Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on Human Dignity

The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued an important new doctrinal declaration on human dignity, approved by Pope Francis, that not only reaffirms the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching on abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, but also updates it by denouncing some newer forms of violation of that dignity in the 21st century, such as surrogacy and the promotion of gender theory.

“Declaration ‘Dignitas Infinita’ on Human Dignity” is the title of this 23-page document that Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández said went through several preparatory drafts over the past five years, and which he presented at a Vatican press conference on April 8. He revealed in a preface to the text that Pope Francis explicitly asked that the document “highlight topics closely connected to the theme of dignity, such as poverty, the situation of migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, war and other themes.” Thus the declaration goes beyond the focus on single issues and throws a spotlight on the much broader field of violations of human dignity.

Commenting on this in an editorial on Vatican Media, Andrea Tornielli, its editorial director, said: “The new text contributes to overcoming the dichotomy that exists between those who concentrate exclusively on the defense of life that is unborn or dying and forget the other attacks against human dignity, and those, on the other hand, who focus only on the defense of the poor and migrants and forget that life has to be defended from conception to natural death.”

The declaration’s fourth chapter gives attention to 13 broad areas of violations against human dignity, including some new ones in the field of bioethics. The declaration, quoting Pope Francis’ talk to the diplomatic corps on Jan. 4 of this year, says, “the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood” represents “a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs.” It explains that “surrogacy violates the dignity of the woman, whether she is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely. For, in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.” Moreover, it argues that “the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a ‘right to a child’ that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life.” It repeats the pope’s call for the international community “to prohibit this practice universally.”

At the same time, the declaration strongly denounces violence against women in its manifold forms. It says that “while the equal dignity of women may be recognized in words, the inequalities between women and men in some countries remain very serious” and calls for them to be addressed. It denounces coercive abortions and the practice of polygamy. It condemns the phenomenon of femicide and calls on the entire international community to have a coordinated and concrete commitment to protecting women.

It is perhaps noteworthy also that the declaration begins its focus on gender theory by defending the human dignity of L.G.B.T.Q. people (though it does not use the abbreviation). It reaffirms that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”

For this reason, it says, “it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.” This appears to be a response to legislation in some African and Asian countries. At the press conference Cardinal Fernandez said the church supported the decriminalization of homosexuality in the various countries.

As widely expected, the declaration issues a firm “no” to gender theory, which it describes as “extremely dangerous” since, among other things, it “intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference.” The declaration says: “This foundational difference is not only the greatest imaginable difference but is also the most beautiful and most powerful of them. In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvelous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world.”

It recalls that “the Church teaches that human life in all its dimensions, both physical and spiritual, is a gift from God” and says: “Desiring a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes, apart from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift, amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.” The declaration concludes that “all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected.”

The declaration also says no to sex change. It says “we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created” and so “[it] follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.”

In his preface to the text, Cardinal Fernández said the declaration’s aim is “to offer some points for reflection that can help us maintain an awareness of human dignity amid the complex historical moment in which we are living.” The introduction and first three chapters of the declaration presents the genesis and development of the concept of human dignity through history, from its emergence in classical antiquity to its development in the Bible and in Christian thought, and in recent decades at the Second Vatican Council and through the magisterium of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.

Comment: There’s something in this declaration to piss off everybody. Of course, the big headlines concern the Church’s stand against sex change and gender theory. I actually had to look that one up. Gender theory proposes that gender is merely a social construction and that an individual can pick whatever gender he or she feels like picking. Carried to the logical end, this means physically altering gender… sex change. Given the Church’s views on the sanctity of life, marriage and children, her opposition to gender theory and sex change makes perfect doctrinal sense.

The declaration sets out sections on the following “grave violations of human dignity: the drama of poverty, war, the travail of migrants, human trafficking, sexual abuse, violence against women, abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia and assisted suicide, the marginalization of people with disabilities, gender theory, sex change, and digital violence. 

