Religion Isn't The Sickness. It's The Cure Of Moral Failure Of Modernism
Sound of Trumpet
Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
moral failure of modernism
timesonline.co.uk ^ | February 26, 2007 | Wlliam Rees-Mogg
Posted on 03/22/2007 8:44:07 AM PDT by Longinus
>From The Times
February 26, 2007
Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure
Our correspondent on the moral failure of modernism
Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery. In
his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: "As many of you that have
been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor
female. We were all one in Jesus Christ." Undoubtedly Christians have
compromised with slavery - as with other social evils - in the course
of history, but the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and
equality.
The Christian belief was the inspiration in William Wilberforce's long
campaign to end the slave trade. His Bill received the Royal Assent on
March 25, 1807, 200 years ago. That was the most important of all the
great reforms of the 19th century; essentially it was a Christian
reform, inspired by the Protestant conversion of Wilberforce himself.
March 25 was the old New Year's Day; it is also the feast of the
Annunciation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something
approaching panic. It is like the Devil's attitude to Holy Water.
There was a comic example of Christianophobia in The Sunday Times
yesterday. Michael Portillo, who used himself to be seen in Brompton
Oratory, was hyperventilating at the idea of David Cameron going to
church. "I worry," he wrote, "because men of power who take
instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics . . . I would
be more reassured to hear that the Tory leader goes to church because
that is what it takes to get a child into the best of state schools,
not because he is a believer."
Perhaps this neurotic response to Mr Cameron's habit of going to
church reflects Mr Portillo's recognition that religion is again
becoming an important influence on society. Many of the current news
stories show that religion is back in public consciousness; for those
who feel uneasy about religion, that is unwelcome.
Islam is, of course, the alarming religious issue that will not go
away. In the 20th century the world failed to adjust to two major
belief systems, nationalism and Marxism. Now we face a similar global
challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in
India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America
and modernism in the whole advanced world. We certainly cannot say
that all religious influences are benign; al-Qaeda is a religious
cult, but a perverted one.
Religion turned William Wilberforce into a Protestant saint, but
Wahhabism has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil.
The rise of militant Islam in the 21st century is, however, part of a
much broader phenomenon. In the United States there has been the
extraordinary resurgence of fundamentalist Protestantism, sufficiently
strong to win two presidential elections for the Republican Party. In
Britain, an inflow of Catholics from Eastern Europe, particularly
Poland, has revitalised the Roman Catholic Church, which now has the
largest Christian congregation in the country. The worldwide Church of
England has been divided by a battle of moral convictions. All of
these religious movements challenge modernism, that popular mix of
materialism, scientism and political correctness that had seemed to be
carrying all before it.
The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science,
and particularly of neo-Darwinism. Yet science was open to the same
challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world. The
scientists, or some of them, sneered at religion for being unable to
explain the developments of nature. Yet science itself was unable to
produce a science-based morality for society. Marxism attempted to
create a scientific social order that ended in monstrous and
bloodthirsty tyranny. Social Darwinism either meant eugenics and the
slaughter of babies who were not thought fit to survive, or it meant
nothing. The Social Darwinism of George Bernard Shaw, or indeed that
of Adolf Hitler, has been rejected by mankind.
The world needs religion to address the moral issues. In the advanced
societies it is these moral issues that now mock us. Europe and North
America are hugely wealthy regions, but they are morally impoverished.
Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children
and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-
city slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society
in decline. Societies can be judged by their care for children. Social
education must start in the family and must have a moral basis.
Children need to be taught to distinguish between right and wrong. A
recent report by Unicef showed Britain as 21st out of 21 advanced
countries in the welfare of children; our national failure is a shame
and a disgrace.
In 19th century England, the revival of Christianity provided the
basis for a century of social reform. The religious revival spread
across all the Christian churches; in the Church of England there was
the Evangelical movement as well as the High Church movement. The
Roman Catholic Church attracted thousands of new converts. The
Methodists and other Nonconformists devoted themselves to the welfare
of the poor and the working class. The Salvation Army took its
trumpets into the pubs and slums and offered a new hope.
The 19th century was an age of social reform based on religious
revival and the Christian faith. The 20th century was an age of
religious decline and of accelerating decline in social cohesion as
well as in faith. "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey/ When
wealth accumulates and men decay."
These are lines from Oliver Goldsmith's moving poem, The Deserted
Village in the 18th century. If they seem to apply to our modern
societies, religion is not the problem; it is the only possible remedy.
Ray Fischer
>Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
>moral failure of modernism
This message sponsored by your friendly chapter of the Taliban.
>Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
>From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
That's a complete lie, of course.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
raven1
<sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>timesonline.co.uk ^ | February 26, 2007 | Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
>
>Posted on 03/22/2007 8:44:07 AM PDT by Longinus
>
>
>>From The Times
>
>February 26, 2007
>
>Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure
>Our correspondent on the moral failure of modernism
>
>Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
>>From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
Horseshit. Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery; and in several
places it not only enjoins it, but states how it is to be practiced.
Before you start nattering on about cultural mores of the time, bear
in mind that such things as adultery and fornication were no less
popular then than they are now, yet the authors of the Bible had no
difficulty in issuing a blanket condemnation of them; apparently
slavery is somehow less offensive or sinful.
