Where the hell is the police chief in Chicago? They should hunt down the perps and toss em in the slammer.

Posted by: savage_nation at January 11, 2009 4:25 PM

I feel like I'm time-traveling to the 1930's. 1938 is the year of Kristallnacht.

Why isn't anyone stopping the Islamo-Nazi Barbarians?

Posted by: darcy at January 11, 2009 4:29 PM

If Chicagoans lie down with the dogs, they rise up with fleas; they should not associate nor align with Jew-hating Muslim supremacists. Intolerable in our day!

Posted by: John C at January 11, 2009 4:29 PM

Here in the UK, the media is not concerned with these riots and anti-Jewish behaviour in Europe and the USA, but most front pages and TV bulletins are leading with a remark that Prince Harry made years ago that Pakistanis may find offensive. Obviously, that's far more important.

How about the USA and other European countries?

Posted by: Celsius at January 11, 2009 4:31 PM

It's still 1933, darcy; we still, in the course of things, have a Presidential Inauguration, "Fear itself," and the Ascent of a National Savior to witness!

Posted by: John C at January 11, 2009 4:34 PM

If there are genuine "moderate Muslims," here's a test to prove yourselves: Renounce the 653 murderous, hateful hadith (verses) that Jamal al Banna, brother of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, says inspire Muslims worldwide to commit mass murder and crimes against women and children.

http://stfrancismagazine.blogspot.com/2008/12/gamal-al-bannas-critique-of-bukhari-and.html

Al Banna is a Muslim with impeccable credentials who is pin-pointing 653 hadith he thinks are despicable and evil and should be banned from Islam. Hard to believe a "moderate" worthy of the label could disagree with him, given the barbaric nature of these verses, and results like 9/11. The non-Muslim world needs a fair, accurate method to access the inclinations of Muslims. If this is not it, then what?

These hadith are direct, specific threats against members of communities. They are not vague; they are like a loaded gun held to our collective head. They are a plan for a Nazi-like "final solution." They don't rise to the level of freedom of expression, much less passibly religious doctrine. Interpretations of threats are done all the time by judges and juries. It is not hard if one has a rational and educated mind. It is time to put Islamic verse-spouting theateners under the same legal microscope as other unhinged psychotics.

MUSLIMS, RENOUNCE THE 653 HATEFUL HADITH!!!
IF YOU CAN'T, THAT IS PROOF YOU ARE A TERRORIST, PERIOD.

Posted by: Max Publius at January 11, 2009 4:38 PM

the 24hr. news cycle has way too many other matters to report than something that shows how peacefull Islam is.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 11, 2009 4:49 PM

"Lincolnwood synagogue vandalized" (Chicago Trib)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-synagogue-blotter-11jan11,0,5401846.story

Posted by: darcy at January 11, 2009 4:49 PM

the 24hr. news cycle has way too many other matters to report than something that shows how peacefull Islam is.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 11, 2009 4:50 PM

Good post, Max!

And yeah, where have the moderates been especially over the past two weeks? Hiding? They sure aren't out there protesting! You would think that this would be their big chance to be heard, but no, they are apparently hunkered down sucking their thumbs. Or maybe they don't exist at all. Oooooo! I would bet money that they sit at home secretly cheering on the anti-Israeli Muslims who do show their faces. Well, at least part of their faces that is, the part that isn't covered up by spooky attire. Boo!

Methinks moderates are a Myth.

Posted by: champ at January 11, 2009 4:53 PM

The "moderate Muslims" are cheering on the anti-Israeli Muslims who do show their faces.
ain't that the truth?

Posted by: Infidel from Maldives at January 11, 2009 4:56 PM

Some good news. Pro-Israel rally in Berlin with more than 3000 (some say 5000) participants: http://www.pi-news.net/2009/01/3000-teilnehmer-bei-pro-israel-demo-in-berlin/#more-36562

Posted by: Suzy at January 11, 2009 5:06 PM

Of course, this will never be deemed a hate crime. We all know muslims are never guilty of a hate crime. It's just their culture, and we have to live with it.

Posted by: Rick at January 11, 2009 5:10 PM

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted recently: "Violence, WHEREEVER IT COMES FROM (EMPHASIS MINE) and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned. The military solution is never an option," he said.

President Roosevelt sent a personal representative to plead with Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) to say something clear about the extermination of the Jews. Myron Taylor came to visit the Vatican on September 17, 1942. Taylor had his first audience with Pacelli on Saturday, September 19, and aimed to convince the Pontiff that the Americans could not lose the war. He brought fresh information about Germany's war crimes in occupied Europe, especially in France. Taylor's principal mission was to plead with Pacelli to speak out and to this end he assured him America was on the side of right.

