Islamic morality

At last: new law prohibiting abortion, extra-marital sex, and more!

Who'd have thought we'd see the day when a legislature would pass laws to reverse society's slide into immorality... or, worse, amorality. But it's going to happen! Not in the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain, Canada), which are not Christian even in name these days, but in... wait for it... mostly Muslim Indonesia. 

Although it's not officially an "Islamic republic" like, say, Iran, Indonesia is the world's biggest country, by  population, in which Muslims are the majority, with Hindus and Christians tiny minorities. Reuters reports that Indonesia's government is introducing a new criminal code which, according to Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, deputy justice minister, will be "in line with Indonesian values."

The  new code will ban sex outside marriage. It also carries stiff penalties for abortion, “black magic” and insulting the president. The punishment for extramarital sex is up to one year in jail. And that's  just the punishment in this world, never mind the next.

The usual suspects have long warned the new law, which has been decades in the making, would violate the rights of women, minorities, and the alphabet people, as well as undermine freedom of speech. And, they say, it will be bad for business too! The law applies to foreigners as well as Indonesians, so there'll be no more going to Indonesia for a dirty weekend!

Bali, in particular, has traditionally been a top holiday destination, attracting millions of tourists every year. A spokesthingy for Indonesia's Employers' Association told Reuters the morality clauses of the new criminal code would "do more harm than good," especially for businesses engaged in tourism and hospitality. "For the business sector," she said, "the implementation of this law will create legal uncertainty and make investors reconsider investing in Indonesia."

The legislation also bans expressing any views contrary to Indonesia's state ideology -- that would be Islam -- and criminalizes abortion, with the exception of rape victims. Insulting the president, a charge that can only be reported by the president, carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison. [Don't tell Brandon or Trudeau about this! Ed.]

The draft,which looks set to be passed into law next week, has the support of many conservative Islamic groups, whose influence is growing across the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation. Indonesians who feel that their right to be immoral is being infringed are advised to move to any of the aforementioned AABC countries, where that right is enshrined in law.

Further reading: "Indonesia ranks among most religious countries in Pew study", Jakarta Post, 30/7/20.

VIDEO: Venerable Fulton J. Sheen interviewed by Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

We have a long (53:20) and serious video for you, suitable for a Sunday when one should spend at least some time reflecting on higher matters. This is Episode 186 of Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr., recorded on 6 January 1970. Mr. Buckley's guest is Archbishop Fulton J.Sheen, whose earthly remains have recently been returned to the Diocese of Peoria and whose cause for beatification is now proceeding. Although the interview is almost half a century old, it still provides many insights which are relevant to a world which has become much worse in the intervening years.

Angus Reid: pollster, Catholic, shit-disturber

Walt was pleased to discover, just today, that there really is an Angus Reid. As in "Angus Reid, polling and market research guru". Mr. Reid is a Canadian, born in Regina SK on 17 December 1947. That makes him old enough to retire, and he can well afford so to do, having sold the polling company named after him for $100 million.

But at only 67, he's far from ready to put down his clipboard and pencil. Last year, shaped by his early career as a sociology professor at the University of Manitoba, he founded the Angus Reid Institute, so he could conduct "investigative polling" on the issues of the day. He’s already spent almost $1 million of his own money on it, and takes no salary.

Why? Because, with media outlets, governments and academics drastically cutting their polling budgets, Angus Reid feels called to make available his own surveys on a host of social, moral, religious, cultural and political questions. He was inspired by his mother’s fascination with spirituality and philosophy, the Jesuits who educated him, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian who was executed for resisting the Nazis. Now Mr. Reid is ready to do some of his own "shit-disturbing". That's the way he puts it in "Angus Reid, unchained", an interview with Vancouver Sun's Douglas Todd. "Anything, in our view, is fair game," he told the columnist. "We rely on no corporation, government or other source of funding.... I’ve always wanted to have complete free rein in the research I do."

Mr. Reid says he's free, now, to look into controversial questions "without fear.” That’s because, unlike most other polling companies, he doesn't need to worry about offending or embarrassing corporate or political clients through his polling, which is based on sampling from a pool of 130,000 Canadians who have registered with the Angus Reid Forum. [There's a link to the forum at the end of this post. Ed.]