Of all these, the one that struck me most personally was the one on war. Pope Francis was quoted “We can no longer think of war as a solution because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war!” Will the Church soon renounce the idea of a just war? Has my chosen profession and career been an affront against God and Humanity? I guess I can take solace in this line. “While reaffirming the inalienable right to self-defense and the responsibility to protect those whose lives are threatened, we must acknowledge that war is always a ‘defeat of humanity.’ Maybe I and my brethren in arms have been granted an indulgence. DOL


This entry was posted in Culture and Society, Religion, TTG. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on Human Dignity

  1. d74 says:

    Your question is important for his own conscience The Pope gives the answer, indirectly it’s true.
    “We can no longer think of war as a solution because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits.”
    The important words are “its supposed benefits.”

    In retrospect, it’s easy to take stock.
    World War II: fighting extremists in Europe and Asia was fully justified. What’s more, it was a necessary war for all mankind.
    Vietnam War: certainly not. The death, injury and suffering inflicted on the people of Indochina in no way justified all these calamities. The basis for intervention, the domino theory, was folly (hello Walrus!).

    But a man of war like you must obey the orders of his leaders, and ultimately do what the government orders. In my opinion, the combatant’s margin of initiative in the field is not nil. It’s a matter of the circumstances. Proportionate firepower comes first. And let’s not forget the powerful weapons of cunning and inventiveness. Variations are infinite without direct killing or destruction.

    Here, there’s nothing to cast doubt on the fighter’s status by profession.

    • Fred says:


      Fighting the marxists who eventually conquered South Vietnam was not justified? How did that work out for the free people of the South? Pol Pot inflicted what in his part of Indochina when he came to power? Please refer to Col. Lang’s comments in the archives.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Not too mention all of the intellectuals, politicians, healthcare workers, teachers, shop keepers, etc. in the South who were killed constantly by the communists. Jane Fonda types never seem to note any of that.

    • leith says:

      d74 –

      Domino theory? Dumb ass me and my buddies volunteered to go there to stop the forced conscription of rural villagers by the VC and the assassination of RVN appointed schoolteachers, nurses, village honchos, etc. Young and stupid, we didn’t know squat about dominoes or theories.

    • d74 says:

      Fred, Eric, Leith,

      The domino theory was put forward by Senator Henry Cabot-Lodge II in 1951. As far as I know, he was the first. He was inspired by the fertile mind of General de Lattre. In France, this theory has been pushed to the point of absurdity. The Soviets were going to ‘roll up’ South-East Asia and enter the Mediterranean through the back door, the Suez Canal. Which is indeed an absolute geopolitical horror, if the Soviets had the means and will.
      So, this is a trick for politicians, not for volunteers or boots on ground.

      In 1946, the French war had its justification. Fightings begun in 1945 but finally one year later war was properly declared against a recognized state. Until 1949, victory was possible. We were weak, but Viet enemies were even weaker. By the end of 1949, when Mao’s troops reached the border, victory was out of reach. The CCP’s aid to the Viets was not long in coming. In september-October 1950, French troops suffered very heavy blows on the RC4 between Cao Bang and Lang Son on the border. In retrospect, the defeat was greater than that of Dien Bien Phu in terms of relative losses.

      Aware of the futility of this war, the French government sought to open negotiations with Ho Chi Min. At the same time, it informs US government of the contacts made. Which banned them in the name of Western solidarity. CCP would have put all means on Korea where US forces were experiencing the beginning of serious difficulties (November 1950, Chinese ‘volunteers’ , Yalu River). In return, the USA stepped up its aid.

      The war kept going because this war was our only export industry. We received dollars and spent francs. Both sides suffered heavy losses from 1950 to 1954, heavier than from 1945 to 1949. (for French forces, 40 000 deads for first period, 60 000 after).

      To sum up, the war was lost in 1950. We’ll never know what negotiations would have achieved. No doubt, a neutral Laos, a free Cambodia and a South preserved for longer (but not eternally), maybe a South rising up to the parallel just South of Vinh. The whole period 1950-1974 was nothing but a long rise to extremes, exacerbating all the political and military radicals that were not lacking in the North, a situation that did not exist in 1949. Long wars are Darwinist. They select the most combative, the others die.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        “…this war was our only export industry.”

        That is a demonstrably untrue statement. The US had a robust and varied export industry/economy at that time.