In subsequent meetings with Monsignor Dominico Tardini and Luigi Maglione, Talor continued to hammer away at the need for a Papal statement. According to historian Owen Chadwick (Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War), Tardini's notes heave with a sigh thus: 'Mr. Taylor talked of the opportunity and the necessity from the Pope against such huge atrocities by the Germans. He said that from all sides people are calling for such a word. I assented with a sigh as one who knows the truth this all too well! I said in reply that the pope has already spoke several times TO CONDEMN CRIMES BY WHOMSOEVER THEY ARE COMMITTED. I added that some people want the Pope to condemn by name Hitler and Germany, which is an impossibility."

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 11, 2009 7:01 PM

We'll get it when it's too late.
The WORLD did not know about Sobibor, Treblinka, Bergen-belsen, or Auschwitz until the Russians and U.S./Britain got there. The problem with history is that WEAK TITS/liberals think they are intellectually and morally superior and that this COULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
Of course it can. It happens one appeasement at a time.

Posted by: folktunes at January 11, 2009 7:30 PM

Why do liberals want to display the PEACEFUL muxlims?

When a group of rednecks drag a black man behind their pick-em-up truck....does CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and ABC tell us how PEACEFUL most southern white men are?
When Catholic Priests had a bad reputation because SOME Priests had offended and harmed young men and boys did.....ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, tell us how PEACEFUL Catholic Priests are?

Here is the big ending. When there is a RACIAL HATE CRIME in the U.S....can ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC find groups of chanting cheering, gun toting white men APPROVING of the hate crime?

Posted by: folktunes at January 11, 2009 7:35 PM

Wild Jew, not the first time you've posted, seeming to stir up trouble about Catholics.

First of all, you need to do a little research about Pope Pius XII. Don't read the liberal, anti-Catholic media sound bites.

Secondly, the Pope is like the Quakers. Don't expect that he's going to out and out approve of a war. That's his job. He's not a secular leader. His soldiers and battles are of a totally different sort. Please do try to understand where he is coming from.

Thirdly, although I've read support for Israel from plenty self-described fallen away Catholics at Jihad Watch, I assure you that it is amongst the faithful-to-the-Pope Catholics that you will find support for Israel. The issue of war is about the only issue where liberal American priests and laity deign to quote the Pope. But, the conservatives completely acknowledge not only the right of Israel to exist and defend itself, but ALSO the grave threat of Islam to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

The excellent Cardinal Pell of Australia, writing about radical Islam:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,20438033-5001021,00.html

Bishop Chaput, of Denver, not a buddy of the liberals:
http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=376&s=2&a=7924

The last time I remember seeing one of your posts, we were then treated to a round of "salvation will only come through Evangelicals and Baptists" and the like from others.

We don't need that kind of stuff.

WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. Let's unite, for this common cause and common enemy!

Posted by: RerumNovarum at January 11, 2009 7:42 PM

Remember Chicago is home to the Nation of Islam, TUCC and Reverend Wright and Cardinal Pfleger. To a one all nasty anti-semites and Hamas supporters.

And you don't get anywhere in Chicago politics without paying homeage to these thugs.

Posted by: waltc at January 11, 2009 8:21 PM

If there were a cross-burning in Chicago, or any other city in the United States, the main stream media would latch on to it like a pit bull, and not let go.
But, as not to give the wrong impression of the "peacefull" religion of Islam, the mainstream media seems to take pains to ignore these Islamic hateful, anti-semitic demonstrations.
We are fast approaching the point where these Muslim cross-burnings are becoming as routine and normal as Klu Klux Klan rallies were at one time in this country.

Posted by: rational at January 11, 2009 8:33 PM

RerumNovarum: As an agnostic I wish to second your post. I have become so tired of Pope Pius XII taking unnecessary hits. The truth is that through his efforts hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved in the early 1940s. He concluded that speaking out agaisnt the Nazis would be counter-productive. In this he was supported by Jewish leaders at the time who implored him not to make public statements against Hitler's regime. When the Dutch Catholic hierarchy in 1943 did speak out against Nazi atrocities, the Germans rounded up Jewish converts to Catholicism but left Jewish converts to the Dutch Reformed Church alone, thus proving the wisdom of Pius' approach. No single individual in all of WWII Europe saved more Jews than Pius and it is deeply shameful that this great achievement has not only gone largely unnoticed in modern times, but even worse is that Pius has been pilloried in about as unfair a manner that any great humanitarian in all of history ever has. I don't subscribe to Pius' theology, but fair is fair and false revisionism is a terrible and wicked thing.

