Posted by Ethan Clow on September 24, 2011
Welcome to another Saturday Stub, where I take some bit of interesting something and present here for you all to enjoy and consider, at least for a little while, this is Saturday after all.
Earlier in the week I came across this story in the National Post: Name Mary’s mother, and other tests of a refugee claim.
Needless to say, this caught my eye.
So what is the story about? Basically, a refugee from China, a Mr. Mao Qin Wang, fled to Canada because he was being persecuted for his religious beliefs in China. According to the article:
“Mr. Wang, 26, says he turned to religion after his father was seriously injured in an accident and a friendly Catholic said he was praying for him. When his father improved, he started attending his friend’s underground church in 2007, he says.”
However the Chinese government shut down his church, calling it an illegal religious establishment. They soon came after him as well and so Mr. Wang decided to flee the country. After paying a smuggler $30,000 to get into Canada, he filed for refugee status saying he would face “arrest, jail and maltreatment because of his religious beliefs if returned to China.”
The next step was for Mr. Wang to prove he was Catholic enough. After all, we here in Canada can’t just open the flood gates to everyone feeling religious persecution, you need to prove that you’re really as religious as you claim. Otherwise, we could be overrun with fake Catholics. (Maybe an expert on immigration would inform me on the true danger of fake Catholics?)
Anyway, so Mr. Wang fell into the hands of Rose Andrachuk, an IRB adjudicator who previously was chairwoman of the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Andrachuk decide to quiz Wang on his knowledge of Catholic dogma to see just what sort of Catholic he was. Turns out, Wang isn’t so up to speed on the finer points of Catholicism. When asked who was Mary’s mother and who was John the Baptist’s mother, Wang was clueless. The answer is Anne and Elizabeth, DUHHHH!
To quote the article again:
“The claimant was asked whether the consecrated wafer or the bread represents the body of Jesus or whether it is the body of Jesus. The claimant responded that it represented the body of Jesus, which is incorrect,” she wrote in her IRB decision.
She continued: “The claimant was asked to tell the panel what happens at Mass from the beginning to end. The claimant listed introductory rites, liturgy of the Word, liturgy of Eucharist and conclusion rites, which is correct. The claimant was asked to explain introductory rites. He replied that it is sprinkling of water and priest’s blessing. Neither are essential parts of introductory rites.”
This guy is worse than a fake, he sounds like a Protestant!
So to summarize, Wang knew Mary was Jesus’ mom and that Jesus was baptized by the aptly named John the Baptist. But he couldn’t name of Mary and John’s mothers; Wang correctly answered questions about the rosary and the seven sacraments; he named books of the Old Testament but didn’t know what they were about; and he failed to note that 2009 was dedicated to St. Paul by the Catholic Church… that fucking heathen!
Based on all this, Andrachuk ruled that Wang was unlikely to be a real Catholic. However, Mr Wang appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Canada where it was decided that Mr. Wang was held to “an unreasonably high standard of religious knowledge.”
What’s my take in all this? Personally, I think Andrachuk was being a dick. The arrogance of this woman that she and she alone knows what makes a True Catholic, a True And Genuine Believer no less. One really has to wonder who else Andrachuk has thrown out of the country because they couldn’t meet her unreasonably high standard of Catholic Trivia Pursuit? Let’s not forget that Mr. Wang needed a translator for his quiz, and perhaps we should also consider he was from an underground church! Perhaps not the best place to learn the intricacies of Catholic mythology?
What really annoys me is the confidence that Andrachuk has that she knows the One True Faith and that she gets to sit on a high horse and dictate who measures up to her benchmark of a “true Catholic” Now I could make a comment about sexual abuse and where that fits in with who a real Catholic is but I think you all already know what I think about that.
Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: Catholic, dogma, Fake Catholics, Immigration, Mao Qin Wang, Rose Andrachuk, Saturday Stub | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Don McLenaghen on August 5, 2011
The de-contextualization of terrorism?
Okay, in part one we seem to find that to call our Norwegian a “Christian fundamentalist terrorist” is valid at least in the common understanding of the idea but let’s look at what the term Terrorism has come to mean. The term itself is a relatively new one. We have always had terrorist, but they were often referred to as political or religious terrorist with membership to a particular group. This was important because it created a ‘context’ for the act.