Angus Reid is a practising Catholic, and attends Christ the Redeemer Church in West Vancouver. As such, he's not always pleased by the answers he gets to his questions on issues with moral as well as political dimensions.

For instance, he was dismayed by respondents' backing of assisted suicide, which he worries will be dangerous when doctors start “handing out suicide pills.” His poll on palliative care also showed how this potential alternative to assisted suicide is offered haphazardly.

He is likewise unimpressed that "a very large chunk of Canadians believe abortion is OK for choosing desirable characteristics in your kids." The era of designer babies may be upon us, he warns. His polling consistently reveals that Canadians (as well as Americans) are succumbing to the "trivialization of morality", including an obsession with the antics of celebrities.

"Consumerism is the new religion," Mr. Reid said. The number of Canadians who are "anti-religious" has risen to 30%. Another 40%  are in the “muddled middle” with regards to spirituality. And young people are increasingly uninterested in prayer. In his opinion, "These people don’t have any serenity in their lives."

Walt finds Mr. Reid's remarks sad commentary on the morals and mores of the society in which we live. But this is the kind of information we -- especially our political and religious leaders -- need if they are to guide us out of the morass of spiritual and ethical decay into which we have sunk.

The danger already too evident is that the same "leaders" will substitute poll results for their own moral compasses. "Never mind what's right! Do what's popular!" God save us!


Useful link: Want to make your opinions matter and get rewarded for your feedback? Click here to join the Angus Reid Forum (brought to you by Vision Critical). Does doing these surveys make any difference? Considering that governments and businesses pay thousands of dollars for polling, Walt believes so.

"New morality" and approval of sinful sexual relationships becoming official US religion, says Cardinal

Everyone knows that church and state are strictly separate in the United States of Armerica. Unlike in the United [soon to be disunited? Ed.] Kingdom, there is no established church, no official state religion. Or is there?! Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, says that American law has "taken upon itself the mantle of a religion and officially told its citizens what they must personally think or what 'values' they must personalize in order to deserve to be part of the country."

What is the nature of the new state religion to which all Americans must bend the knee? Writing in Catholic New World, the newspaper of the archdiocese, Cardinal George explains that America's ruling classes would have us believe that "there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family."

As evidence for this assertion, Cardinal George mentions an editorial comment in the Huffington Post on June 30th. Discussing the Hobby Lobby case (in which the US Supreme Court allowed religious objection to a part of Obamacare), the writer raised "concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen." This, the prelate says, is "the self righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as 'progressive' and 'enlightened'." And woe betide anyone who, even for reasons of conscience, dares to swim against the tide.

"Those who do not conform to the official religion," he says, "place their citizenship in danger."

"Swimming against the tide," the Cardinal continues, "means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic Faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers. Nor will their children, who will also be suspect.

"Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics. It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law."

Conform or else! If you don't like the morality of Obama's America, you're free to leave.

Why is the lamestream media ignoring the trial of Kermit the Babykiller

On March 20th, Walt told you -- for the second time -- about the horrors perpetrated in the abortuary of Doctor Kermit Gosnell, the black American abortionist now on trial for murdering babies born alive and viable. He (or staff "operating" under his direction) did it by cutting through the children's spinal columns just below their heads. End of life.

More shocking details of Gosnell's “House of Horrors” were presented to a Philadelphia jury this week.  murder trial of doctor Kermit Gosnell heard from one of his assistants, who said on five occasions she saw babies moving and breathing following abortions. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Ashley Baldwin, who began working at the clinic when she was just 15, said in one case she heard a baby “screeching” after the "procedure".

Gosnell's trial for the murder of one female patient and seven babies has been reported on AP and in the local (Philadelphia/New York/New Jersey) papers, but is not getting much play nation-wide, even though it has all the elements of front-page news: murder, abortion, racism, exploited women, not to mention government failures (or wilful ignorance). It should be front page news! But it isn't...

"Why isn't [this trial] being covered more?" is the thought-provoking question asked by Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic said, “The news value is undeniable," he says. "To sum up, this story has numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought to be a big story on the merits."