> In
>his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: "As many of you that have
>been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
>Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor
>female.
From the same person who enjoined wives to be submissive unto their
husbands, and forbade women to teach or hold positions of authority...
>We were all one in Jesus Christ." Undoubtedly Christians have
>compromised with slavery
Excuse me, you dishonest sack of shit? "Compromised"??? Paul himself,
whom you cite just above, also enjoined "slaves, be submissive unto
your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). Where the fuck is the "compromise"
there? Paul doesn't just fail to condemn slavery, he orders slaves to
submit to it. "From the earliest days, Christianity has been opposed
to slavery?" Not fucking likely.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
anima...@yahoo.com
> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>
> >Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
> >moral failure of modernism
>
> This message sponsored by your friendly chapter of the Taliban.
>
> >Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
>
> That's a complete lie, of course.
Standard operating procedure for the Religious Right.
Roger
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote in message
news:1175432819.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Doc Smartass
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805007/posts
>
>
> Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
> moral failure of modernism
>
>
> timesonline.co.uk ^ | February 26, 2007 | Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
>
> Posted on 03/22/2007 8:44:07 AM PDT by Longinus
>
>
>>From The Times
>
> February 26, 2007
>
> Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure
> Our correspondent on the moral failure of modernism
>
> Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>
>>From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
Opposed to christains being enslaved, he means. Everyone else was fair
game.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds fuck sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
johac
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805007/posts
>
>
> Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
> moral failure of modernism
So we should all begin the backwards march to the Middle Ages?
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Al Klein
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On 1 Apr 2007 06:06:59 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
><sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>> In
>>his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: "As many of you that have
>>been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
>>Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor
>>female.
>From the same person who enjoined wives to be submissive unto their
>husbands, and forbade women to teach or hold positions of authority...
He was an early Bush - his message was tailored to his audience, even
if every message flat-out contradicted every other one, or they
flat-out contradicted reality. Remember, "if God commands that black
is white, who are we to question?"
wf3h
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805007/posts
> >
> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery. In
> his Letter to the Galatians, St Paul wrote: "As many of you that have
> been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor
> Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor
> female. We were all one in Jesus Christ."
jesus h. christ...what a distortion. that's like saying there are no
men or women, either.
the fact is, paul loved slavery. in ephesians he stated that slaves
should obey their masters. in philemon, he actually sent an escaped
slave back to his owner.
it took 19 centuries for xtians to discover slavery was wrong. this
type of distortion is racist at its core...whitewashing bloody xtian
history...
Undoubtedly Christians have
> compromised with slavery - as with other social evils - in the course
> of history, but the orthodox Christian doctrine is one of liberty and
> equality.
meaningless assertion...
>
> The Christian belief was the inspiration in William Wilberforce's long
> campaign to end the slave trade.
except william wilberforce did not rely on the bible to end slavery
because he knew full well it supported slavery. he argued against
TORTURE and said that slavery was worse than torture, so it must also
be wrong.
His Bill received the Royal Assent on
> March 25, 1807, 200 years ago. That was the most important of all the
> great reforms of the 19th century
hmmm...the 19th century...and what happened before that?
> >
> Islam is, of course, the alarming religious issue that will not go
> away
ah...isn't religion wonderful?
. In the 20th century the world failed to adjust to two major
> belief systems, nationalism and Marxism Now we face a similar global
> challenge from Islam, which opposes Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in
> India, Buddhism in South East Asia, Christianity in Europe and America
> and modernism in the whole advanced world. We certainly cannot say
> that all religious influences are benign; al-Qaeda is a religious
> cult, but a perverted one.
xtianity had its violent phase...centuries of war...expelling jews
from every country in europe at one time or another starting with the
'st. hugh' incident in 1255 and continuing to the genocide against
jews in 1941...
>
> Religion turned William Wilberforce into a Protestant saint, but
> Wahhabism has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil.
> >
> The modernist attack on religion was based on the victory of science,
> and particularly of neo-Darwinism.
meaningless assertion. science is science. no one cares who bases what
ideology on science in general or evolution in particular. if religion
is wrong, then it's wrong.
Yet science was open to the same
> challenge as religion; it could explain only half the world.
and science, unlike religion, never claimed otherwise. science never
claimed to be moral, or metaphysical or meaningful. it merely explains
the natural world, period.
The
> scientists, or some of them, sneered at religion for being unable to
> explain the developments of nature.
actually religious leaders screamed that it was THEY who could explain
the natural world, from geocentrism to creationism...wrong at every
turn.
Yet science itself was unable to
> produce a science-based morality for society.
BINGO!!! science never claimed otherwise. it's religious fanatics
trying to destroy science and replace it religion (again) who make the
claim that science should be 'moral'
Marxism attempted to
> create a scientific social order that ended in monstrous and
> bloodthirsty tyranny. Social Darwinism either meant eugenics
gee..for 19 centuries xtians supported slavery. xtians murdered
2,000,000 africans in the slave trade and enslaved millions more...
it took the bloodiest war to end the curse of slavery in christian
america.
