Some notes:
Els Borst was minister of Health in two cabinets, from 1994 to 2002.
As demonstrated by Greta Duisenberg and others, anti-semitism has become quite de rigueur in the Netherlands.

Otherwise the text is spot on.

Anti-semitism is de rigeur in Holland? Which of course explains why Job Cohen is Mayor of Amsterdam.

Greta Duisenberg is a nut and was like the crazy aunt in the attic. She was no more capable of intelligent political discourse than Diane Keaton's character in 'Sleeper.'

The Dutch are learning the cost of their excessive tolerance. There are things like rampant criminality that just cannot be tolerated. There is no tolerance for a religious faith like Islam based solely on intolerance of everything different, that commands its followers to butcher all non-believers. The Dutch sadly needed curmudgeonly oddballs like van Gogh and Fortuyn to get killed to start to understand this.

They certainly do not need to listen to would be Torquemadas, like Fr. Jacqmin, whose only important difference from the Jihadniks is that they eat pork products and drink wine.

Bart, I would have thought that Holland was your kind of place, what with no one ever telling anyone what to do.

While there is much to agree with this article (Holland is no place where I would like to raise my kids) you should all know that the Society of St. Pius X is an heretical, schismatic sect run by Lefebvrists who reject changes in the Mass and other reforms of Vatican II. They are not true Catholics. Like Mel Gibson's dad and other fanatical right wingers, they are not part of the true Church.

Then again, maybe OJ isn't a true Catholic but one of these heretics. That would explain alot.

daniel:

Well, that post made my morning! Mr. Duffy deciding that some other folks are "not true Catholics", for among other things being "schismatic"! Wow. Seriously, I won't stop smiling for hours...

Sheesh, Daniel. Can't we all just get along? Pretty soon you'll be calling for us heretics to be burned at the stake.

b, Not me, the Catholic Church decided that SSPX were schismatic, excommunicated and damned.

(see http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/BOTHWAYS.HTM)

Members of the SSPX have been automatically excommunicated (like anyone who participates in an abortion).

(see http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/excommunication.htm)

So if OJ or yourself are adherents to this officialy schismatic sect, your souls are damned. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with the next Pope, not me.

Jeez louise, dan, lighten up a bit...You don't find it even the slightest bit amusing that you are so worked up over the SSPX, and are sure they are NOT TRUE CATHOLICS and that members are damned to hell because the Church says so, but you personally get to pick whatever sexual morality you wish, regardless of what the Church says?

Daniel is partly right - they're not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They have the same status within the church as a Protestant church.

However, in Roman Catholic eyes they may well be, along with Protestant and Orthodox churches, part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" that the Nicene Creed speaks of; they pronounce the Creed, and believe it. And no one can say for sure of another man that he is "not part of the true Church," for the true Church, which is the body of Christ, is known to God alone. It is not equivalent to those who cry "Lord, Lord" in some prescribed way.

PJ, no they have been excommunicated and cut off from the Body of Christ as suredly as anyone who participates in an abortion. That is what excommunication means. They are not the equivalents of Protestants or other adherents of the Nicene Creed.

b, I can't resist the irony of pointing out that my critics are themselves officially heretical. That made my morning.

>b, I can't resist the irony of pointing out that my critics are themselves officially heretical.

Ok, I'll bite. What (and who) the heck are you talking about? (I'm glad I made your morning, btw, as I'm still laughing at your first post...)

Randall,

I thought I made it very clear how I think the lines between what should and should not be prosecuted should be drawn. The Dutch have failed to deal with the rampant criminality that naturally flows from the importation of large numbers of barbaric Muslims.

As a matter of fact, I like Holland quite a bit but the weather is horrible.

"achieving an acceptable level of value of human life."

And this "acceptable level" exists where, Mrs Borst -- not between people's ears, surely? Then where?

Daniel - Excommunication means they're no longer in communion with the Roman Catholic church, therefore barred from receiving the Eucharist. It means no more than that. It does not mean they're evil, doomed to hell, etc. Protestants are generally barred from receiving the Eucharist too. They are "ex communio". The Church hasn't recently felt it necessary to formally publicize to the world the lack of communion between Roman Catholics and Protestants, primarily because Protestants agree that they're not in communion with the church of Rome; but if you look back to the 16th century you can find such formal notices.