Posted by: Wellington at January 11, 2009 9:14 PM

Re. the various inter-kafir quarrels that have plagued and very often fatally hampered all our attempts to confront the Jihad ever since it burst upon us in the 7th century AD, I think a quotation from Gandalf in Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings', Vol 1, book 2, chapter 2, 'the Council of Elrond', is as good advice as any:

"If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 11, 2009 9:26 PM

I should have added that, of course, in Tolkien's story the grievances are resolutely set aside, to be dealt with at a later time when the peril to all is not so great; and wildly diverse peoples - Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents, and various kinds of Men - co-operate to achieve victory.

A mythic mirror well worth contemplating.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 11, 2009 9:31 PM

No doubt that CAIR and Fib-brahim Hooper will ask for calm and not blame Muslims as the scapegoat until all the facts are in.

Odd how every attack on a Mosque is "Islamophobia" with not one arrest or piece of evidence for who did it, but somehow CAIR has this super-power to know which groups DIDN'T do and won't tell us which group is left that DID do it.

More Misunderstander of islam, Right?

Posted by: ala-sux at January 11, 2009 9:38 PM

I think it's enormously important that Israel eliminate so much of Hamas that it simply ceases to exist as any kind of viable political or militant entity. It would not only change life in that area - new elections for the Gaza government would have to be made but I would hope Fatah excluded - but send the message that Allah/God is not on the side of these hypocritical demonstrators who should then feel like the losers there are. This could be a positive thing.

Posted by: FM at January 11, 2009 9:47 PM

Wild Jew, not the first time you've posted, seeming to stir up trouble about Catholics.

First of all, you need to do a little research about Pope Pius XII. Don't read the liberal, anti-Catholic media sound bites.

Secondly, the Pope is like the Quakers. Don't expect that he's going to out and out approve of a war. That's his job. He's not a secular leader. His soldiers and battles are of a totally different sort. Please do try to understand where he is coming from.....

The last time I remember seeing one of your posts, we were then treated to a round of "salvation will only come through Evangelicals and Baptists" and the like from others.

WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. Let's unite, for this common cause and common enemy!

Posted by: RerumNovarum

RerumNovarum, I might agree with you, we are (or should be) all in this together. If last time you remember seeing one of my posts, we were then treated to a round of "salvation will only come through Evangelicals and Baptists" and the like from others, you've got me entirely confused for someone else!

I have never even hinted that "salvation will only come through Evangelicals and Baptists!"

For several years I've been active here in our local pro-life movement. Guess who was down there doing the heavy lifting at our local abortion mill? 99.99% Catholics are willing to do the heavy lifting. While many of our local Evangelicals and Baptists talk a good game about the innocent unborn, it is our Catholics that are out there week after week doing side-walk counseling for the unborn; often in inclement weather.

I've done plenty of research about Pope Pius XII. I've got a stack of books in my library on the man. Little doubt you would consider these scholars biased. Nonetheless, there are plenty of credible scholars out there.

As to your second point, "the Pope is like the Quakers. Don't expect that he's going to out and out approve of a war. That's (did you mean to write NOT?) his job. He's not a secular leader. His soldiers and battles are of a totally different sort. Please do try to understand where he is coming from..."

I DO believe I understand where he is coming from. I expect a man of God to be out there on the side of the Almighty. I do not expect him to waver or worse, to be on the side of God's enemies. If a war is a just or a moral war -- as I believe was the Allied effort against Nazi Germany; as I believe this war against the jihad is moral -- then I expect a man of God to be on the side of right and justice. That IS his job. You could not be more wrong to say a man of God's job is to oppose all war or worse, to be on the side of the enemy. Millions upon millions of faithful are looking to this man for moral and spiritual guidance.

Should we expect him to be on the side of the enemy?

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 12, 2009 1:03 AM

RerumNovarum: Pope Pius concluded that speaking out against the Nazis would be counter-productive. In this he was supported by Jewish leaders at the time who implored him not to make public statements against Hitler's regime.

Posted by: Wellington

Wellington: "To sin by silence when they know they should protest, makes cowards of men."

Abraham Lincoln

Like I wrote above, my Catholic neighbors are outspoken in their abhorrence of abortion (child-killing), and this is as it should be. To remain silence in the face of a great evil is evil.

Perhaps "some" Jewish leaders implored him to not make public statements against Hitler's regime; by no means did all Jewish leaders implore him to not make public statements against Hitler's regime.

