Catholicism and racial justice
QisQos
link below for more)
"The Problem of Slavery
Slavery, which had been successfully suppressed with the growth of
Christian Europe, saw an unfortunate reprise during the Renaissance.
This was due to two factors. First were the wars against the Turks, in
which both sides enslaved captives for use on the galleys in naval
combat. Turkish slaves did, however, have recourse to baptism, in
which case they had to be freed. The second factor was the Age of
Exploration, beginning in the late 15th century. What made this slave
institution different from the ancient model is that the enslaved were
now exclusively of a different race, rounded up and placed in
captivity solely for servile labor (unlike Turks who were simply
prisoners of war). During the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the
New World, Indian and Negro enslavement was widespread, though it was
constantly opposed by the Church, with varying degrees of success.
Clearly there were shortcomings amongst individual Catholics. But to
hold the Faith responsible for such disappointments is like blaming
Moses for the failure of the Hebrews to obey the Ten Commandments. If
Catholics have tried and occasionally failed, more can be said for
them than for those who never tried at all. As noted above, no culture
prior to Christianity recognized slavery as a sin. As early as 1462,
Pope Pius II called slavery a "great crime" and pontiffs continued to
inveigh against the institution through the reign of Leo XIII in the
late 19th century. It was under him that the last instance of slavery
in a Catholic country (Brazil) was peacefully eliminated in the 1880s.
***It is interesting to contrast this with the bloody and destructive
end of slavery in the South during the American Civil War, which cost
nearly a million casualties. ***Even where slavery existed in the
Spanish colonies, it was always more of an economic institution rather
than a racial one, since marriage between different races was common
and did not carry the stigma it did in Protestant lands. Also, in the
1700s, American blacks frequently escaped from their masters in
Georgia and the Carolinas to find refuge as free men in Spanish
Florida. Some of these served as uniformed soldiers in the frontier
posts."
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031201.html
As we can see, Baha Allah is rather the Johnny Come lately on issues
of racialism and slavery; the Catholic Church was far ahead of the
game in eliminating this evil from human society. Of course slavery
was hard to eradicate, especially in the face of its industrialization
by Calvinist Protestants (Baptists, Presbyterians in the South of the
US). To atribute the end of slavery to baha Allah's "manifestation" is
simply to ignore the historical truth, that slavery in Christendom
was already at its end, only in Mahometan countries and in the animist
societies of Africa does one still find slavery as an enduring
institution. I suppose one could argue that if slavery was eliminated
in the Americas by the "spiritual effulgence" of Baha Allah's
manifestation, like so many Bahaists claim, why then did this
manifestation have no supernatural effect in the pagan countries of
Africa and in Mahometan countries like the Arabias and Afghanistan?
Clearly the claim made by Bahaists is akin to a rooster claiming that
the sun rose because of its crowing.
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
Not really. I feel like we've been through this before, right here as
well. Nothing good seems to come of it, since you just want to post the
same smoke screen a few months later. Did you think I'd died recently?
Pope Pius II's condemnation of a great crime which involved slavery, was
the enslavement of neophyte Christians (that is what _you_ said in your
post of 9 May 2003). It was not a condemnation of slavery in general, as
a despicable institution regardless of race and other circumstances. Your
other popes have also made limited condemnations of slavery in this
circumstance or that circumstance. It is rather difficult to find an
unqualified, condemnation of slavery per se, from a Pope, until 1839.
Even during the 19th century, slavery was an institution which the church
was engaged in itself, not just condemning its practice by the laity.
Only after a particularly outrageous incident was church policy changed to
bar the clergy from trading in slaves.
http://jsr.as.wvu.edu/2002/Reviews/Farrelly.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/amer_studies/jpp/sales.html
http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1993/february/Sa10393.htm
The problem of slavery, and Catholicism, is, of course, tradition. W/in
the Christian tradition, slavery was an acceptable condition. This is
laid out in the Christian Bible, "Slaves, be obedient to those who are
your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as
to Christ", Eph 6:5;
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with
eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the
Lord." Col 3:22; and,
"Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in
every respect; they are not to be refractory" Titus 2:9
> It was under him that the last instance of slavery
> in a Catholic country (Brazil) was peacefully eliminated in the 1880s.
> ***It is interesting to contrast this with the bloody and destructive
> end of slavery in the South during the American Civil War, which cost
> nearly a million casualties.
We don't want to confuse church policy with state policy in states that
were coincidentally, predminately Catholic, or, do we want to discuss the
Inquisition, again?