Mr. Friedersdorf tells us his question occurred to him as he read a USA Today column by Kirsten Powers, who wrote, "This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke [for advocating insurance coverage of contraceptives], there was non-stop media hysteria. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn’t make the cut. The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace." [My emphasis. Walt]

And so it is. But what is behind this studied silence? It's the same aggressive secularism and political correctness that keeps us from even discussing the evils and perversions of our post-Christian society. Nothing is "wrong" any more, because we -- or at least our "progressive thinkers" and opinion-makers -- have lost the ability to distinguish between wrong and right.

If whatever you are or whatever you're doing seems right to you, then who are we to criticize? That's their argument. It's the moral -- "immoral" would be a better word -- equivalent of religious relativism. There is no "right way" and therefore no "wrong way" to think or act, unless of course you're old-fashioned enough to believe in the Ten Commandments or some other moral code written hundreds of years ago.

Unfortunately, if  you believe in such moral precepts as "Thou shalt not kill" -- that's the entire commandment, by the way, no qualifications -- you are  now an "extremist".  That's the politically correct view of your righteous notions. As Walt told you earlier this week, that's the view espoused by Obama's government and its armed forces. And, of course, the liberal-controlled lamestream media.  

Is your mind righteous?

Regular readers of WW's World will know that Walt is a regular reader of Margaret Wente's column in the Globe and Mail. Ms Wente was born in Chicago, but now makes her home in "an affluent downtown Toronto postal code". She looks with a jaundiced eye [perhaps TWO such eyes. Ed.] on her neighbours, whom she regards as what I call "Volvo liberals".

Today, Ms Wente has another "label for these people. They are WEIRD. That is, they belong to a tiny subculture of the human population that is Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. They are the secular liberal baby boomers who dominate the opinion elite."

She says this in the context of a review of The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt. According to the author's website, the book is about one of the hottest topics in the sciences — morality. It’s about how we evolved to live in moral “matrices,” which bind us together around sacred values and then blind us to the truth. It’s about righteousness, moral diversity, politics and religion.

According to Margaret Wente's review, Mr Haidt is talking about the WEIRD culture of which he is an admitted member. She sees The Righteous Mind as a must-read for anyone who’s dumbfounded that Steve Harpoon got elected prime minister of Canada. Or that anyone could oppose the re-election of Al O'Bama.

Or that the voters of Alberta are about to elect a party "full of bigots and climate-change deniers". (More on this, and why it should matter to Americans, next week. For now... lifetime pct .983.)

Mr. Haidt argues that conservatives and liberals operate with two quite different moral systems. Liberals are almost exclusively concerned with harm and fairness. They see society as composed of autonomous individuals who should be free to satisfy their wants and needs as they see fit.

Conservatives have a wider moral palate. They are also concerned with loyalty, authority and sanctity – values that are deeply rooted in human nature and all societies throughout history. They see society as composed of people in relation to community, who have a set of roles, responsibilities and obligations to God and their neighbours. They believe there is much more to the moral domain than harm and fairness.

Haidt's thesis is that conservative politicians on the right have a built-in advantage, because they understand human nature better than liberals do. Most people’s moral frameworks are far broader – and far less rational and systematic – than liberals believe, says Ms Wente. Nonetheless, liberal psychologists (and politicians) have spent most of the past 40 years trying to explain why conservatives are so misguided. Why don’t they embrace equality, diversity and change, like normal people? Obviously, they’re repressed and afraid of difference.

Mr. Haidt believes that as long as liberals continue to pathologize conservatism, they’re doomed. Instead, they need to understand why the reaction of many ordinary people to the issues in the news is so different from their own. The simple answer is that these people are less concerned with individual rights and universal justice than they are with things such as loyalty, authority and people getting what they deserve, not what their ethnicity or sexual orientation "entitle" them to.

Ms Wente uses the example of the Harper government’s tough crime-and-punishment agenda -- the policies that drive Canadian liberals craziest.

To liberals, [the government's] law-and-order agenda is nothing more than base pandering to an ignorant electorate. But many Canadians have a sharply different view. They don’t care that crime stats are at record lows, or that mandatory minimum sentences don’t work.