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 12, 2009 1:13 AM

RerumNovarum and Wellington, I have a question for the two of you. How is it that R. Spencer and other Catholics I know, can be on the side of right, morality and justice in this war and yet Christ's Vicar (his Viceroy) on earth cannot be on the side of right, morality and justice?

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 12, 2009 1:24 AM

This story makes me sick, at the rally today I met so many nice Jews, just wonderful people one and all. I was walking down the block, my daughter in tow, sort of tailing 3 women on the way. One of the women was on her cell phone. She was talking to someone about the fact that she didn't see any trouble, and that it looked safe, she honestly looked scared. I was so mad I felt like I could cry when I heard that. I think my daughter with her blue Stars of David painted festivly on her cheeks kind of brought her out of it a bit. To think these Muslims have people so scared really pisses me off.

Posted by: ethoman at January 12, 2009 2:12 AM

Whatever happened to NEVER AGAIN? How can people forget what happened in WWII? Have the great grandchildren of the greatest generation been taught about the Nazis and the Holocaust? I am fearful when even the children and grand children of the greatest generation seem not have learned what pure evil will do if it wins. JW and those who faithfully post here give me hope. I am not as eloquent as many who do post here, so don't post often, but I'm here every day.

Posted by: Carol at January 12, 2009 2:23 AM

The majority of America voted "again and again and again." My mother, who was born in Nazi-occupied Rome, was one of them.

Leftists just like dead Jews. They do. They always have. That's why they absorbed every Nazi they could scrounge up. Read 'Under Cover.' Read 'Liberal Fascism.' That's why they invariably cave to the jihad, to every appeasment. That's why they turn a blind eye to Islamofascism, support it financially, physically, and intellectually. That's why they have never taken a firm stand against genocide. Never. That's why they hide all the jihad news from us in their media. That's why they believe that laws and standards don't apply to Muslims. They have no concept of right and wrong. Have they ever taken a stand on an issue half as clear-cut, serious, or black-and-white as this one? No. To not do so is to completely lack a moral compass. No moral compass combined with Judeophobia = today's left.

Carol, we enjoy your posts. I hope everyone doesn't mind my speaking for them but I think that it's pretty much unanimous.

Ethoman, that's adorable that you painted your daughter's face with Stars of David.

Posted by: jdamn at January 12, 2009 3:53 AM

Does Obama want to do for the USA what Daley did for Chicago?

Posted by: Spot on at January 12, 2009 6:12 AM

Carol - jdamn - Excellent posts!

Posted by: Spot on at January 12, 2009 6:16 AM

Wild Jew: I believe Pope Benedict is on the side of right in this war but he has enormous responsibilities and considerations that private citizens of America and other nations don't even have to take into account, let alone act upon. Statements by popes ordinarily have to be very guarded lest church property and, far more important, church officials, are harmed. I stand second to none in admiration of Abraham Lincoln, but that quote of his about the importance of not remaining silent was put forth by a man who lived in a democracy, not a brutal dictatorship. Soviet dissidents during the Cold War would have usually accomplished less than they did had they not worked behind the scenes silently to undermine the USSR. Would you fault these people for not speaking out? And so it was with Pius XII, who behind the scenes saved literally hundreds of thousands of Jews, by far more than any other person during the WWII era. You must condider the distinct, I would argue the almost certain, possibility that had Pius gone public far fewer Jews would have had their lives saved and the bottom line here was saving lives, not assuming some high moral ground for the sake of a noble, but abstract, principle.

Posted by: Wellington at January 12, 2009 6:35 AM

I'm reminded of those words,
They came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not act..."

Mark Steyn has madie it clar. There re two sides, pick one.

We must stand with the Jews, and all non-Muslims, and the Jews must realize that we are their friends.

Can anyone please explain to me the wealthy, liberal Hollywood-type Jew? Why are they against themselves? How can we wake them up?

Posted by: mary at January 12, 2009 6:52 AM

I believe Pope Benedict is on the side of right in this war but he has enormous responsibilities and considerations that private citizens of America and other nations don't even have to take into account, let alone act upon. Statements by popes ordinarily have to be very guarded....

Posted by: Wellington

Wellington, if he is a mere politician then why call him Christ's Vicar (or representative) on earth? Jesus did not have enormous responsibilities and considerations that private citizens and other nations didn't even have to take into account? Consequently, are we to assume Jesus did not utter a candid or a straight forward word? What we read in the gospels is based on mundane considerations? Or maybe His Holiness is a afraid of becoming a martyr like his lord were he to boldly and consistently stand for truth and justice between Israel, the west and Islam?