>
> The world needs religion to address the moral issues
that would be nice, if it ever worked. religion had from the 5th
century to the 18th to be in complete control of govts in europe. it
lead to war after war, massacre after massacre...only secular law, not
religion, protects human rights.
. In the advanced
> societies it is these moral issues that now mock us. Europe and North
> America are hugely wealthy regions, but they are morally impoverished.
??? OK i give up. when has society NOT been so?
> Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children
> and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism,
and when religion ruled europe we had inquisitions, antisemitism,
racism, slavery, feudalism, etc...
the inner-
> city slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society
> in decline. Societies can be judged by their care for children.
i live in texas...one of the most right wing christian states in the
US...guess which states have the highest divorce rates, abortion
rates, etc?
right wing christian states...
> >
> These are lines from Oliver Goldsmith's moving poem, The Deserted
> Village in the 18th century. If they seem to apply to our modern
> societies, religion is not the problem; it is the only possible remedy.
religion had its chance. for 14 centuries it was the only game in
town. and it led to ignorance, war and savagery...
only secular law protects human rights.
Roy Jose Lorr
Roger
news:jhachmann-677DF...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <1175432819.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805007/posts
>>
>>
>> Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
>> moral failure of modernism
>
> So we should all begin the backwards march to the Middle Ages?
Some want nothing else.
Then they want the world to end.
Dan Clore
>> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
>
> Opposed to christains being enslaved, he means. Everyone else was fair
> game.
Actually, before racism, the primary justification for slavery was to
convert the slaves to Christianity and save their souls from eternal
hellfire.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
*Anarcissie*
> Doc Smartass wrote:
> >> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
>
> > Opposed to christains being enslaved, he means. Everyone else was fair
> > game.
>
> Actually, before racism, the primary justification for slavery was to
> convert the slaves to Christianity and save their souls from eternal
> hellfire.
This was also given as the reason for imperialism and genocide
in the "New World".
brique
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:57bpgoF...@mid.individual.net...
> Doc Smartass wrote:
>
> >> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
> >
> > Opposed to christains being enslaved, he means. Everyone else was fair
> > game.
>
> Actually, before racism, the primary justification for slavery was to
> convert the slaves to Christianity and save their souls from eternal
> hellfire.
Only after the long theological debate as to whether blacks _had_ souls or
not.....
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Al Klein
wrote:
>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
Bush is a rightist, not a leftist.
hhya...@gmail.com
wrote:
Who are you to judge"That Christians are not evil...."?
1). Christian started the Crusade and slaughtered innocent non-
believers....may I suggest you may be one of the descendent of the
killed...
2). Christian enslave the Africans........and yet I pity all the Afro-
Americans who turned Christian....
3). Christians killed all the Red Indians in North and South America
to take their home lands........
4). You know how many territory that Christians took with
force.....America, Australia, New Zealand, Falken Island, Guam,
Gilbralter, Hong Kong, etc etc
5). Now the US is taking Afghanistan, Iraq....for their oil
6). Next.........it will happen
Yap
johac
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "johac" <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jhachmann-677DF...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <1175432819.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805007/posts
> >>
> >>
> >> Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
> >> moral failure of modernism
> >
> > So we should all begin the backwards march to the Middle Ages?
>
> Some want nothing else.
>
> Then they want the world to end.
They want the 'Rapture' sooner than later.
Roy Jose Lorr
Which has nothing to do with the veracity of my statement.
Incidentally, Bush is a monarchist working for a return to
feudalism.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Al Klein wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:32:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>
>>
>> Bush is a rightist, not a leftist.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the veracity of my statement.
Nothing at all, save for the fact that it's completely wrong.
Roy Jose Lorr
Perhaps you'd care to expand on that fallacious notion.
Wombat
Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
Wombat
Roy Jose Lorr
The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
New Age, New World, One World Order. That feudal Order is
slave based. The Left has never given up supporting the
communist slave state that was the Soviet Union. They are
trying to reinstate it throughout the West and wherever else
they can reach.
Mike
>
> >>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>
> > Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>
> The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
> New Age, New World, One World Order. That feudal Order is
> slave based. The Left has never given up supporting the
> communist slave state that was the Soviet Union. They are
> trying to reinstate it throughout the West and wherever else
> they can reach.
Dude, the cold war is over and the good guys won. No question the
lunatic end of the left are nuts, but they are not "supporting the
communist slave state that was the Soviet Union" or "trying to
reinstate it". You are just using the tired old debating tactic of
enlarging your opponent's target so as to make him more ridiculous.
If you dislike the far left, you can find plenty of honest grounds to
criticize them without resorting to caricature.
Scotius
wrote:
William Pierce, the neo nazi leader of the National Alliance,
said that he blamed the Christian churches for America's acceptance of
ideas of racial equality, etc. I guess if you want to cherry pick from
history, you can look at what the Vatican (NOT representative of
Christianity) has done around the World and blame it on Christianity,
but that's so shallow that only the massively ignorant could ever
accept it.
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Apr 3, 2:43 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>
>>>Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>>
>>The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
>>New Age, New World, One World Order. That feudal Order is
>>slave based. The Left has never given up supporting the
>>communist slave state that was the Soviet Union. They are
>>trying to reinstate it throughout the West and wherever else
>>they can reach.