The fact that people can also be excommunicated for murder or abortion doesn't mean that everyone who is excommunicated is equivalent to a murderer or an abortionist. It merely means they are not in communion with the Church. That's all.

Sorry PJ, but there are no degrees or levels of ecommunication. You can't be a little bit excommunicated anymore than you can be a little bit pregnant. Being excommuicated cuts them off from the sacraments necessary for salvation. They are as damned as any participant in an abortion.

As for the Protestants, Vatican II's declaration of religius freedom ended the nastiness of 500 years and the official stance that there was no salvation outside the Church.

Daniel - when did your critics become "officially" heretical? What officials detected and declared this heresy? The only one I've seen accuse them of heresy is you. You don't mean to anoint yourself an official enforcer of orthodoxy, do you?

daniel - Agreed there are no degrees or levels of excommunication, which is not at issue. But you proceed to contradict yourself: First paragraph, you say the Lefebvrists are doomed to damnation because they're not receiving "the sacraments necessary for salvation," i.e. the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church (for they surely are receiving the sacraments of their church); then in your second paragraph you agree with the Roman Catholic Church that salvation is possible outside the church and its sacraments.

Which is it? You need the Roman Catholic sacraments to be saved, and everyone not in communion is damned? Or you can be saved by Christ even while not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church? You acknowledge that the Church believes the latter. Which do you believe?

PJ, the rules are different for those baptized into the Catholic church.

when did your critics become "officially" heretical?

PJ, at the time I wrote that I was under the impression that OJ was a Catholic since he pretended to understand Catholic theology and presumed to judge my standing in the Church. His approval of the SSPX article would have put him in the company of excommunicated heretics.

PJ, are you a Baptist too? If so, where do you and your brother get off judging my Catholicism?

daniel:

Cardinal O'Connor, who likely grasped doctrine better than us, agreed with pj, not you:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/021724.html

daniel - (1) I am a Catholic. (2) Baptism is into the Christian church, the body of Christ. The Catholic church respects Protestant baptisms. (3) Approval of an article by a Lefebvrist is equivalent to being an excommunicated heretic? Even Torquemada was not so severe.

Respecting protestant Baptisms is not the issue, what matters is the rules for those baptized into the RCC.

Torquemada was much more severe. His inquisition would jail "Conversos" (former Jews who had been forceably coverted to Catholicism) for doing somethin as simple as nodding their heads while praying.

You may have noticed my comment at the bottom of the Cardinal O'Connor thread.

So OJ, why are you publishing with obvious approval a work by a schmatic heretic?

daniel - If we couldn't publish works by heterodox writers, we could hardly publish anything. I don't see why you think it's wrong to publish such things.

PJ, I don't think its wrong to publish such things. I think it's hypocritical for OJ to publish such things.

daniel:

Because he's right.

daniel:

Cardinal O'Connor, who likely grasped doctrine better than us, agreed with pj, not you:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/021724.html

OJ, if being right is your only criteria why not read Hitchen's criticism of JPII and Cardinal Law?

I agree with him about the Church needing to handle sex scandals better, but he's wrong about what was wrong.

Bart -- all I was saying was that you cannot have one without the other. Holland is the most liberal place on earth and they prove that by being unable to school their children and their immigrants.

By what rationale are you going to tell Muslims to conform to your own standard when all you want is to be left alone to do whatever you want? Just calling a group barbaric doesn't cut it unless you are willing to get medieval on them.

Randall,

All or nothing thinking gets you nowhere. There is something called the criminal law. When people perform criminal acts, like stabbing film directors, they should be executed. Muslims have the right to be Muslim. They do not have the right to expect the rest of society to conform to their wishes. They certainly do not have the right to use violence to compel the rest of society to conform to their wishes. You tell them when they come here that we have something called 'law' which governs how we behave towards each other, violate the 'law' and you get jailed or executed. No excuses, no 'understanding', none of this 'root cause' nonsense. And nowhere have I stated that society does not have the right to 'get medieval' on them. When it comes to 'getting medieval' with barbarians, I'm Marcellus Wallace with hair. America did it for about 2 centuries, 3 1/2 if you want to count the Colonial period and it has worked damn well.