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 12, 2009 7:00 AM

Can anyone please explain to me the wealthy, liberal Hollywood-type Jew? Why are they against themselves? How can we wake them up?

Posted by: mary

Mary read any good history of the Jews. I might recommend British historian, Paul Johnson, "A History of the Jews." Johnson devotes considerable space to the self-loathing (or self-hating) Jew in his chapter, "Emancipation."

Writing about Jews like Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine Johnson wrote: “Enlightenment thinkers, both French and German, argued that objectionable features of Judaism had to be erased before Jews could be free: Jews who were discriminated against accepted this, and thus directed their rage more towards the unregenerated Jew than those who persecuted them both. The self-hatred focused on the ghetto Jew, who was of course the anti-Semitic archetype. Heine, who really knew very little about how most Jews lived, used all the standard anti-Semitic cliche’s when in self-hating mood. Marx, who knew even less, borrowed his abuse straight from the gentile student cafe’. (A History of the Jews page 349)

Substitute Israel or Zionism for Judaism and you may find the answer to your question, why are these Hollywood Jews are against themselves and their people; why Jewish scholars and activists like Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Phyllis Bennis and others are against themselves.

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 12, 2009 7:12 AM

Mary this brings to mind anothe Mark Steyn article: 'First They Came for Piglet.' I knew what it meant when they did, and I knew which side to get on. Piglet, to me, is iconic of the anti-jihad moevement and always will be. That's why I stitch him onto everything I can.

Posted by: jdamn at January 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Wild Jew: I never said that the Pope was a mere politician but even a mere poltician has considerations to take into account that a purely private citizen can ignore. The Pope is the spiritual leader of approximately one billion people. Surely you can understand that, unlike you and I, the Pope must proceed cautiously. Besides Benedict showed real courage two years ago when he brought up the necessity of reciprocity between Islam and other faiths, also when he mentioned the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II, and this emperor's characterization of Islam. Remember all the death threats the Pope got then from the followers of the religion of peace and tolerance? Finally, I don't think Benedict is afraid of anything. He's tough to the core of his being and deeply believes he's watched over and guided by a higher power.

Another question: If you could speak out against tyranny and save almost no one or remain silent but behind the scenes save a hundred individuals, which would you choose? Just wondering.

Posted by: Wellington at January 12, 2009 5:42 PM

That Pius XII, during the Nazi occupation of Italy, is personally responsible for sheltering 3000 Jews at his summer residence, Castel Gandolfo, a sovereign extraterritorial enclave 17 miles outside Rome, speaks volumns to me. The Pope has direct authority over this, not to mention his personal intervention that secured refuge for thousands more in convents, monasteries, churches and church intitutions in Rome and elsewhere in Italy--even hundreds in the Vatican itself.

Then, consider Pius' diplomatic efforts in Admiral Horthy's Hungary (until the Nazis' Arrow Cross puppets seized power), in Romania and Bulgaria (example: Papal Nuncio Roncalli--later Pope John XXIII--gaining transit for 4000 Jewish refugee children & 500 adults to Turkey--just one such intervention), and in Tiso's Slovakia--saving some Jews from deportation by giving them transit elsewhere; then, helping to arrest the deportations there, thus saving the last remnant of Slovakian Jewry--this is but a bare summary.

Posted by: John C at January 12, 2009 7:32 PM

John C: I have long thought that a very good case could be made for the argument that Pope Pius XII is the single most underestimated individual of the twentieth century. Gustav Stresemann, the far-seeing Weimar politician, would be another good candidate here, but Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews through his masterful "hidden hand" approach and the calumny which has been extended his way because he did not speak out publicly against the Nazis, an approach which he concluded, subtle, skillful and prescient man that he was, would be profoudly counter-productive, is one of the worst examples of stupid and unfair historical revisionism I have ever come across. Pius should be extolled by the best of humanity. Instead, he is ignored or, what is far worse, villified.

Posted by: Wellington at January 12, 2009 7:47 PM

"Whatever happened to NEVER AGAIN?"

