You may recall that last year some Mohammedan jihadis attacked the city of Bombay (I refuse to call it “Mumbai,” a name apparently derived from that of a Hindu goddess). The jihadis murdered various people, including a rabbi. They murdered him precisely because he was a Jew, which to them probably meant Zionist supporter of Israel (for the sake of my argument, the quite real distinction between “Jew” and “Zionist” is not relevant). I was reminded of this crime recently when I watched the movie “Slumdog Millionaire.” The film is set in Bombay and was actually shot at some of the locations the jihadis later assaulted. *SPOILER ALERT* The movie shows a riot in which Hindus attacked and massacred Mohammedans in the city, an event that actually did happen and which may partially explain why the jihadis attacked that city in particular. The main character of the movie, a Moslem whose mother was murdered in the Hindu attack, says that Allah and Rama (a Hindu god) killed his mother. I write all of this is by way of background to two questions:
1) If these people (Hindus, Jews, Moslems) died for their non-Christian beliefs, did they die in vain?
2.) If they were wrong to choose death in the name of their non-Christian beliefs, by what right would we defend them against violence?
My conclusion is that the standard cliche “I may disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it” is one of the most perverted principles the American ideology of freedom of speech, religion, etc., imposes on us. Continue reading


St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,