If we were to encounter, contra factum, a putatively Christian tendency that sought to impose religious conversion by mass murder, I'm pretty sure we all know with certainty what the response of every Christian communion would be. It would be universally condemned and combatted.

Past acts of forced Christian conversions are aberrations, and are condemned by Christians. That is not true of Islam.

Satan is as (un)subtle as he needs to be in the circumstances confronting him.

Is it sinful to feel, and indulge in, a frisson of satisfaction at this point?

I liked Romney. I would have voted for him if I'd been eligible to vote. At the same time, he did not strike me as a natural conservative. It was often said that he 'speaks conservative' as a second or foreign language. I think that joke contained much truth. I thought he was more of a pro-business Republican than a conservative. In the end, I think that was a view millions of others formed, and that did him in.

Conservatism is for everybody, but most especially for anyone who wants a real shot of improving their own life and the lives of their families and communities. The struggling worker, the small businessman, and most especially the underclass, need conservatism much more than Apple, Exxon, et al.

Interesting. I have always thought of Islam more as a heresy of Judaism.

Nice rhetorical (I think) question. No human being is 'intrinsically' superior to any other. What makes us better or worse are the choices we make in the exercise of our free will. Therefore, Christians are not intrinsically superior to Muslims and Catholics are not intrinsically superior to Presbyterians, and vice versa.

An Islamist is a person who has made a choice to impose a (false) religion on his fellow men by violence, or to kill them if they reject the imposition. Because of that choice, the Islamist is morally deeply flawed, and therefore morally (but not 'intrinsically') inferior. Even an Islamist may repent of his choice.

Thanks. I needed that.

I see on the world news every night, usually in the context of an explosion, at least two of the following combinations: Islamists v Christians, Islamists v Jews, Islamists v Buddhists, Islamists v Hindus, Islamists v Secularists, Islamists v whoever-is-standing-nearby, Islamists v Muslims. Clearly, not enough is being done to satisfy the reasonable grievances of the 'religion of peace'. 

Wealth and fame appear to have disintegrated him. Pretty sad. He seemed like a nice kid a few years back.

I want this book in audio form so that I can download it from Audible. I want, I want, I want [stamps feet, holds breath, starts to turn blue].

Less heat, more light, please.

JP2 was not a leftist or a social democrat. He was a Catholic. He recognised that the sources of failure and injustice lay in man, not in systems as such. But he also recognised that collectivist political and economic systems always magnify man's folly.

His focus on the teaching of subsidiarity, and the individual's inherent freedom, were important shifts in emphasis in the Church's social teaching.

Does Francis say anything about Chile (his patria's neighbour) and its experience in rebuilding a prosperous and more just society mainly through market mechanisms and the rule of law?

Retaining base support is not sufficient for victory, but it is necessary for victory.  The Tories in the UK are now re-learning this lesson the hard way after trying to reposition themselves as the party of gay marriage, wind power and the European Union; the UK's rough-equivalent of the Tea Party (UKIP) recently scored more than 20% of the vote in local elections, mostly at the expense of the Tories.

The strategic goal must not be to move the party's ground to the centre, but to move the centre to the party's ground. The latter goal is harder, but the only one worth achieving. Obama, Reagan and Thatcher all knew that.

In the 20th century - 1. Reagan, 2. Coolidge.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tell us the contents of your prayers!