>
>
> Dude, the cold war is over and the good guys won.
Who are the 'good guys'. why are they "good" and what have
they "won"?
No question the
> lunatic end of the left are nuts, but they are not "supporting the
> communist slave state that was the Soviet Union" or "trying to
> reinstate it".
Ignorance is bliss.
You are just using the tired old debating tactic of
> enlarging your opponent's target so as to make him more ridiculous.
Describe the target you think I'm enlarging?
> If you dislike the far left, you can find plenty of honest grounds to
> criticize them without resorting to caricature.
Politics without "caricature" is a vacant concept.
Hatter
> On 2 Apr 2007 05:16:29 -0700, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
Except until Luther "the Vatican" and Christianity were....the same.
Or are we to overlook those first 1500 years?
Hatter
Hatter
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lets look at the definition:
lib·er·al·ism (lĭb'ər-ə-lĭz'əm, lĭb'rə-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
When there was slavery in the US it was a liberal policy to oppose it
So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
When there is the abusive attempting to imprison individual, it is
lieberal to oppose it
So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
When there is a danger to civil liberties, it is a liberal policy to
oppose it
So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
Hatter
Hatter
> Politics without "caricature" is a vacant concept.- Hide quoted text -
>
No, it is a reasonable concept...a non-dogmatic one.
Hatter
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Dude, the cold war is over and the good guys won.
>
> Who are the 'good guys'. why are they "good" and what have
> they "won"?
We are. The free world used to be locked into a conflict with a
seemingly equally formidable enemy armed with nukes that was trying to
spread communism all over the world. Now Russia mostly minds its own
affairs.
> No question the
>
> > lunatic end of the left are nuts, but they are not "supporting the
> > communist slave state that was the Soviet Union" or "trying to
> > reinstate it".
>
> Ignorance is bliss.
I guess if you googled around you could find a citation to some
leftist idiot's website in which you could substantiate that claim,
But show me a quote from any "mainstream" leftie that can be
reasonably be interpreted as "supporting a communist slave state and
trying to reinstate it".
> You are just using the tired old debating tactic of
>
> > enlarging your opponent's target so as to make him more ridiculous.
>
> Describe the target you think I'm enlarging?
> > If you dislike the far left, you can find plenty of honest grounds to
> > criticize them without resorting to caricature.
>
> Politics without "caricature" is a vacant concept.
Perhaps. But there is a difference between a mild caricature and
simply misrepresenting peoples views.
Wombat
> Wombatwrote:
Please give more details of this Highgate plot, as we appear to be
living on separate worlds. Documentary evidence would be welcome.
Wombat
Wombat
> On 2 Apr 2007 05:16:29 -0700, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 2, 3:26 am, Dan Clore <c...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Doc Smartass wrote:
> >> >> >From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
>
> >> > Opposed to christains being enslaved, he means. Everyone else was fair
> >> > game.
>
> >> Actually, before racism, the primary justification for slavery was to
> >> convert the slaves to Christianity and save their souls from eternal
> >> hellfire.
>
> >This was also given as the reason for imperialism and genocide
> >in the "New World".
>
> William Pierce, the neo nazi leader of the National Alliance,
> said that he blamed the Christian churches for America's acceptance of
> ideas of racial equality, etc. I guess if you want to cherry pick from
> history, you can look at what the Vatican (NOT representative of
> Christianity)
Why the qualifier - just curious?
Wombat
Wombat
Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churces might disagree.
Wombat
Wombat
Whoops - Churches
Al Klein
wrote:
If the right supports slavery in the here and now, and the left
opposes slavery in the here and now, which are both true, your
statement is completely wrong.
Would you like me to explain what each of the words mean, or will you
be attempting to look them up for yourself?
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Apr 1, 10:32 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>animamin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 1, 1:36 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>>Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Religion isn't the sickness. It's the cure: ur correspondent on the
>>>>>moral failure of modernism
>>
>>>>This message sponsored by your friendly chapter of the Taliban.
>>
>>>>>Wlliam Rees-Mogg
>>
>>>>>From the earliest days Christianity has been opposed to slavery.
>>
>>>>That's a complete lie, of course.
>>
>>>Standard operating procedure for the Religious Right.
>>
>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
> Lets look at the definition:
>
> lib·er·al·ism (lĭb'ər-ə-lĭz'əm, lĭb'rə-)
> n.
> The state or quality of being liberal.
>
> A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
> from arbitrary authority.
> often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.>
> So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
The above definition is the antithesis of the Left's true
nature: the need to rule by tyranny.
>
> When there was slavery in the US it was a liberal policy to oppose it
Sorry dearheart but the impetus to oppose slavery came from
the religionists. The Godless couldn't care less about the
plight of slaves. All that concerned them was stealing the
economic means that supported the South.
>
> So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
You need a few lessons in the history of the Civil War
taught by scholars who are not leftist revisionists.
>
>
> When there is the abusive attempting to imprison individual, it is
> lieberal to oppose it
Bull. The prison system and the system that feeds it
prisoners is a liberal concoction.
