Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Fausta covers a lot of territory this morning- and she isn’t happy. Her post, The View And The Radicals, addresses some of the current events that seem to have assumed a life of their own. As a rule of thumb, if Fausta isn’t happy, ‘ain’t nobody happy.’

In responding to Rosie O’Donnel’s assertion that Radical Islam is no different than fundamental Christianity, Fausta coolly and not so subtlety reminds her readers that Rosie O’Donnel notwithstanding, moral relativism does not make everyone equal- no matter how badly Rosie and her fellow leftists want that to be so. Her post addresses the realities of FGM (100 million women and counting) and the ‘real world’ treatment of women in many Islamic societies, radical Sharia Law, the treatment of homosexuals, and a host of other issues.

She also briefly touches on the (artificial) Benedict brouhaha. In fact, the Benedict matter has been largely a creation of a less than honest media. The Pope quoted a 14th century figure who criticized violent Jihad. The Pope noted that authentic faith did not need violence to express that faith.

It is true that Christianity experienced periods of violence. That said, those periods of Christian violent expression ended a long time ago.

It would be nice if those outraged Muslim religious leaders (virtually all of whom are the mouthpieces of less than savory regimes) applied the same standards of decency they demand to themselves.

The Anchoress posted a rather sublime piece, draped in a religious cloak, but in fact, her post is a scathing commentary at moral relativism and the deliberate degradation of those who don’t subscribe to those beliefs.

Her post (aptly named) Our Lady Of Sorrows, notes in speaking of women in Scripture that

There are no accidents in scripture. Nothing is put in there as a “throw away,” that is, not really meant to be considered. Despite what Dan Brown and the DaVinci Coders contend..

Simply stated, when the ideology du jour cannot mesh with Scripture, there are those who take it upon themselves to redefine what is meant to be a universal and timeless message. In what is nothing but sheer hubris, there are those that insist that man no longer answers to God, but rather, God becomes a junior partner to His creation. Now, they say, God must answer to man.

It is ironic that those who want to rewrite and redefine the Bible, would vigorously defend their own copywritten material. They cannot see the irony of that.