        You are not understanding the cultural milieu at that time. You are engaged in hindsight through a narrow political philosophy lens. The US at that time believed it could accomplish anything it set its mind to accomplish. We weren’t a nation of broke dick cynics and self-haters like we are now. The French felt it was a lost cause? So what? The French surrender at the first “bang”.

        • d74 says:

          “The war kept going because this war was our only export industry. We received dollars and spent francs.”

          Here, ‘we’ signals French. Context would have made it possible to understand, despite my poor command of English.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            ok je comprends maintenant. Ca a du sens

          • LeaNder says:

            Context. MAGA may trump context? Beyond the catching acronym. We were great up to when exactly, never mind when, 50s, surely not the sixties’, but great then. 😉

        • wtofd says:

          “The French felt it was a lost cause? So what? The French surrender at the first “bang”.”
          No. Please refer to Dien Bien Phu.

      • LeaNder says:

        This was a fascinating summary, d74, what did trigger this? Was there ever an exchange between PL and you I missed, focused on different matters? Or …

        Aware of the futility of this war, the French government sought to open negotiations with Ho Chi Min. At the same time, it informs US government of the contacts made. Which banned them in the name of Western solidarity.

        I met a German veteran of the Foreign Legion old, helpless and destitute maybe a decade ago. And yes, I read, but very, very superficially about this. Not really interested in politics and war before 9/11.

        • d74 says:

          1- Trigger. A vast question you ask. The starting point was the meeting in Moscow in 1924 or about between a few rabid marxist Viets and the University for the Liberation of Colonized Peoples. The school changed its name several times, like Lumumba University. It was a Komintern creation for Africans, South Americans and Asians people. Uncle Ho was their leader. Like Lenin, they became monomaniacs of revolutionary war for the greater glory of marxism (and Leninstalin personally…). They were the mad priests of a bloody Church.

          Here, a French philosopher: “Peoples give themselves leader capable of making them achieve their confused and unexpressed goals”. Or, nationalism can take the path of marxism, an almost one way ticket but certainly effective. The philosopher’s name can be conveniently forgotten. He had converted your Catholic puppet Ngô Dinh Diêm to his ‘personalism’ theory.

          2-I knew a French veteran legionnaire, like your German, and a total alcoholic to boot. Three wounds. He had a limp. His stories of the RC4 were impressive. A war without fronts, enemies and friends entangled, ambushes, deaths at every turn, mines and booby traps everywhere, horrible wounds and no evacuation, no moment of relaxation and always a marvellous landscape conducive to surprise. A war of the poor (us) against diabolical enemies and nature.

          An uncle volunteered from 1951 to 1954, on a 2-year contract, plus a 6-month extension. His impressions were different. Slow tactical progress through rice paddies under a blazing sun, knee-deep mud in a dreamlike landscape, leeches and mosquitoes, the perilous crossing of arroyos, mines and booby traps on the dikes, men falling hit by snipers camouflaged in coconut palms (“They climb like monkeys. We made them fall even faster”), and in the end a confused fight in a banana plantation, at close range, visibility 5-10 yards, inconclusive (“The Viets refuse to fight if they don’t have a clear superiority and duck as if they were disappearing from the earth”), on the way back the grueling stretchering of the dead and wounded who sometimes die before receiving care. And always insecurity. A poor man’s war, but also the camaraderie of soldiers who recognize each other by their suffering. The watchwords: “We’re not helped” (by the fatherland) and “No means? Means anyway!” He came back whole, but with amoebae, not an alcoholic, and shaken for the rest of his shortened life.

          So many fighters, so much experience. Combat was extremely varied. There was post warfare, interval commando night warfare, intervention troop warfare and, for everyone, tunnel warfare and assault trench warfare. Regarding Pat, I once simply alluded to the Viets’ unstoppable secret weapon, mud. I was thinking of that uncle.

          [these are memories filtered out after more than twenty years of rewrapping. They probably wanted to impress the young rooster that I was.]

          • TonyL says:


            “Like Lenin, they became monomaniacs of revolutionary war for the greater glory of marxism (and Leninstalin personally…)”

            Wrong. They were fighting for their country independence. They had to chose between the Americans and the French? No, they chose to be communists because that was the only hope that they could kick out the French and therefore the Americans (who supported France in its quest to maintain a present in Indochina).