Posted by: Carol

Sad to say, NEVER AGAIN seems to have become AGAIN AND AGAIN. Altho the Jewish Holocaust ended in 1945, there have been many other mass-murders and genocides since then: the Bolshevik's murders in Soviet Russia, which began before the Nazis, and continued after them; Mao's killings in China; those by other communist regimes in North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia; the slaughters in Pakistan and India during the Partition; the killing of ethnic Germans in eastern Europe; and the mass-murders in Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria-Biafra, the Sudan, and the repeated slaughters in Ruanda and Burundi. Not all of these were on the scale of the Holocaust, but some were even more deadly. And I'm not counting actions which were more along the line of "ethnic cleansing" like the expulsion of all the Jews from North Africa and the Arab countries.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 12, 2009 8:13 PM

"speaks volumes"

Posted by: John C at January 12, 2009 9:30 PM

Hmmm. Now I see why there is always (yes, always) a fear of backlash against muslims when muslims are identified as perpetrators of some heinous act. The likes of CAIR and the MSA are preaching to us about violence against muslims in the form of "backlash". I understand this now because as we can see it is because that is how *they* act.

When are we going to get sick of this behavior and ban islam (or at least call for its reform)?

How about you? Are you sick already?

Posted by: PartJew at January 12, 2009 10:29 PM

Another question: If you could speak out against tyranny and save almost no one or remain silent but behind the scenes save a hundred individuals, which would you choose? Just wondering.

Posted by: Wellington

Wellington, silence in the face of a great evil is inexcusable. It is cowardice. It is evil in and of itself. You are simply wrong Wellington. I'm sorry. You are attempting to defend the indefensible.

John C., did Pius help desperate Jews on a purely humanitarian level? Of course but that is not the point. His silence was inexcusable. I know silence in the face of a great evil is very evil in the eyes of God. I know this from first hand experience.

Please, you two. Do not defend evil.

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 9:45 AM

PS: Wellington, think we lost sight of my original point and post above. Notice the moral equivalency (IN CAPITAL LETTERS) that Pope Benedict and Pope Pius XII make between the aggressor (Nazism / Islam) and the victim of aggression (the western democracies / Israel). There is no moral equivalency between Israel and the genocidal Muslim world:

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted recently: "Violence, WHEREEVER IT COMES FROM (EMPHASIS MINE) and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned. The military solution is never an option," he said.

President Roosevelt sent a personal representative to plead with Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII) to say something clear about the extermination of the Jews. Myron Taylor came to visit the Vatican on September 17, 1942. Taylor had his first audience with Pacelli on Saturday, September 19, and aimed to convince the Pontiff that the Americans could not lose the war. He brought fresh information about Germany's war crimes in occupied Europe, especially in France. Taylor's principal mission was to plead with Pacelli to speak out and to this end he assured him America was on the side of right.

In subsequent meetings with Monsignor Dominico Tardini and Luigi Maglione, Talor continued to hammer away at the need for a Papal statement. According to historian Owen Chadwick (Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War), Tardini's notes heave with a sigh thus: 'Mr. Taylor talked of the opportunity and the necessity from the Pope against such huge atrocities by the Germans. He said that from all sides people are calling for such a word. I assented with a sigh as one who knows the truth this all too well! I said in reply that the pope has already spoke several times TO CONDEMN CRIMES BY WHOMSOEVER THEY ARE COMMITTED. I added that some people want the Pope to condemn by name Hitler and Germany, which is an impossibility."

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 10:11 AM

Wild Jew: I certainly deplore moral equivalency and have indicated that many times here at JW, but Popes decrying all violence is really more boilerplate Christian pacifism at work than any moral equivalency thinking being manifested. Christianiy is a contemplative, pacifist faith and it would be unrealistic to expect a Pope to root for one side in a conflict openly, even though there might be a clear delineation between who is on the right side and who on the wrong side, such as in this war between Israel and Hamas (I'm sure we're in perfect agreement that Israel should just wipe the Hamas bastards out completely but you can't expect a pope to say this). Buddhism is very similar to Christianity respecting contemplativeness and pacifism and one should not expect the Dhali Lama either to take sides in a martial conflict. So, I'm ready to cut popes some slack on this matter.

As for Pius not speaking out, he actually did do so in 1942 and again in 1943. I will quote here the relevant passage from the article on Pius XII in The Oxford Companion To World War II: "Though strongly urged to do so by the Italians, he [Pius] refused to condemn the Allied area bombing which caused such high civilian casualties. The Allies for their part pressed hard for a public condemnation of the Final Soltuion and in his 1942 Christmas message, and again in 1943, the Pope deplored it in generalized but unmistakable terms that infuriated the Germans but failed to satisfy the Allies."