>
> So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
So you pray.
>
> When there is a danger to civil liberties, it is a liberal policy to
> oppose it
Which civil liberties are in danger?
>
> So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
So you pray.
Roy Jose Lorr
Give an example of politics without "caricature"?
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Apr 3, 3:28 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dude, the cold war is over and the good guys won.
>>
>>Who are the 'good guys'. why are they "good" and what have
>>they "won"?
>
>
> We are. The free world used to be locked into a conflict with a
> seemingly equally formidable enemy armed with nukes that was trying to
> spread communism all over the world. Now Russia mostly minds its own
> affairs.
I see that keeping up with current events is not your forte.
>
>
>> No question the
>>
>>
>>>lunatic end of the left are nuts, but they are not "supporting the
>>>communist slave state that was the Soviet Union" or "trying to
>>>reinstate it".
>>
>>Ignorance is bliss.
>
>
> I guess if you googled around you could find a citation to some
> leftist idiot's website in which you could substantiate that claim,
> But show me a quote from any "mainstream" leftie that can be
> reasonably be interpreted as "supporting a communist slave state and
> trying to reinstate it".
The Left has come up with many metaphors that disguise their
communist agenda. Google "Fabian Socialism" for their
secular perspective and for their religious agenda I suggest
googling the "Humanist Manifesto".
>
>
>> You are just using the tired old debating tactic of
>>
>>
>>>enlarging your opponent's target so as to make him more ridiculous.
>>
>>Describe the target you think I'm enlarging?
>
>
>>>If you dislike the far left, you can find plenty of honest grounds to
>>>criticize them without resorting to caricature.
>>
>>Politics without "caricature" is a vacant concept.
>
>
> Perhaps. But there is a difference between a mild caricature and
> simply misrepresenting peoples views.
Which views am I misrepresenting?... be specific.
Roy Jose Lorr
Google: "Fabian Socialism" and the "Humanist Manifesto".
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:23:41 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:06:52 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Al Klein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:32:07 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>
>
>>>>>Bush is a rightist, not a leftist.
>
>
>>>>Which has nothing to do with the veracity of my statement.
>
>
>>>Nothing at all, save for the fact that it's completely wrong.
>
>
>>Perhaps you'd care to expand on that fallacious notion.
>
>
> If the right supports slavery in the here and now, and the left
> opposes slavery in the here and now, which are both true, your
> statement is completely wrong.
Sorry dearheart, support of slavery is in the interest of
the Leftist agenda. The Right gains nothing from the
existence of slavery.
>
> Would you like me to explain what each of the words mean, or will you
> be attempting to look them up for yourself?
To which words do you refer?
Al Klein
>I guess if you want to cherry pick from
>history, you can look at what the Vatican (NOT representative of
>Christianity)
The majority isn't representative of the group. Newer math?
lora...@cs.com
> On 2 Apr 2007 05:16:29 -0700, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
You mean like sending food money and workes to areas stricken by
calamity?
You mean like asking for Peace in troubled regions?
How dare they! Eh?
Go back to shuul, fool.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Ignorance is bliss.
Is THAT why you seem so out of touch with reality?
Ray Fischer
>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>
>> Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>
>The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
>New Age, New World, One World Order.
As opposed to the old world order of slavery, servitude for women,
lynching for blacks, and death for "inferior" races?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> Lets look at the definition:
>>
>> lib·er·al·ism (lĭb'ər-ə-lĭz'əm, lĭb'rə-)
>> n.
>> The state or quality of being liberal.
>>
>> A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
>> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
>> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
>> from arbitrary authority.
>> often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.>
>> So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
>
>The above definition is the antithesis of the Left's true
>nature: the need to rule by tyranny.
It is a favorite tactic of the fascist to lie about and demonize those
who refuse to accept fascism. And it's a favorite tactic of the insane
to insist that they are right and everybody else must be wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Bramscher
Yo Mike, there are some of us who aren't seeing the post-Cold War
fallout in "left" or "right" terms. Rather "up" or "down".
http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/2007/03/leftright-versus-updown.html
Paul Bramscher
Gentlemen. Let's not try to resurrect dead horses either. The
dialectal materialists, historians, biographers, etc. have demonstrated
that liberalism is another bourgeois ideology, basically an extension of
conservatism that reads from the same ivory tower, the same inherited
wealth, the same gentrified status, like this:
1) The poor have a point sometimes, don't they? Let's ponder it.
2) Let's loosen up the exploitive system, the minimal amount only, so
that it doesn't get burned to the ground: in defense of the system. Not
the people.
3) Let's listen to the protestors, intellectuals, and scientists
sometimes. It may be indicative of public opinion. In order to keep
the status quo, we may need to adjust rhetoric somewhat.
But the bottom line is that liberalism is merely an offshoot of
conservatism, a "let's loosen up a little" sort of ideology.
Not to be confused with communitarianism, anarchism, deep ecology,
progressive populism, social democracy, marxism, etc. We shouldn't try
to defend liberalism, we should leave it way, way, behind.
brique
Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:kpb513tq5ggfc4g7l...@4ax.com...