            “An uncle volunteered from 1951 to 1954 …. He came back whole, but with amoebae, not an alcoholic, and shaken for the rest of his shortened life.”

            Such is the fate of the invaders. Once, the Vietnameses even kicked out the Mongols, who ruled China at that time. Well known is their history of constantly fighting invaders for a thousand years (during their four thousand year civiliazation).

            The battle of Dien Bien Phu was the ultimate humilliation for the French.

  2. Barbara Ann says:

    Great post TTG.

    You are absolutely right to highlight the Pope’s pontifications (pun intended) on the redundancy of just war, I think Colonel Lang would have picked up exactly the same point. The rest seems reasonable enough to my eyes.

    The risks in war can no longer (ever) outweigh the benefits? What utter nonsense. I fear this Pope is more interested in adapting Church doctrine to “the complex historical moment in which we are living” than in interpreting Church doctrine through those ever changing moments. Francis’ views on the courage of the white flag seem to go a lot deeper than the war in Ukraine and Catholics everywhere should be alarmed by this.

  3. Fred says:


    “The good soldier.” John Paul II’s comment to Pat Lang. I think you fit that description too.

    “… becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.” The others: lefty’s gung-ho for more abortion business, and the never Trumper’s are busying being extreme in the other direction, sure seem to be described there. Women and the unborn? certainly subservient to the gain or desire of politicians (others).

  4. Keith Harbaugh says:

    This brings up a huge topic.
    For an non-standard view of it, see Patrick Buchanan’s
    Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

  5. Eric Newhill says:

    The Catholic church, indeed all Christianity, owes its continued existence to men who choked down their fears and risked their very souls to pick up a weapon and kill vicious heathens who would have destroyed it. Life in the material world is full of seeming paradoxes. Only wisdom finds the way through – and simple slogans won’t cut it. I think that in the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, Krishna very nicely lays out the case, to Arjuna, the reluctant warrior and prince, that to not kill evil people is worse than forgiving them and letting them have their way. Death is not the end anyhow.

    I get the sense that the church is trying to say that approaching humanity as programmable, use and dispose meat robots, instead of souls, is an increasing danger in the modern world and that we must be constantly vigilant to avoid falling into that trap, whatever the issue at hand is.

    • TTG says:

      This declaration does not condemn all violence. It reaffirms the inalienable right to self-defense and the responsibility to protect those whose lives are threatened. Saint John Paul II (Jan Pavel) considered resigning as Pope so he could join his countrymen when Jaruzelski imposed martial law in Poland. That was in line with the inalienable right to self-defense and the responsibility to protect those whose lives are threatened. Wars to spread the faith whether it’s a crusade or a jihad are all too human, but morally wrong in the eyes of the Church.

    • Stefan says:

      You need to remember the massive violence in Europe used to spread Christianity. It wasnt just the destruction of pagans, it was massive warfare against other Christian sects. People seem to forget that the majority of Christians in Europe, at one point, were “Arians” not Catholics. Basically what ensued was a massive civil war in Europe between the sects of Christianity with entire people’s being wiped out in the fighting. Entire tribal groupings and peoples in Northern Europe were wiped from the face of the earth, ceased to exist because they followed the “wrong” Christian sect. Languages and much culture, history and tradition was lost in this genocide.

      It turned out that those who ended up being what we know now as the Catholic church were just better at killing than the Arians. So despite the Arians being the majority of Christians in Europe, they lost the civil war. Convert to the winner’s ideology or die was then the order of the day. The Arian theology was rather different than the early Catholics. Had they won the civil war modern day Christianity would look very different than it does today.

      Future sects of Christianity met with the same murderous treatment. Huguenots anyone? After killing the pagans with reckless abandonment the Christian’s biggest enemies have been each other. Think about how many wars fought in Europe that were directly, or indirectly about religion. How many Protestants and Catholics were burned to death all over Europe by other Christians? When the crusaders marched to war to the Middle East, when they were not killing Muslims and Jews along the way, they were killing other Christians. The native Christian communities along the way, including Middle Eastern Christians, were treated horribly by European Christians. Mass murder, rape and some of the earliest instances of biological warfare were recorded. In this case biological warfare meant European Christians lobbing diseased and rotting bodies into places they were besieging to spread disease amoungst the people they were besieging. Killing Jews and Christians of other sects.