Now I would ask you what did these thinly veiled condemnations by Pius accomplish? Not much I would argue. Pius concluded this too. He was intent on saving lives that were within his power to save, not in making statements which, however noble sounding, accomplished nothing or were even counter-producdtive. I would again ask you to respond directly to a question I posed above: If you had to choose between speaking out publicly against evil, with the result that few if any people would have their lives saved by your doing so, or not speaking out at all, remaining completely silent, but behind the scenes working furtively against malevolent authorities and saving many lives, which would you choose? I know I would choose the latter, as did Pius, because the preservation of life is more important than the articulation of an abstract principle, however noble that principle might be. Of course, doing both would be ideal, BUT if you had to choose between the two, which would you opt for? I would greatly appreciate a direct answer to this question here.

Anyone who criticizes Pius for not speaking out against the Nazis and their horrible deeds more often and more clearly, MUST consider that if this had been done, far fewer Jewish lives would have been saved by Vatican efforts. Not to consider this is to be so devoted to a principle that common sense, even the preservation of life itself, become secondary to the principle, something which is indeed absurd------and wrong.

Posted by: Wellington at January 13, 2009 11:39 AM

Herein lies the problem Wellington. The Roman Catholic church was not always a pacifist, shrinking-violet church. Remember the Crusades? That this pope thinks messiah is a shrinking-violet / pacifist is astonishing.

"Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
"And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
"You shall break them with a rod of iron,
"You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

Why would it be unrealistic to expect a Pope to root for one side in a conflict openly, when it is the side of justice? When it is on the side of God Almighty? Make no mistake about it, this is not merely a war between Israel and Hamas but a war between civilization and barbarity. Between the Almighty and those who hate the Almighty. Everone must choose whose side they are on; even the pope. In God's eyes, the pope is no greater or less a man than you or I.

Why can't I expect a pope to state this?

Buddhism is not similar to Christianity. Jesus studied and kept (or at least he claimed to have kept or fulfilled) the Torah, the law of Moses. There is nothing pacifist whatsoever in the law of Moses. Neither is it ruthless like Islam. God's law is justice. If you and the pope worship a pacific God, I would like to suggest, you are both worshipping an idol.

Silence in the face of a great moral evil is evil. So is moral equivalency between the murderous aggressor and the victim evil. I am suggesting Pope Benedict is following in the foot steps of Pius XII. I cannot see Pius XII following in the steps of earlier great popes. He had to be amongst the worst to rise to power at such a critical time. Pius XI, Pacelli's predecessor, had more courage this this man.

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 2:17 PM

Wellington, for a little more context.

This pacifist you claim the pope serves:

“But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm chapter 2)

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 2:22 PM

Wild Jew: Thanks for your responses. Well at least we agree on Israel as the vanguard of civilization and Hamas as the poster boy for terrorism in this present fight. Though not at all religious myself, I would point out that there is a huge differnce between the Old Testament and the New. In the latter, a complete pacifism is preached by Christ to his followers (which is one of the reasons why I think Christianity bears a resemblance to Buddhism). At no point in the NT does Jesus encourage the use of force to spread the faith or for anything for that matter (with the semi-exception of that general instruction to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's).

I noticed, though, that you still haven't directly answered the question I've now put twice to you, so, let me be very plain spoken in yet one more defense of Pius XII's approach. Here it is: If Pius had done what you think he should have done, then thousands upon thousands of additional Jews would have been murdered by the Nazis and their henchmen. Many young and middle-aged Jews who are alive today would never have been born had their parents or grandparents not been saved by Pius' Herculean efforts. If Pius had spoken out very publicly and very clearly against the Nazis, the way you think he should have, they would have done to him what Napoleon did to Pius VII, jail him with no further capacity for any kind of influence whatsoever. Oh, by the way, you praised Pius XI, which is deserved, but it was Cardinal Pacelli who was most responsible, while Papal Secreatry of State under Pius XI, for the composition and distribution of "Mit brennender Sorge."

Posted by: Wellington at January 13, 2009 4:07 PM

Oh, by the way, you praised Pius XI, which is deserved, but it was Cardinal Pacelli who was most responsible, while Papal Secretary of State under Pius XI, for the composition and distribution of "Mit brennender Sorge."

Posted by: Wellington

Wellington, it was also Cardinal Pacelli who was most responsible for the brokering the concordat between the genocidal mass-murderer, Adolf Hitler, and the Vatican; the most responsible for neutering the powerful Catholic Center Party in Germany, which might have otherwise withstood the Nazi movement the way the Church withstood Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf (culture struggle or war) in the late nineteen century.

As you might have guessed, I have deliberately tried to avoid getting dragged into a discussion about Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII. Suffice to say, I've read a fair amount about him by scholars I generally trust. Just as I generally trust Robert Spencer when it comes to Islam, I generally trust the reputable scholars I have read who are critical of Pius. Perhaps you are aware, Mr. Spencer wrote a book entitled, "Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't." This is one of the few of Spencer's books I've not read. I have however accessed a fair amount of his defense of Pope Pius XII.