The 'Vatican' _was_ the one and only 'christianity' until the protestant
schism.. so, 75% of christian history can't be dismissed just because the
'The Vatican doesn't represent christianity'... convenient as that may be
for your argument.
brique
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1175633483....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
They are not 'christian' either...it would appear...... what is 'christain'
is a church founded by a monarch to ease his divorce difficulties and seize
the wealth of the existing religous orders...
>
> Wombat
>
Wombat
Please tell me that was tongue in cheek.
Wombat
>
>
>
>
>
> >Wombat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Wombat
OK, now show that the 'Left' still clutch these outdated ideas close
to their collective bosom.
Wombat
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Wombat wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>>
>>>Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>>
>>The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
>>New Age, New World, One World Order.
>
>
> As opposed to the old world order of slavery, servitude for women,
> lynching for blacks, and death for "inferior" races?
Same old feudal sentimentalist stuff with the whole world
ruled by a centralized monarchist elite.
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Hatter wrote:
>
>
>>>Lets look at the definition:
>>>
>>>lib·er·al·ism (lÄb'É™r-É™-lÄz'É™m, lÄb'rÉ™-)
>>>n.
>>>The state or quality of being liberal.
>>>
>>>A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the
>>>autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
>>>government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
>>>from arbitrary authority.
>>>often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.>
>>>So your fucked up right wing answer is bullshit.
>>
>>The above definition is the antithesis of the Left's true
>>nature: the need to rule by tyranny.
>
>
> It is a favorite tactic of the fascist to lie about and demonize those
> who refuse to accept fascism. And it's a favorite tactic of the insane
> to insist that they are right and everybody else must be wrong.
That's the Left for ya... tru religious fascists/nazis.
Roy Jose Lorr
Cynicism and sentimentalism, two sides of the same coin.
Where would one be without the other? In true schizophrenic
fashion humans believe both... a natural phenomenological
defense mechanism in a dualistic universe. So, we are
required by the physical laws of nature to perpetually 'beat
dead horses' in order to survive. There is only one remedy:
do away with the power of the prime directive: EAT. When we
figure that one out we'll be free to build all the Towers of
Babel our evil hearts desire with impunity.
Al Klein
wrote:
>Sorry dearheart, support of slavery is in the interest of
>the Leftist agenda.
The Left gets nothing out of slavery and has been opposed to it for at
least 400 years. Do yo really think it was the Right that formed the
Abolitionists? Do you really think it's the Right that forced the
civil rights laws of the 60s through? Do you really think it's the
Right that's against the forced continuation of unwanted pregnancies?
>The Right gains nothing from the existence of slavery.
Except control and profit, the Right's only motivating forces.
>> Would you like me to explain what each of the words mean, or will you
>> be attempting to look them up for yourself?
>To which words do you refer?
The ones that comprise natural language. It doesn't seem to be your
native mode of noisemaking.
Mike Henry
news:117566033...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
You're forgetting the Orthodox and Coptic churches.
--
Geo. Michael Henry
"And one of the hot topics for me is the number of Christian atheists who
are fully committed to living
according to the teachings of Jesus, but unwilling to accept the idea of
God."
brique
Well, depends on your cheek..... it does seem to be fundie dogma that
'catholicism' is some errant form of christianity, and 'true' christianity
descends from the protestant line ( and is thus the only 'correct'
christianity. So, the copts and greeks and other strange foreign types dont
qualify either)... .. so, there you have it, the church founded by a monarch
as part of his argument with the Vatican over his propensity to divorce his
non-heir producing wives, funded by the siezure of catholic monasteries and
estates is the fountainhead of their 'correct' form of christianity.
Without the state-backed and sponsored Protestant bulwark of England, it
would have been another heresy, along the lines of Catharism, etc and as
soon and thoroughly stamped out...
Now, what if one of his earlier wives had produced the requisite male
heir.... Henry was considered a good catholic monarch once, that is where
the 'Defender of the Faith' title came from..... a real 'what-if' eh?
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:08:13 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry dearheart, support of slavery is in the interest of
>>the Leftist agenda.
>
>
> The Left gets nothing out of slavery and has been opposed to it for at
> least 400 years.
Do yo really think it was the Right that formed the
> Abolitionists?
The first abolitionist organization was founded by a group
of religious believers: Quakers. They were the driving force
behind the movement for its lifetime. Abolition of slavery
was and is based on belief in God's word; it is not a
secular invention as atheist revisionists of history would
have us believe.
Do you really think it's the Right that forced the
> civil rights laws of the 60s through?
No politician had to force those laws, they were the
politically expedient reaction to forces on the ground by
both Left and Right.
Do you really think it's the
> Right that's against the forced continuation of unwanted pregnancies?
What this should tell you is that the Right has little to
gain politically and far more to lose in the way of future
votes by resisting the murder of unborn babies. Those
babies, coming mainly from mothers on the Left will be on
the Left when it comes time for them to vote. This is an
example of the Right challenging immorality even though by
sparing these murdered babies they would add potentially
overwhelming numbers of voters to the population of the
murderous degenerate Left.
>
>
>>The Right gains nothing from the existence of slavery.