      Christian history is often sanitised to the point where people have no idea what really happened. I come from a Catholic background myself, both parents when to private Catholic schools, my father an alter boy. But history is history.

  6. jim.. says:

    The Crusaders….”Turcopolier”…A Time For Peace..A Time For War..

    Interesting…I Have Been Researching Pope Francis… For Several Days
    Now In Fact TTG…As You Know..Colonel Lang expressed His Own Thought
    About Him Here…

    Pope Francis..whose Parents Immigrated From Northern Italy to Argentina….

    His Name At Birth Is…Jorge Mario BerGoGlio… From An Italian Town of the
    Same Name…””.BerGOGlio… 65 Percent of People With that Name are Italian..
    15 Percent are Jewish…

    His Parents………Left Italy when Mussolini Came To Power….He was a Bouncer in His Youth….But Got More Involved In Catholic Church Activity After a Long Illness..

    The Period Of His Life Most interesting…Was in 2015…When,,While Francis Was Then Pope… Elected .on 3-13-2013,,,,That Barack Obama Established Diplomatic Relations With Castros Cuba…Took Cuba off the List
    of “State Sponsors of Terrorism”,,,and Francis Came to Cuba for Long Celebrations..
    (See Wikipedia)..
    .Then Came to the United States..For His Speech to the United Nations..and His Historic Speech to The Joint Session of Congress..
    ( See Wikipedia)… About That….Think of That…As a Turning Point..For ALL Current
    Events …and Thier Religious Nature..

    Colonel Langs Comments…and Discernment..Inspired Me to Be Curious About
    The Role of Pope Francis..And Do this Research…Remarkable Timing..

    Principalitys….Powers..and The Works of Dark Places…

    • LeaNder says:

      Yes, struggling to find the right word: Satan in disguise? Ok, that’s a bit over the top! Something close to some type of inner Anti-Christ, maybe? Planted to destroy Mother Church. … Or Anti-Christ is completely wrong, but definitively someone putting too much stress on (Christ’s) beatitudes versus Moses Ten Commandments?

      Too lenient with those female child killers? At least at one point in time. Females generally? …

      Are you Catholic, Jim.., or brought up in the faith?


      • jim.. says:

        I Am Saying That Pope Francis Has Played A Dramatic Role
        In Current International Events…Especially The Americas..
        With Cuba….Barrack Obama.and HIS Influencers.
        .Wich Has Carried Over to The Current Biden Administration…And Cuba…Argentina..Hispanic ,,Catholic..
        Immigrant Invasion…..Liberation Theology..Gender Theology
        All I Know..For The Church to Nail The Bible Back to the Wall..Deny What Is Written..And ALL Christ Taught..Beyond The Beatitudes..
        .Reminds Me of The Vanity of Those Who
        Brought HIM Into The Temple…For an Illegal Trial..

        I Am Sure The Vatican Basements,,,Are FULL of War Loot…
        Especially That of the Spanish,,,Speaking of Genocide..

        A Mentor of Mine…Many Decades Ago,,,Was Colonel…L.White..
        A Bishop…Army Chaplin…Who Made Many Paracute Jumps
        into Combat Zones…in WW2..

        We Only Talked Salvation…Faith in Jesus Christ…Prayer…and The HOLY SPIRIT..He Had a Very Sweet,,,HUMBLE Spirit…

  7. Eric Newhill says:

    As an aside, this could be a sign that the Pope is about to transition (=die). The current Pope has pretty much been a progressive Marxist troll and this declaration is 180 degrees from many of his positions. So the church may be preparing to return to its roots.

    • Stefan says:

      Considering traditional Catholic belief is that the Pope is the leader appointed by God Himself to lead the church, if the current Pope is a Marxist troll, then it is God Himslef responsible for it.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        I’m not Catholic. I think it is fairly obvious to everyone that the Pope was appointed by a committee of humans and that a Pope can be fallible. Maybe a long time ago, Catholics believed in the divine appointment of the Pope. I don’t know. There is no such thing in the Armenian Orthodox Church. I can’t imagine the majority of modern Catholics being backwards literalists, like muslims who still believe that Muhammed, pedophilia, robberies, murders and all, is the ultimate/final prophet and the perfect man.