The best way to deal with it is however pre-emption. Societies, especially affluent ones like Holland, have the right to pick and choose among immigrants which one they want and which ones they don't want. If people practice a religious faith which believes in conversion by the sword, then a nation has the right to exclude such people en masse. It is not racism to do so, merely self-preservation. Why import trouble? Had Holland imported a million Chinese, or a million Ukrainians, or, for that matter, a million Mexicans, would they be having the kinds of problems they are?

The right but not the capacity. Dying nations need workers.

but he's wrong about what was wrong.

Well maybe this commentator has it right:

Under John Paul II (and his predecessors), the Roman Catholic church presided over the r ape and molestation of thousands of children and teenagers. Under John Paul II, the church at first did all it could to protect its own and to impugn and threaten the victims of this abuse. Rome never acknowledged, let alone take responsibility for, the scale of the moral betrayal. I was staggered to see Cardinal Bernard Law holding press conferences in Rome this week, and appearing on television next to the man who announced the Pope's death. But that was the central reaction of the late Pope to this scandal: he sided with the perpetrators, because they were integral to his maintenance of power. When you hear about this Pope's compassion, his concern for the victims of society, his love of children, it's important to recall that when it came to walking the walk in his own life and with his own responsibility, he walked away. He all but ignored his church's violation of the most basic morality - that you don't use the prestige of the church to r ape innocent children. Here was a man who lectured American married couples that they could not take the pill, who told committed gay couples that they were part of an "ideology of evil," but acquiesced and covered up the rape of minors. When truth met power, John Paul II chose truth. When truth met his power, John Paul II defended his own prerogatives at the expense of the innocent. Many have forgotten. That's not an option for the victims of this clerical criminality.

JPII's and the Vatican's response to the pedophilia scandals can only be described as intrinsictly evil. Cardinal Law should be rotting in jail, not enjoying a cozy sinecure. This goes a long way to destroying JPII's credibility as a moral leader.

Institutions that deal with children are at risk of attracting adults bent on getting at children. The Church has done a better job than other institutions (like the American public school system), but not good enough. It needs to screen gay men out, not accept thekm into the priesthood. His successors do need to do better than he did.

Non sequeter OJ.

The issue is JPII's participation in the cover up of these acts and his protection of the perps (and his rewarding of Cardinal Law for doing the same).

It should be covered up rather than let it damage the institution.

It should be covered up rather than let it damage the institution.

Remember these words for when you stand in judgement before God.

If only that were the worst of my sins.

oj,

There is no shortage of guestworkers from decent places willing to go to Holland. If they put up ads in the Philipines, Thailand, Ghana, Romania and the Ukraine, let alone India, they'd have more than enough decent, hardworking people willing to adapt to the national culture to do whatever work needed to be done. If my neighborhood is any indication, if I stood outside the Dutch embassy to Manila with travel permits and free Tagalog-Dutch phrase books, I'd have a million guest workers signed up in about a week, and that's with allowing me to take afternoons off to cruise the fleshpots. And they'd leave all of Latin America's excess labor supply free to come here to contribute and assimilate.

Let the Jihadniks stay home, eating sand and drinking camel urine.

bart:

The point is they aren't willing to spend what it would take to get the immigrants you want. You take who shows.

Matthew

18-5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me;

18-6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

OJ,

That calculus is not immutable as Israeli behavior in the last few years has shown. The Australian PM gained seats because he ended the Muslim 'asylum seeker' problem. Even Canada is adopting a point system for immigrants analogous to New Zealand and Australia. Now that the Dutch are seeing the cost of keeping Muslims around, they will solve the problem real fast. They need the workers, but there is no reason to take anyone who shows up at the port of Marseille and can mug enough Frenchies to afford a train ticket.

Watch them stop renewing work visas and start rounding up the laggards and sending them home. Holland is a civil code society, there ain't no common law tradition of due process to worry about should the need for expeditious action arise.

bart:

Yeah, easy to see European nations spending as much on security and militarizing their countries as much as Israel, huh?

daniel:

Is that a mea culpa for advocating sodomy?

You're a liar OJ.

I have never advocated sodomy. Not having a sick and twisted desire to kill gays out of the need for revenge for the trauma of being buggered in college is not advocacy.

Your lack of reading comprehension (which I've noted before) apparently extends to the Gospels. The passage refers to pedophilia OJ which can be either hetro or homosexual. Gay sex between adults would not be harming children.

Apparently while you hate gays, you seem to have no problem with pedophiles as it its far more important to you to protect the Church than to protect children.