>
>
> Except control and profit, the Right's only motivating forces.
Dearheart, "control" is the Left's god.
>
>
>>>Would you like me to explain what each of the words mean, or will you
>>>be attempting to look them up for yourself?
>
>
>>To which words do you refer?
>
>
> The ones that comprise natural language. It doesn't seem to be your
> native mode of noisemaking.
In other words you have no 'language (natural or otherwise)'
of substance to back up your degenerate nonsense.
brique
Mike Henry <gmi...@nckcn.com> wrote in message
news:46137...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
True.... mea culpa..... (heheheh).......
Wombat
Not earlier wives - first wife, he divorced Catherine of Aragon after
breaking with the Pope. England really became Protestant under Edward
VI, slid back under Mary I before Elizabeth I completed the
transformation.
Even if England had remained Catholic, the 30 Years War between
(mainly) the Catholics of Southern Europe and the Protestants of
Northern Europe (with His Catholic Majesty the King of France on the
Prod side) ended in a draw, rather than the Counter Reformation
regaining Northern Europe for the Pope.
Wombat
Wombat
Hatter
>
> - Show quoted text -
good point
Al Klein
wrote:
I only hold discussions with the sane.
<plonk>
Ray Fischer
Roy Jose Lorr
The final refuge of the intellectually dishonest is the <plonk>.
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wombat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>>>>
>>>>The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
>>>>New Age, New World, One World Order.
>>>
>>>
>>>As opposed to the old world order of slavery, servitude for women,
>>>lynching for blacks, and death for "inferior" races?
>>
>>Same old feudal sentimentalist stuff with the whole world
>>ruled by a centralized monarchist elite.
>
>
> Which is exactly what the neocons strive for.
Its what all power seeking monarchists strive for be they on
the Left or on the Right.
brique
If wife No 2 had produced, he would have paid penance and been forgiven,
likewise No 3.... six was a bit much even for the Pope to forgive.....
Point being, the monarch who most enbraced protestantism, even if only as a
political tool, was Elizabeth, and if Henry's marriages had produced male
heirs, neither she nor Mary would have ever sat on the throne, a catholic
male heir would have.
Yoiu should not underestimate the impact of Protestant England on European
politics, just consider what the military resources tied up in the Armada
could have done on land supporting Spains Catholic allies, or the treasures
looted from her New World by Drake and company. What of the military support
for Hollands rebellion against Spanish rule? What of the New World? With
Englands colonies as Catholic as Spains and Portugals?
> Even if England had remained Catholic, the 30 Years War between
> (mainly) the Catholics of Southern Europe and the Protestants of
> Northern Europe (with His Catholic Majesty the King of France on the
> Prod side) ended in a draw, rather than the Counter Reformation
> regaining Northern Europe for the Pope.
>
I think the political map of Europe would be vastly different, I think
England and France woudl have enjoyed a closer friendly relationship and
Holland and Northern Germany not so. Which would have meant no William and
Mary, and no Hanovers, No Victorians and no Battenburg/Windsors....
> Wombat
>
> Wombat
>
>
Wombat
> Wombat<tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:1175711011....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Apr, 18:27, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > >Wombat<tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1175663317....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...> On 4 Apr,
> 06:21, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > > > >Wombat<tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:1175633483....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On 3 Apr, 22:20, "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 3, 3:48 pm, Scotius <wolvz...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 2 Apr 2007 05:16:29 -0700, "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > > <anarcis...@gmail.com>
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
<snip>
Wife no 3, Jane Seymour, produced a son, who became Edward VI. I
didn't see him making up with the Pope then. I would have thought the
Dissolution of the Monasteries didn't help.
>
> Point being, the monarch who most enbraced protestantism, even if only as a
> political tool, was Elizabeth, and if Henry's marriages had produced male
> heirs, neither she nor Mary would have ever sat on the throne, a catholic
> male heir would have.
Again, Protestantism was imposed during the reign of Edward VI, the
SON of Henry VIII.
>
> Yoiu should not underestimate the impact of Protestant England on European
> politics, just consider what the military resources tied up in the Armada
> could have done on land supporting Spains Catholic allies,
Allies for the Spanish against the Dutch? Who, please.
If the Duke of Parma, one of the best soliers of his time, couldn't
defeat the Dutch, who could. Remember the War of Liberation lasted
100 years.
>or the treasures
> looted from her New World by Drake and company. What of the military >support
> for Hollands rebellion against Spanish rule? What of the New World?
>With Englands colonies as Catholic as Spains and Portugals?
>
> > Even if England had remained Catholic, the 30 Years War between
> > (mainly) the Catholics of Southern Europe and the Protestants of
> > Northern Europe (with His Catholic Majesty the King of France on the
> > Prod side) ended in a draw, rather than the Counter Reformation
> > regaining Northern Europe for the Pope.
>
> I think the political map of Europe would be vastly different, I think
> England and France woudl have enjoyed a closer friendly relationship and
> Holland and Northern Germany not so. Which would have meant no William and
> Mary, and no Hanovers, No Victorians and no Battenburg/Windsors....