        Did you convert to Islam because you were angry at the Catholic Church for some reason? I noticed that you like to take shots at Christianity and Catholicism whenever the opportunity arises. You appear very angry.

        • LeaNder says:

          I can’t imagine the majority of modern Catholics being backwards literalists, like …

          there is something like the papal infallibility doctrine–which only concerns the Pope’s Church Office, not the human being the pope himself, and its extensive historical-theological discussions since 1870.

          For us Germans the date is important in relations to Bismarck’s Kulturkampf/culture war. Bismarck (The Prussian Protestant) feared two forces, the Catholic Church and Socialism. Which resulted in laws against Catholics and laws against Socialists. The Catholic Church on the other hand feared to become irrelevant post enlightenment, the French Revolution and 1848.

          Papal Infallibility:

          • Eric Newhill says:

            That is interesting, LeaNder. The Catholic Church is capable of evolving and adapting to the wider cultural milieu, which is where, in my humble opinion, the current Pope went a little too far with the the woke/Marxist trend.

            However, some amount of flexibility is necessary to stay relevant and accessible to the masses in a changing world. Christ and the New Testament itself was a huge evolution. This one of the areas where Sunni and Shia Islam both fail. They are all stuck deeply in medieval ways. Christianity has, at the forefront, the principles of faith in Christ, love, forgiveness and ever lasting life. How those principles are expressed can morph in the most superficial or outward form according to the times. Islam, as practiced in the Middle East, does not have have those ideals at the forefront. It is basically the Old Testament – wrath, revenge, punishment, jealousy, unforgiving – plagiarized and reformatted for non-Jews, and unable to evolve fully to sync with a modern world. It is whatever a mere man (Mohammed), replete with clearly and obvious very mortal impulses said; not what a son of God, above all those mortal desires, revealed.

        • Stefan says:


          LOL. I literally laughed out loud. Look up angry old man in the dictionary there will be a picture of you there mate.

          There are many evangelicals in the US, who like their Muslim counterparts, take every thing literally. It is the source for a lot of issues in our country and behind much of the violence. This is why you can find “theme parks” in the US with humans riding dinosaurs, because many (maybe most) evangelicals are backwards literalists. Funny that these same people are the base of DJT’s support. I have always said, religious extremists have so much in common whether they are Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

          We have western fan boys here, who despite all evidence to the contrary, think the west has only been a benevolent father to the rest of the world. I just like to provide a bit of balance. I know people like yourself do not care to be questioned on beliefs, especially with facts contrary to your well known racism and sectarianism, but you cant have it all can you? You are like the Muslim literalists I confront and argue with when they bully the various blogs and chats they are a part of. I just dont like extremists…..this is why you and I dont get along. You are an extremist. Extreme racist, extreme sectarianism and extreme Western chauvinist. But I know your type….I grew up with a father like you. Full of hate for “the other”.

          Um….unless you know something I dont, I am still in good standing with the Catholic Church, but thank you for your concern with my soul.

  8. mcohen says:

    This is the best kind of war.The slow bleed to maximise profits from arms sales.There is no such thing as “aid” in any shape or form.It all has to be paid for.By the man in the street.

  9. Barbara Ann says:

    Just for the lols.

    Christianity has, at the forefront, the principles of faith in Christ, love, forgiveness and ever lasting life. How those principles are expressed can morph in the most superficial or outward form according to the times. Judaism, as practiced in the Middle East, does not have have those ideals at the forefront. It is basically the Old Testament – wrath, revenge, punishment, jealousy, unforgiving.. ..It is whatever a mere man (Moses), replete with clearly and obvious very mortal impulses said; not what a son of God, above all those mortal desires, revealed.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Sure. Some truth there, but in your anti-Israel zeal you have failed to note that Judaism isn’t seeking to conquer and convert the world. It just wants to conquer Israel and subdue those who attack it. Islam is expansionist to all places on the earth, by the sword if needed. That’s a big difference. LOL.