No offence intended to Mr. Spencer, it looks to be every bit the sort of apologetic of Pius that Mr. Spencer rightly faults in all these apologists for Islam.

I have read enough of Pope Pius XII and his silence to believe he was a very compromised man; a bright and a talented man from a family of lawyers who should have practiced law rather than accept the papacy. He might have made an acceptable local parish priest but not a world leader. He was a deeply flawed man in terms of moral courage and I will let it stand at that.

We can go round and round as to the possible repercussion had he boldly and forthrightly condemned Hitler, Nazi Germany and Nazi atrocities; had he not used the equivocal, evasive sort of language of a trained diplomat but rather that of a true man of God, like the ancient prophets. Which of Israel's ancient prophet employed smooth, evasive and equivocal language?

The point is Wellington he failed to condemn this great evil in his day as well as the perpetrator of this great evil. Like Pope Benedict, Pius drew a moral equivalency between good and evil, between Nazism and the democracies. Thus we can only speculate. My point in bringing Pius into the discussion was simply to point out that Pope Benedict is repeating his terrible mistakes, for whatever reason.

I could not disagree with you more about Christianity. I know Christians who boldly condemn evil, very publicly. I know Catholics who are more often appalled at some of the weak positions on the part of church leaders. Jesus was not silent in the face of evil. Messiah will condemn those who silently stand by evil and worse, those Christians that make a moral equivalence between good and evil as the pope did last week, as Pius did between Nazism and the democracies. These men will give an answer to their Maker one day Wellington and the excuse, "It was a mistake; I am very sorry," will not work. These men are great theologian and world leaders. Ignorance of God's law is not an excuse when shrinking from confronting evil.

He should know better!

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 4:58 PM

Wild Jew: We must agree to disagree on this. I would only note that the Concordat Cardinal Pacelli arranged with the Nazi regime in 1933, shortly after Hitler came to power, was done upon the instructions of Pius XI. All sorts of polities had diplomatic relations with Hitler's regime, including many who would end up in war against Germany come WWII. America did, Britain did, Canada did and so on. I think it unfair to hold the Vatican to a different standard because of this Concordat, essentially a diplomatic phenomenon, struck with Nazi Germany.

In any case, I will, however, continue to defend someone whom I consider a great and noble man, one who was responsible in countless ways for directly or indirectly saving upwards of 800,000 Jews. Pius was lauded in the Jewish world until that malicious play by Hochhuth, The Representative, came out in 1963, which started what I consider a very false and distorted revisionism about Pius. Fortunately, Pius's reputation is beginning to make a comeback, as it should. Again, I would ask you to consider that stark choice I've presented to you before------speak out publicly against evil and save few if any lives or say nothing but save a multitude. If you fault Pius for his choice, then by all means fault me too for I would choose as Pius did.

Posted by: Wellington at January 13, 2009 6:00 PM

Wellington, I believe you wrote earlier, you are agnostic. Maybe I am confusing you for another. For many years I was agnostic. For better than 25 years, I have been a believer in the God of my fathers; the God of Israel.

In the final analysis, it matters little what you think or I think of Pope Pius XII or Pope Benedict XVI.

You think these two men are and have represented their church well.

I disagree. Final judgment is in the hands of the Almighty. All we mortals can do is to judge according to the best of our ability.

In my personal judgement, these two men have failed and are failing terribly. I base this judgement on personal experience -- experience I have gained often and great cost -- and a few or several years of study.

Posted by: Wild Jew at January 13, 2009 6:24 PM

Wild Jew: Yes, I am an agnostic. For the record, I was brought up Roman Catholic, but ever since I've been in my teens I have been a skeptic. I do think the two greatest faiths on earth are Judaism and Christianity because they put the greatest emphasis on the worth and dignity of the individual. They go wonderfully well with democracy for this very reason. I also have no major quarrel with any other major faith except Islam. Here I take it you and I are in complete accord.

I love freedom. It's what made America great above all. Islam, being the one totalitarian faith among the major religions of the world, is inimical to true freedom. In fact, I find Islam disgusting and I would not even remotely characterize any other world religion this way. I also esteem Israel. It is a noble, courageous and enlightened nation. Yes, we have our disagreements, you and I, but I like to think that what we have common eclipses what we don't. My best to you. And now let's continue the fight against Islamic supremacism.

Posted by: Wellington at January 13, 2009 7:22 PM