For example, Anarchist terrorists were understood to be an Anarchist who was a “political terrorist”…when we apply it to ‘Muslim terrorist’ we do not get that context. “Political terrorists, who were anarchist, did their terrorism for political reasons…it provided not only a description of the act but also the reason for it. Since 9/11 it has become fashionable to just label anyone who does violence and is Muslim as an ‘Islamist terrorist’ or Jihadi.
The modern term “Muslim terrorist” does not translate into ‘religious terrorist’ if it did there would not be the reticence to apply it to the IRA or our Norwegian. No, “Muslim terrorist”, in fact the term “terrorist” itself, now has the understanding as ‘Islamist terrorist…no context only a label to be applied to something we are to interpret as less than civilized…less than human; why else do we with little more than a moment’s hesitation allow those accused of terrorism (again a term that only seems to apply to those of the ‘brown’ skin) to be treated like animals by this I am referring to torture.
This de-contextualization of the term “terrorism” has allowed us to ignore the underlying cause of the act (and often such actors have legitimate grievances even if we still deplore these acts). The separation of actor and context allows us to create a scapegoat for all the ills in our society…a new link is created by this amorphous threat and the current problems in the country – “why can’t I find a job? It must be those ‘terrorist’ who are either taking my job or ruining the economy!”
This re-definition allowed us to ignore the underling context for violence and see it all as one big all-encompassing conspiracy against us…or more exactly the USA and western civilization. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of terrorist attacks by Muslims are not religious acts but political. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of ‘terrorist acts’ (traditional definition) are committed not by Islamist but the ‘traditional’ population.
But you may say that 9-11 was an attack on the west. This too was not an attack to destroy the USA but a political message intended to have the Americans remove their troops from Saudi Arabia. 7/7 and the Madrid Bombing were likewise driven not by a desire to conquer Europe but to have the ‘western forces’ withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast number of attacks on US individuals occurs in countries they are either occupying or engaged in military operations…one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
If we turn an eye to the terrorist threats that intend to ‘destroy’ or ‘fundamentally change’ Europe or the USA, we find “Jihadist” very low on the list. In fact, the USA far more groups exist on the extreme (and often racist) right than ‘Islamist’. The largest sources of ‘terror’ attacks in the US arise from three main groups – Anti-abortionist, white supremacist and sovereign citizens groups. The number of attacks since 9/11 on USA soil includes the Anthrax Mailer, Austin IRS building plane attack, almost a dozen attacks on Abortion clinics by groups like Army of God and let’s not forget the Holocaust museum attack by a neo-Nazi.
So in an odd way, our Norwegian qualifies as a terrorist in the modern context because like the imaginary enemy he hoped to attack his own actions lack a real context. He has created in his own mind this ‘conspiracy’ of ‘social Marxism’ to create a fictional state of ‘Eruabia’…in this line of thinking there is no context only dogma, ideology and sedition.
But was our terrorist a lone wolf or part of some large organization? What does his manifesto…his actions say about those who inspired him? We are often quick to point out links, when the actor is ‘brown’, to the Middle East, Islamic websites, Imams sermons and the polemics of Muslim nationalist. Yet, when that same analysis is applied to our Norwegian perpetrator, the xenophobic extreme right is quick to proclaim loudly their disavowing of the actor and apologetics for their role. Who should be held culpable for the creation of our Norwegian terrorist shall be the topic of the next chapter of discussion.
Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: 7/7, Abortion clinics, Afghanistan, anarchist, Anders Behring Breivik terrorist, Anthrax Mailer, Anti-abortionist, Army of God, Austin IRS building plane attack, Christian, de-contextualization, dogma, Eruabia, europe, fascism, fundamentalist, Holocaust museum attack, ideology, Iraq, Islam, islamofascism, Jihadi, Jihadist, Madrid Bombing, Marxism, multiculturalism, Muslim, neo-Nazi, Norway, Racism, Saudi Arabia, scapegoat, sedition, sovereign citizens, Terrorism, tolerance, white supremacist, xenophobia | 1 Comment »