      Therefore, you and I are enemies of Islam if we resist that conquest. I could “legally” (Islamic law) be hunted down and killed for what I wrote above about Islam. Judaism isn’t going to seek to kill me for criticizing it. lol.

      There there are material differences in every day jurisprudence. Just for example, public flogging and stoning of women accused of infidelity, etc. in Islam and nothing of the sort in modern Judaism. Obviously, Judaism has adopted some modern notions after all.

      But thanks for the knee jerk “diversity is our strength” and moral equivalency sarcasm, though. It’s revealing, to say the least. Especially since it’s fairly safe to assume you’re in no hurry convert, go expat and live under Sharia.

      Also, good to know you are flippantly equating people whose national anthem is “Death to America” and, indeed, who have attacked us and will again, soon, to people who have not attacked us and won’t in the future.

      The pulpit of moral superiority can be so high that the air is too thin and the brain becomes oxygen deprived. Being a simple, drunken uncle, jar head, my retarded thinking is that if you want flog and stone women for showing a little leg or dancing to western music, you slowly saw the heads of people just because they’re Jews or Americans, you teach children to hate and kill for your stupid BS, you kill, en masse (I mean really en masse, not Hamas numbers), those with even slightly different beliefs and, especially, if you wish death on my country and attack it then F’ you, you’re my mortal enemy. If Judaism will kill some of you when you rape and murder women and children in a peace Kibbutz, then good on Judaism.

      I suppose, to your enlightened mind, I’m expressing a moronically evil brew of “toxic masculinity” and drunkenness and trailer park [lack of] culture for stating what I think should be as obvious, to anyone with a lick of common sense, as 2+2=4.

      But “intellectuals” – pseudo or actual – are not known for their ability to grasp the obvious. Yes yes I know, Genius number 735,199,274,977,431 wrote this piece that explains why what your five senses, gut and intellect tells you is real and basic to life, isn’t.

      I know, I know, “you really need to check it out, dummy”. Here’s a link. The guy has six PhDs, 37 masters degrees, speaks ten languages, fluently, 109 BS/BAs, worked for the state dept. and DHS, CIA and was a Navy SEAL after being a green beret, has had an audience with 4 Popes, 12 cracker jack imams, 47 rabis, a Tibetan guru, a Hopi medicine man, ate mushroom with a Siberian shaman, roasted some leg of lamb with Usama Bin Laden and fought with the intifada all the while dating Sofia Lauren and Beyonce, simultaneously.

      • Stefan says:


        I wont go over all of your misconceptions above. Keep in mind that in Judaism, much of what you attack Islam for, is actually part of their religion and was practiced for thousands of years. Flogging people, stoning women. Rape? Well, if you were raped your rapist could offer some silver to your father and you could take your victim as you wife. Working on the Sabbath? Death. Mixing your bloodlines with non Jews? Death. Want multiple wives? Forget the 4 wives of Islam, Judaism allows you to take as many as you want.

        Those practices only stopped when Jews no longer were in control of their homeland. It was being a conquered people that stopped these actions….because they were forced to flee into a region where most of these practices were extreme to even them. They stopped these practices, not because they wanted to or wanted to modernise, they stopped them out of fear of being wiped out if they exported these practices to their lands of exile.

        As to “to people who have not attacked us and won’t in the future.” I guess you dont remember the USS Liberty and the deliberate attack and murder of multiple US service man. Want to see if Israelis would not murder Americans again? Lets stop US aid, arms and political cover for Israel and see if they wouldnt do it again.

        I suggest you go back and read the Colonel’s comments about the US Liberty and the murder of US service men again.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          The Liberty? That’s all you got? Weak stuff. One incident, many years ago, before the US and Israel were as close as they are now. The US was listening in on Israel as they conducted operations that relied on top secret operational security. Israel has both apologized and paid reparations for the incident.

          Same goes for all your lopsided Christian history. Christianity has evolved since those sins centuries ago. I’m talking about what is going on today. In your desire to hide in a smoke screen of moral equivalency and to denigrate the west and your own culture you are forced to put a narrow lens on the distant past and ignore the current state of Islam.

Comments are closed.