> ***Even where slavery existed in the
> Spanish colonies, it was always more of an economic institution rather
> than a racial one, since marriage between different races was common
> and did not carry the stigma it did in Protestant lands.
Is this because the Spaniards had a longer tradition of slavery that
Spanish slavery was less onerous than British American colonial/US
slavery, or was it due to some Roman Catholic influence?
> Also, in the
> 1700s, American blacks frequently escaped from their masters in
> Georgia and the Carolinas to find refuge as free men in Spanish
> Florida. Some of these served as uniformed soldiers in the frontier
> posts."
>
> http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031201.html
>
> As we can see, Baha Allah is rather the Johnny Come lately on issues
> of racialism and slavery;
Are you really saying that God should have condemned slavery prior to the
19th century of the Christian era?
> the Catholic Church was far ahead of the
> game in eliminating this evil from human society.
Not so. The RCAC was just going along with everyone else, and, in same
cases, was _behind_ the pack, in the US.
> Of course slavery
> was hard to eradicate, especially in the face of its industrialization
> by Calvinist Protestants (Baptists, Presbyterians in the South of the
> US).
I think the north was more industrialized than the south.
> To atribute the end of slavery to baha Allah's "manifestation" is
> simply to ignore the historical truth, that slavery in Christendom
> was already at its end, only in Mahometan countries and in the animist
> societies of Africa does one still find slavery as an enduring
> institution. I suppose one could argue that if slavery was eliminated
> in the Americas by the "spiritual effulgence" of Baha Allah's
> manifestation, like so many Bahaists claim, why then did this
> manifestation have no supernatural effect in the pagan countries of
> Africa and in Mahometan countries like the Arabias and Afghanistan?
>
> Clearly the claim made by Bahaists is akin to a rooster claiming that
> the sun rose because of its crowing.
Slavery in the US was not eradicated by a Papal Bull, but through a very
bloody war. Slavery among US RCAC clergy may have been eradicated simply
by selling off hundreds of slaves. One solution solved the problem, the
other just washed the hands of the problem, with lots of silver.
Cookadoodle doo!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Cal E. Rollins
You don't seem to have much knowledge about slavery in the beginnings of
the Baha'i Faith? A lot more interesting questions could be asked there
rather than the dead issues of slavery as a result of Christianity and
in the Americas. --Cal
Susan Maneck
>Pope Pius II called slavery a "great crime" and pontiffs continued to
>inveigh against the institution through the reign of Leo XIII in the
>late 19th century.
Uh, aren't you forgetting the little matter of black slaves at the Vatican
during this time? As Pat pointed out, the 1462 bull referred solely to the
enslavement of co-religionists, something not allowed in Islam either (one does
not become automatically free by conversion, however, in either religion.) Pope
Leo XIII is really the first Pope to unequivocally denounce slavery.
>It was under him that the last instance of slavery
>in a Catholic country (Brazil) was peacefully eliminated in the 1880s.
>***It is interesting to contrast this with the bloody and destructive
>end of slavery in the South during the American Civil War, which cost
>nearly a million casualties. ***
Slaves in the US got their freedom much earlier.
>As we can see, Baha Allah is rather the Johnny Come lately on issues
>of racialism and slavery;
Uh, Baha'u'llah never associated slavery with race either. In the Islamic world
there were plenty of white slaves.
>why then did this
>manifestation have no supernatural effect in the pagan countries of
>Africa and in Mahometan countries like the Arabias and Afghanistan?
There is no legalized slavery in either Arabia or Afganistan. As for the
illegal trafficking in girls, that happens in Catholic countries as well.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Cal E. Rollins
Yahooooo, Susan! The Bab, Baha'u'llah, and the Afnan didn't have white
slaves, dearie. They were black as you well know, so stop trying to
obfuscate and pass the buck to the Pope and his folk. The buck stops at
our door, dear heart. --Cal
Pat Kohli
Cal,
As you very well know, black is white and white is black. No point in
pretending otherwise, is there?
Cal E. Rollins
You and I agree on that one. You are absolutely right. There is no point
in trying to pretend, because we know we're living in the times
predicted by the prophet George Orwell in his books, _1984_ and _Animal
Farm_. The hallmark for our time is, indeed, as you point out so
subtlely: "Slaves are Servants and are consequently Free." It's also
called Graduate Baha'i Theology 401. --Cal
QisQos
Pax vobiscum Cal:
As you know, Cal, Bahaism and its babist origins start in Mahometanism
of an extreme shiist formulation. Now Mahometanism never prohibited
chattel slavery and in fact Mahometans were a major source of
procuring and trading African slaves wholesale for the Calvinist Dutch
and British. So much so that entire tribes were moved from what is now
Nigeria to inhabit the plantations of Calvinist American colonialists
in places like Georgia.
