Pope Francis canonized new saints today: two nuns --zzzzzz-- and 800 men who were slaughtered by the invading Muslims in 1480 at Otranto, on the heel of Italy's boot. After sacking the town and murdering the upper classes and the bishop, they rounded up the men remaining alive and "invited" them to accept Islam. (This is the Muslim technical term. If the invitation is refused, you are fair game as a "disbeliever.") The men were led by the town shoemaker, who said they'd "rather die a thousand times than become Turks." They were beheaded or sawed in half, one by one. Their bones and shrine:
In his homily, and in the official document, we hear about the "Ottomans" as the perpetrators, but no direct mention of either the words Islam or Muslim. And the Pope said over 800 "people" died (persone). They were 800 men, not politically correct "people". Francis made a generic reference to Christians suffering "violence" today.
He was much more effusive and detailed about the do-gooder nuns. That's apparently his thing.
Pussy.
3 comments:
At least they were canonized. Francis probably didn't want to say anything about Muslims after the firestorm over BXVI's comments.
A very rattling shrine. Martyrdom is almost always spoken of nowadays as an abstraction, something you should be prepared for, but probably never required to do. A wall of skeletons hammers the reality home: you could die for your beliefs. Let us hope that shrines like this will not become more common in the future.
-Sean
"And the Pope said over 800 "people" died (persone). They were 800 men, not politically correct "people". "
A thing which not only obscures that is is specifically the male sex that would be slaughtered but also the fate of the female -- and what did happen here? Thru history so often mujihadin have taken women as forced concubines...
--Nathan
And don't forget the janissaries. Christian children taken from their homes by Ottomans to be trained as civil servants and soldiers The practice was so dreaded that Christian couples would actually maim and cripple their children to stop the Ottomans from conscripting them.
In other news, I have happened across a Tumblr called "WriterBear's ManCave," a NSFW blog that features masculine men in various states of undress, usually with other equally masculine men in very... appealing positions. It's a rather nice blog, Ex, you may want to give it a look. However, it quickly became evident as I trolled the archive that the author is a liberal atheist who feels it necessary to occasionally take a swipe at Christians. He reblogged a quote by some gay playwright I've never heard of wondering how "moderate" Republicans could live with themselves voting for Romney when their concern with tax refunds was lessening somebody else's civil rights.
Where do I start? First, I'm here for the hot guys, dude, not political pontificating. Second, God I resent fundamentalist Christians; liberals don't need to make Christian strawmen when they are already walking around. Third, maybe the reason many people, gays included, voted for Romney is because they decided that the country's stability was more important that their own personal agenda.
Don't get me wrong. I want legal recognition of whatever relationship I end up with. I don't want to get thrown out of my adelphos' medical room by his family, or vice versa. But honestly, all this crap for 2-5% of the population, which isn't experiencing anything close to the suffering of other groups in the country's history? Color me unsympathetic.
-Sean
Post a Comment