You're a deeply disturbed and sick liitle man OJ and in serious need of help.

It doesn't require much militarization, just beefing up the gendarmerie a bit. It's not like you can't spot the Muslims in the general Dutch population. And again it's not like anyone in Holland has due process should the government decide not to grant it.

Australia and New Zealand tightened up. Israel put up a fence and signs up guest workers in Thailand, Romania and Ghana, inter alia. Holland is a small country, the border isn't that long.

Yes, if Holland flooded and became an island they'd have a better shot.

daniel:

It's not complicated. If you defend homosexuality you're endorsing sodomy and pedophilia. though you're right, now, to be disgusted by the implications of your own advocacy. Wanna borrow a stone?

Where have I defended or advocated homosexuality? Please provide a quote and reference.

Recognizing they were born that way is in no way an "endorsement."

That is a matter for your God--take it up with Him.

Jeff:

God Created them--they chose homosexuality. He told them not to. Bad choices have consequences.

Jeff:

Telling people it's not their choice is endorsing it and abetting their deaths.

Jeff,

What OJ will do is ignore embarassing questions he can't answer (here and on the "mustard seed" thread), deliberately misrepresent statements made by others, lie through his teeth, and if all else fails simply expunge the archives to remove statements that would embarass his family or get this blog labelled a hate site.

OJ,

I've come to the conclusion that the rest of the blogoshpere needs to know the real you. With your permission, I'd like to contact as many bloggers all across the spectrum from Glenn Reynolds to Andrew Sullivan to the editors of "Arts and Letters Daily" and inform them of these recent discussions. I'd like the rest of the internet to know about how you want to kill Gays.

And as a follow up, if you have any speaking engagements or public appearances, please let me know so I can also inform the organizers of these events before hand so you receive a proper greeting. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not quite sure how to go about notifying the FBI that this is a potential hate site that advocates murder, so we'll let that one go.

It won't be any trouble at all.

Sure. Rick Perlstein entered my Ambush at Fort Bragg review in a contest for the most vicious thing ever said by someone who InstaPundit links to.

I'm not sure why you think anyone would care.

Before we begin, let me make my views clear so that anyone who might be offended can skip this one. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, even that it is evil. I believe that it should be illegal and that you should be able to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual preferences. However, I do not think that the laws should be enforced except in the most egregious circumstances, i.e. the authorities should feel free to raid bath houses or park bathrooms, or the like. In short, if folks want to engage in this activity behind closed doors, there is no pressing societal need to interfere with them. But where their personal behavior impacts others or the society in general, it is perfectly acceptable to me that government place rational limits on their behavior. Which brings us to our review

The above statement is practically a live and let live philosophy (so long as they don't "do it on the street and scare the horses"). So why have your views evolved into actively wanting to kill Gays?

It hasn't. It's the same view. Homosexuality is evil. Homosexuality in private is no one's business. Public homosexuality is a public concern and society is entitled to insists that gays conform their behavior to social norms. Failure to do so should be punished--or at least not rewarded. Whatever punishment we decide on as a society is fine by me.

OJ,

What is 'public homosexuality?' Is it merely engaging in homosexual sexual behavior in public? If so, it should be punished as should heterosexual sexual behavior in public. That's an easy one.

However, your wording is so broad that it leaves a lot of room for real injustice. Is 'public homosexuality' the advocacy of 'equal rights for gays?' Is it when the Metropolitan Community Church or the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue consecrate a gay marriage? Is it an episode of 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'(admittedly a repellent idea for a repellent show)? Is it about half the crap on Broadway like 'Rent' or 'Urinetown?' Is it a watering hole that puts a pink triangle in the front window so people know it's a gay bar?

When you want to talk about statutory law, it is really best to be precise about what you mean. Especially, when you at least imply that the behavior you wish to outlaw should be subject to capital punishment. There shouldn't be any ambiguity about what we fricasse people for.

bart:

Yes, acknowledgemnent of, advocacy for, etc.

Society of St Pius X is not heretical neither schismatic neither excommunicated. Proof of this is that 4 cardinals (former Cal Ratzinger inclusive) and 5 doctor of Canonical law stated they are not. Least you can say is that there is a discussion about the excommunication. Now : canonical law states that whenever there is discussion about punishments, they are void.