So in many regards the Calvinists held common cause with the
mahometans in the slaving trade, and consequently gave rise to the
racialist ideals that still occupy much of American mentality.
Racialism is not a Catholic value as you know, since all human beings
in the Faith are considered to be members of the body of Christ and
therefore any materialist philosophy like racialism, or social
philosophy like nationalism has been tradtionally discouraged in the
Church.
This does not mean that nominal catholics of all times are innocent of
racialist or nationalist errors, to the contary, many Spaniards and
French did commit great sins by engaging in slave trading. However,
one cannot blame the ecclesiastical authority for this since human
beings have a historical tendency to defy authority as we all know.
but it should not surprise that Bahaullah and Bab had black slaves -
true to the Mahometan mindset, they also most likely thought
themselves above the sorts of humanism they p[retended to preach in
their "tablets".
QuisQuos
Cal E. Rollins
As I see it, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were Beings of their time in terms
of slavery as were Moses, Christ, and Muhammad.
It was after Baha'u'llah was imprisoned in the Siyah-Chal (the Most
Great Prison) and became the Prisoner/Slave that He rose above the other
Manifestations by prohibiting slavery for all time.
For me that's an interesting historical fact that ought to be pursued
and written about by Baha'is. So far, I only know of one theologian who
has voiced that point of view. To me that view saves Baha'i-bacon and
also serves to vindicate the seeming failures of Christ and Muhammad at
the same time, i.e. It just wasn't time for the concept of slavery to
have been understood by mankind and, hence, abolished by those two
Beings (or the Bab either now that we know the Qayumu'l-Asma said
nothing about slavery).
Who better, then, than Baha'u'llah, whose goal is to institute the
reality of the organic unity of mankind, to be the Creative Force and
Word to help mankind understand the nature of slavery?
He said He accepted imprisonment in the Most Great Prison so we'd all be
free. Did Christ and Muhammad rise to the challenge of and match the
dynamics of that concept? Obviously Their dynamic functions were
elsewhere, don't you think? --Cal
Susan Maneck
>> slaves, dearie. They were black as you well know,
No, they didn't. But the Shah and the Ottoman Sultan had white slaves during
this time. Household slaves were usually black in 19th century Iran. Iranians
had some funny notion they made better cooks.
> so stop trying to
>> obfuscate and pass the buck to the Pope and his folk.
I'm not passing the buck to anyone. Slavery has been around as long as history,
or even longer. But I *am* debunking the notion that the church tried to outlaw
it in the sixteenth century which is what QisQos was arguing.
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >> Yahooooo, Susan! The Bab, Baha'u'llah, and the Afnan didn't have white
> >> slaves, dearie. They were black as you well know,
>
> No, they didn't. But the Shah and the Ottoman Sultan had white slaves during
> this time. Household slaves were usually black in 19th century Iran. Iranians
> had some funny notion they made better cooks.
>
I'm sure the white slaves were black too, even if they could not cook.
>
> > so stop trying to
> >> obfuscate and pass the buck to the Pope and his folk.
>
> I'm not passing the buck to anyone. Slavery has been around as long as history,
> or even longer. But I *am* debunking the notion that the church tried to outlaw
> it in the sixteenth century which is what QisQos was arguing.
Right.
Best wishes!
- Pat
Adelard
<<
Racialism is not a Catholic value as you know, since all human beings
in the Faith are considered to be members of the body of Christ and
therefore any materialist philosophy like racialism, or social
philosophy like nationalism has been tradtionally discouraged in the
Church.
>>
Really? I think you have not learned anything, since my discussion
with you on 1994 Rwanda Genocide.
<<
However,
one cannot blame the ecclesiastical authority for this since human
beings have a historical tendency to defy authority as we all know.
>>
I think I can blame them when they display in the churches, the
portray of Jesus as a white man with blond hair and Angels as small
white babies. Remember he was a jew, kind of black. Don't you think?
<<
but it should not surprise that Bahaullah and Bab had black slaves -
true to the Mahometan mindset,
>>
To be precise on this, If they had black slaves, it's because Christ
and Muhammad didn't forbid slavery. Baha'u'llah had to abrogate that
law and make end to the Koranic law.