What they care about is the Vancouver bus driver who was off work for more than a year after a young thug bashed his face in. The thug got 18 months to be served at a rehab residence. They care about the stupidly light sentence imposed on Graham James for sexually abusing teenage hockey players and about shopkeepers who get charged by the police for trying to protect themselves from thieves.

They think these things are profoundly wrong. And despite the enlightened views of liberals, an alarming number of them continue to support the death penalty.

Perhaps if these Canadians were better educated they wouldn’t think this way. Or perhaps, if liberals were better educated in moral psychology, they’d be able to understand why conservative policies are so appealing. My advice is to begin by listening to Jonathan Haidt.

Walt can hardly wait to read The Righteous Mind, and will pick up a copy at the Library of Congress next week*, if the librarian isn't looking.

* Indeed, Walt will be in the capital city of the Excited States of America from now until Wednesday. Why??? Visit WW's World on Thursday and all will be revealed. Or maybe not.

One good intern deserves another

Meet Yummy Lapikova, a 25-year-old former Miss Moscow beauty pageant finalist and lingerie model. She has just been hired to be a personal photographer for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Here we see her practising holding a large cylindrical object, this apparently being part of the job description.

The Russian government has defended the hiring of Ms Lapikova to join the pool of Putin’s official photographers as an intern after revealing photos of her surfaced on various Russian blog sites. Walt refrains from publishing such photos, in the interests of good taste and geometry. [Really it's because we haven't found them...yet. Ed.]

Ms Lapikova's decision to advance her career by a period of study under Comrade Putin is understandable enough. Henry Kissinger famously said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." M Poutine has obviously decided to make the most of his position. Who could blame him.

Well, the self-appointed guardians of public morality -- that's who. There's a strong puritanical streak in America, and the same righteous busybodies who are shocked, SHOCKED by Weinergate would surely be more than horrified were President Al O'bama to hire a gorgeous intern for photographic or other light duties.

Oh... wait... Yes, there is the Clinton precedent. Perhaps all this proves is that presidents and prime ministers can get away with stuff of which mere congressmen can only dream wetly.

Mainstream thinking on abortion

For years now -- make that decades -- the lamestream media have been telling us that the majority of modern, progressive people are "pro-choice". That means, we are told, that it's up to a pregnant woman to decide for herself if she wants to keep her child or kill it. That's not the way the media present it, of course, but that's what it means to be "pro-choice".

Thus, the past week saw considerable consternation in the ranks of the pro-abortion lobbyists and other progressive and right-thinking wimmin. The cause of the consternation? The release of the Gallup Poll's annual Values and Beliefs Survey. Hard as the sisters find it to believe, 72% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal under most circumstances.

The Gallup figures show that 49% of Americans label themselves "pro-choice" while 45% are "pro-life". As the first graph shows, those figures have see-sawed back and forth, but still been roughly even, for several years. For most of 2009-10, the "pro-life" numbers were slightly higher, with a reversal occurring late last year.

However, the more significant graph -- and the most disturbing to the baby-killers -- is the second one. It shows clearly that most Americans do not favour abortion. 51% of those surveyed said that abortion is "morally wrong". Only 39% said that what is euphemistically called "the procedure" is "morally acceptable".

One could infer that many of those polled want to have it both ways. Perhaps they see no contradiction in supporting a woman's "right to choose" while at the same time saying they would not make that choice -- to abort an unwanted child -- for themselves.

The third graph deals with the legality of abortion. 72% said that abortion should be illegal either in all (22%) or in some (50%) circumstances. If you do the math, those figures must include at least some of the 49% who identified themselves as "pro-choice".

The fourth question tried to be more specific. What do you understand by "some circumstances", it asked. 61% of responders said it should be only a few (as opposed to "most") circumstances. The results indicate clear and growing support for measures to end the current policy of unrestricted legal abortion on demand.

The Gallup figures show that American opinion on the morality and legality of abortion remains sharply divided. But -- and this is the most important conclusion to be drawn -- those who think that abortion is wrong are not just a handful of right-wing religious fanatics. Being pro-life is just as much a mainstream American viewpoint as the evil opposite.

