

He earlier said
"But the reality is that Islam is an invented human religion that borrows from fragments of Judaism and Christianity..."

by which I assume he means that Catholicism is NOT an invented human religion?

I'm not sure I can see the difference between Muslim intolerance of Christianity and Christian intolerance of Islam.

As I read thru some of the comments I am again appalled at the lack of knowledge in we the people. The equation is VERY simple. There are people out there who will for some motive try to kill a lot of others. If we were to as a country abide by the intent of the framers and the intent of the Creator (you decide the name) and the very LAWS of the Constitution many of us would be armed.

With many of us armed, as in the scenario above, the people out to kill us with guns would not because they could not.

We would not CARE what the motives were. We would simply neutralize the attack. The courts (or God) would take care of dealing with motives.

We would not CARE what color the skin of the shooter,
We would not CARE what religion the shooter claimed to believe in.
We would not CARE what ethics or principles the shooter claimed.
We would not try to kill the shooter.
We would not try to wound the shooter.

We would neutralize the attack either by our presence or, by as the traffic cop needed to, the force of arms.

True to our Christian faith, and just as the soldiers did that day we would move to save the life of the shooter who had just tried to kill us.

Until we as a people get over being sheep we will be sheared and slaughtered to the hearts content of those who see us as sheep.

"The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature."

Good ole "multiculturism".

Whatever happened to the "melting pot"?

by which I assume he means that Catholicism is NOT an invented human religion?

Right. And your telegraphed incredulity at what you assume is my provincialism, which is rooted in your own "If you've seen one religion, you've seen 'em all" postmodern assumptions makes your next remark almost inevitable:

I'm not sure I can see the difference between Muslim intolerance of Christianity and Christian intolerance of Islam.

Well, how about, for starters, that Islam is legal and tolerated in Christian cultures while Christianity is persecuted and illegal in many Islamic cultures?

Really, you should actually learn something about the history and theology of both Islam and the Catholic faith and not just go with the breezy assumptions you've picked up from TV and water cooler chat.

Mark,

This article was spot on, and wonderfully written. Thank you.

Richard is spot on in pointing out that the IRA is not an example of Catholic terrorists. (I think the new term is "insurgents.") The IRA fought, with a fair bit of success, for Ireland, not Catholicism. The Irish Republican movement, of which the IRA is a central element, traces its lineage to the United Irishmen movement of the late 1790's. A leader of this movement was Theobold Wolfe Tone. Irish Republicans claim Tone as the father of Irish Republicanism. They still hold annual commemorations at his grave site in Bodenstown, Co. Kildare. Tone was definitely not a Catholic. He was a member of the Church of Ireland. (The Church of Ireland is ANGLICAN). Some of the most prominent 19th century republicans were also PROTESTANT. Two which come to mind are Robert Emmett and Henry Joy McCracken. The republican movement remains secular and decidedly non-sectarian. Moreover, the struggle in Ireland has always been one of national liberation, not religion. Rather than Catholic and Protestant, political terms like nationalist and unionist are more appropriate.
Why then have the terms "Catholic" and "Protestant" been bandied about for so many years in relation to difficulties in northern Ireland? Two reasons, first, journalists are lazy and stupid. Second, throughout the 1969-1995 Irish war the British wanted to be seen, not as a combatant, but as an impartial, rational third party attempted to stop two irrational tribes from killing each other. In reality, the British were very much a combatant, but they knew good propaganda and they had the pull needed to manipulate compliant news agencies.

One could say that about Christians, too, because only one sect (Catholicism) has a magisterium and hierarchy of authority by which to judge truth. Does not Islam have an analogous sect? Would this be the Sunni sect because it is the most orthodox?

Actually Mark, I was a Catholic for the first 25 years of my life, so I do have a reasonable knowledge of the theology of the Catholic faith and it's somewhat violent history. It was zealous attitudes like the one expressed in your article that drove me away. I also know that the Allah of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same thing, which of course are both the Yahweh of Judaism.

One of the more astute observations you made in your original article was "Skin color doesn't kill. Thoughts of the heart, however, are exactly where murder begins."

Spot on. And one of the more dangerous ideas that man has developed is the belief that " all religions are made up, except mine". That dangerous idea generates outcomes such as the racial and religious persecution and mass murder ( let's not mince words) carried out by the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Outcomes such as the Islamic terrorism of today. And if you are looking for modern examples of persecution of Muslims by Christians do a bit of research into the genocides of Bosnia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.

I can't help thinking that if there is a God/Allah/Yahweh, it must get very frustrated when all sides claim that they alone know the truth.

It reminds me of a Dave Allen sketch where two kings were praying before going into battle, with exactly the same words, you know, "oh great God of our people, protect us and smite thy enemies,.. blah blah". Poor ol' God (there was only one) ends up tossing a coin to decide!

Oops that was on TV, which is where I get my theology apparently. Thirsy now, I think I'll head on back to the water cooler :-)

Right, Steve. Because as all smug postmoderns know, you are superior to all believers in such crude superstition.

Mark,

I must, sadly, take issue with your characterization of "TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads…"

It is clear to me that you are being far too generous in your assessment (not of cost of their haircuts, but of the value of their heads).

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Steve, that sort of thinking isn't restricted to traditional religion. The same could be said of other belief systems, including secular-fundamentalism, socialism/marxism, and environmentalism (i.e., global warming). These post-Christian belief systems also feature doctrinal rigidity. Marxism brought us gulags and the murder of nameless millions. I hear people talk everyday about "tolerance" when they don't know the meaning of the word. Do you know the definition of a racist? A racist is anyone who disagrees with a liberal. Steve, you seem to have the idea that Mark's beliefs are made up, and yours are not. 'Sounds dangerous.

At least Mark's beliefs provide him with additional reason to perform works of charity, not cheat people, not commit adultery, etc. Can you think of a greater charitable organization than the Catholic Church? I can't. Well, I'm sure there's a Little Atheists of the Poor out there somewhere.

You speak of various atrocious acts committed by the Church long ago. Did such things not happen in the non-Christian world? Did such things not happen before the Church existed? Maybe such acts were more a reflection of the particular era in question.

As for Bosnia and Kosovo, how much of that really has anything to do with religion? After decades of communism, the Serbs don't strike me as an especially pious people. You cite acts by people who may, at best, be nominally Christian, and attribute their acts to Christianity. You can only do so by ignoring other sources of inspiration, such as Serbian nationalism.

In certain countries, religious labels can take on additional ethnic and political meaning, even to the point where the religious component becomes irrelevant. For example, in Ireland, one can be an atheist or agnostic, but still be a "Catholic." All the best!

Is this a reference to the USCCB (a/k/a people who do not get my money)? ;-)