England's policy re France was always to preserve the Status Quo,
particularly in the 18th Century, which had nothing to do with
religion. Remember the English were fighting the French on and off
from the 11th century until Waterloo in 1815. In the War of the
Spanish Succession we were allied with Catholic Austria against
Catholic France (no religion there either). We did support the Dutch
in their War of Liberation, though how much help that was, I don't
know. My daughter has done that period in History, perhaps she'll
know. We afterwards had several wars with the Dutch and sided with
France against them (Charles II was devious).
Finally, though Drake and co. did some spectacular raids I would
imagine more Inca gold and silver was lost in shipwrecks transporting
it back to Spain, where it eventually wrecked their economy. If you
read any book on the Armada, it was doomed from the start. The whole
point was to transport the Duke of Parma's army from the Spanish
Netherlands to England. He, however, was being blockaded by the Dutch
Inshore fleet. QED
For a good alternate history story read 'The Alteration' by Kingsley
Amis. Luther's thunder was stolen when he was offered the Papacy to
be followed by Thomas More. The Protestants were driven from Europe
to North America, where they founded an alternate USA.
Finally, science languished in the doldrums, even in the 20th century
electricity was thought to be the work of the Devil!
Wombat
Paul Bramscher
> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Wombat wrote:
>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Dearheart, the Left supports slavery in the here and now.
>>>>> Could you elucidate further on the above assertion, please.
>>>> The Left strives for the utopian sentimentalist dream of a
>>>> New Age, New World, One World Order.
>>>
>>> As opposed to the old world order of slavery, servitude for women,
>>> lynching for blacks, and death for "inferior" races?
>> Same old feudal sentimentalist stuff with the whole world
>> ruled by a centralized monarchist elite.
>
> Which is exactly what the neocons strive for.
I've come to see it like this Throughout history, there were
oligarchs/plutarchs at the top, with theocratic and autocratic soldiers
just below: ideology & forced fealty to it. Ideology throughout the
middle ages was The Church. Today it is somewhat shifting to The Bank
(i.e. unquestioning loyalty to so-called capitalism). In both cases,
it's a zero tolerance disagreement policy.
There's astounding isomorphic similarity...
singin4free
> Mike wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 3:28 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Mike wrote:
>
> >>>Dude, the cold war is over and the good guys won.
>
> >>they "won"?
>
> > We are. The free world used to be locked into a conflict with a
> > seemingly equally formidable enemy armed with nukes that was trying to
> > spread communism all over the world. Now Russia mostly minds its own
> > affairs.
>
> I see that keeping up with current events is not your forte.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> No question the
>
> >>>lunatic end of the left are nuts, but they are not "supporting the
> >>>communist slave state that was the Soviet Union" or "trying to
> >>>reinstate it".
>
>
> > I guess if you googled around you could find a citation to some
> > leftist idiot's website in which you could substantiate that claim,
> > But show me a quote from any "mainstream" leftie that can be
> > reasonably be interpreted as "supporting a communist slave state and
> > trying to reinstate it".
>
> communist agenda. Google "Fabian Socialism" for their
> secular perspective and for their religious agenda I suggest
> googling the "Humanist Manifesto".
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You are just using the tired old debating tactic of
>
> >>>enlarging your opponent's target so as to make him more ridiculous.
>
>
> >>>If you dislike the far left, you can find plenty of honest grounds to
> >>>criticize them without resorting to caricature.
>
>
> > Perhaps. But there is a difference between a mild caricature and
> > simply misrepresenting peoples views.
>
> Which views am I misrepresenting?... be specific.
One might muse that the Soviet Union saw that their fundamental ideals
had won out in Europe and were taking root in the U.S. Thus, they
decided to throw in the towel early on the dictatorship of the
proletariat, perhaps having been moderated somewhat away from the
farthest ideals of Marx by economic conditions and lust for some of
the West's goodies. The fact is, socialism is now the norm in Europe
and much of the rest of the world. The U.S. is vascillating toward
socialism, restrained temporarily now and then, but listing heavily to
port. Inundation may be coming in '08. And of course Secular Humanism
is now the dominant world religion.
Roy Jose Lorr
Feudalism is the natural state of human affairs. Its
amusing to watch the gyrations away from the term put on by
all the successive Feudal States. Its a hoot to see all the
disclaimers: liberty, equality, fraternity or death" (you
will comply) - "politics and religion don't mix" (two sides
of the same coin) - "these truths are self evident" (like
flying elephants). The iconoclast is never short of comic
material.
bowman
> I've come to see it like this Throughout history, there were
> oligarchs/plutarchs at the top, with theocratic and autocratic soldiers
> just below: ideology & forced fealty to it. Ideology throughout the
> middle ages was The Church. Today it is somewhat shifting to The Bank
> (i.e. unquestioning loyalty to so-called capitalism). In both cases,
> it's a zero tolerance disagreement policy.
It was a stroke of genius, possibly traceable to Calvin, to create a faith
that worships both god and capitalism with equal fervor. The Catholic
Church, despite its numerous faults, did at least pay lip service to social
justice at odd moments. How it came to be in the US puzzles me greatly.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Wombat
How many Irish, Polish, Italians and other Catholic Nationalities
came to the States?
Wombat