Intrinsic moral evils: we can't say we weren't warned

It has been some time since we looked at issues of moral rights and wrongs. It seems that in today's world, nothing is abnormal, nothing is immoral, nothing is "wrong". Now it's "different strokes for different folks" and "whatever floats your boat is OK with me".

But there are objective standards of right and wrong, according to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. True, the Church doesn't talk about these things as much as She used to. You don't hear many priests of the mainstream (i.e. post-Vatican II) church preaching homilies on hellfire and damnation. Perhaps that's because too many of them have sins of their own to answer for, not just in the next world but this.

But there's one diocesan priest in Texas who is still talking about the laws of the Church and the Laws of God. And not just from the pulpit. Yesterday Father Michael Rodriguez published a column in the El Paso Times in which he strongly denounces homosexual activity and abortion. Here are some excerpts.

"Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual union.

“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church." In other words, a person who, for example, supports gay marriage, excommunicates himself or herself.

Father Rodriguez continues, "Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of ‘equal rights,’ ‘tolerance,’ ‘who am I to judge?,’ etc."

"I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect. At the same time, never forget that genuine love demands that we seek, above all, the salvation of souls. Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls."

"Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils. And friends, this objective truth doesn't depend on the opinion of the majority. Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences."

I have emphasized the last sentence, thinking of how surprised we all seemed to be when the AIDS pandemic swept the world. We can't say we weren't warned.

Normal people speak up, government listens ... for once

Homosexuality is normal! That's what the huge and vocal gay lobby would have you believe. And that's what the Globe & Mail editors say in their lead editorial yesterday.

Don't you believe it! According to their own estimate, about 1 out of 10 adults is gay. That's 10 percent of the population. That means that 90% is straight. If 9 out of 10 people have one sexual orientation, and 1 out of 10 has another, which one is "normal"?!

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that homosexuality is common! Lots of people do it. Like murder, theft, and drunk driving. Lots of people do those things too. But that doesn't make them right!

Think about it. Next time a cop pulls you over and accuses you of DUI, are you going to say, "Don't worry about it, officer. Some of my best friends do it, and I've done it myself many times before."? Tell that to the judge and see what happens.

Nor should we teach our children that drunk driving or theft or murder are socially or morally acceptable. Clearly they are not. Neither is homosexuality.

I mention this because the government of Ontario has just bowed to public opinion (for once) and abandoned a plan to force its public schools to teach in sex ed classes beginning in Grade 3 that homosexuality, masturbation and other deviant behaviour is "normal". See Walt's column of March 4th.

It's tempting to hail this as a triumph for common sense, morality and the vox populi. But the opinion-makers, especially the liberal media (hello Globe & Mail! hello CBC!) are moaning about "intolerance", "a return to the dark ages", "homophobia" and of course "hate crime" and "human rights".

There's also the spectre of the gay lobby and Forces of Progress pushing and pushing until the "new enlightenment" creeps back into the curriculum. "After all," they'll tell you, "this is the 21st century. Anything goes!" Don't you believe it!

One last (?) thought... Please, normal people, be more vocal! According to the media it was pressure from "Christians and Muslims" and "the religious right" that forced the McGuinty government to back away from this diabolical plan to corrupt our children. In fact it was the individual, small but courageous acts of 1000s of ordinary but outraged citizens that made the Liberals sit up and take notice.

I say "courageous" because it takes real courage, these days, to speak up. Write a letter to the editor, send an e-mail, forward an article to your mailing list, write your MP or MPP, say anything that deviates from the secular liberal agenda, and you risk being labelled a "right-wing nut", a "religious extremist", or a "hater".

Just remember, the ordinary, normal people still think of our North American society as a Christian society. We still have certain principles in which we believe. We can still tell right from wrong. When something is wrong, we must not be afraid to say so!

Footnote: For more on the controversy and a sampling of opinions, check out "Muslims, Christians challenge Ontario’s more explicit sex ed".

From that article, here's the opinion of Murielle Boudreau, of the Greater Toronto Catholic Parent Network. “I don’t understand how the business of sensual behaviour between consenting adults has anything to do with Grade 3,” she said. “Grade 6? Getting them ready for masturbation and vaginal lubrication? Give me a break. They’re going to traumatize these children!”