<snip>
Peace,
Adelard
Cal E. Rollins
You sound like a really good Baha'i, since they seem to express that
kind of twisted thinking when it comes to calling slaves servants. I
have heard several whites say as you supposedly kid that Baha'u'llah's
slaves didn't have to be black and probably weren't. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Well the Bab too obviously thought His slave Fiddiyih was a good cook,
since she had responsibility for cooking, cleaning, entertaining, and
waiting on the Khanum head and foot from the time she was five years old
when other kids were out playing and having fun. Of course, a good
Baha'i would say cooking and cleaning house for the Bab was fun for a
slave-kid, like I should have been glad to have been a slave of the Bab
or Baha'u'llah. Right? --Cal
Pat Kohli
Whatever you hear from several whites is something you heard from no one,
since there are no whites. Right?
QisQos
> I think I can blame them when they display in the churches, the
> portray of Jesus as a white man with blond hair and Angels as small
> white babies. Remember he was a jew, kind of black. Don't you think?
>
>
> Adelard
Adelard - who would have suspected that you were a racialist yourself?
So you don't like white babies?
Clearly we cannot remake Christianity to be "inclusive" politically
correct and gender neutral so that nobody is offended among the
leftist, african-american, shamanic, lesbian feminist contingent that
seems to be dominating cultural discourse (and evidently liberal
bahaism) these days. The religious texts of Christianity refer to God
as a male, the Virgin Mary is a female and Jews by and large have not
been historically negroes - although some wiseacre will pipe up about
the Ethiopians and Sammy Davis Jr., but then there is always something
itsn't it?
But really now, the genocide in Rwanda was more about pre-Christian
tribal hatreds than anything else - the Church is simply a convenient
scapegoat for you and your kind.
Quisquos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> themostg...@yahoo.com (Adelard) wrote in message news:<
> > I think I can blame them when they display in the churches, the
> > portray of Jesus as a white man with blond hair and Angels as small
> > white babies. Remember he was a jew, kind of black. Don't you think?
> >
> >
> > Peace,
> > Adelard
>
> Adelard - who would have suspected that you were a racialist yourself?
>
> So you don't like white babies?
>
> Clearly we cannot remake Christianity to be "inclusive" politically
> correct and gender neutral so that nobody is offended among the
> leftist, african-american, shamanic, lesbian feminist contingent that
> seems to be dominating cultural discourse (and evidently liberal
> bahaism) these days.
Clearly Christianity has been quite inclusive for centuries. Adelard's
examples showing the point. Casting Jesus as a white man, with blonde
hair is simply an attempt at inclusiveness which is aimed at European
Gentiles. Blessed Jesus Christ was not a European Gentile, despite the
artistic efforts at inclusiveness.
> The religious texts of Christianity refer to God
> as a male,
In what way? Are you refering to the same texts which use the word
"Elohim" meaning "gods" (plural)? That God is referred to in a
pluralization would not make gods of God. I don't see how some semantic
would put testicles on an incorporate Being.
> the Virgin Mary is a female and Jews by and large have not
> been historically negroes - although some wiseacre will pipe up about
> the Ethiopians and Sammy Davis Jr., but then there is always something
> itsn't it?
>
The Jews of Biblical times came out of Egypt, like Anwar Sadat.
>
> But really now, the genocide in Rwanda was more about pre-Christian
> tribal hatreds than anything else - the Church is simply a convenient
> scapegoat for you and your kind.
There does seem to be some spinning and de-spinning going on.
The Jesuits owned slaves 20 miles from where I live, and sold hundreds of
them less than 200 years ago. For me to read that this did not happen, is
difficult. I can't remain silent and go along with the propaganda
campaign. So long as you allege that the Roman Catholic church has been
categorically opposed to slavery of all kinds since the Rennaisance (or
earlier), I will point out the facts.
Best wishes!
Cal E. Rollins
Wrong. According to the theory, five percent of American whites can be
considered white. The rest are black based on the "one drop of black
blood law" on the books. You're black unless you've researched your
ancestry through genealogy such as the Mormons are expert in. No
talking about how Irish you are will do much good. --Cal
reli...@yahoo.com
Cal E. Rollins at crol...@webtv.net wrote on 15/12/03 4:07 am:
Pat is no more pure Irish than the man in the Moon. As you say Cal
most Americans have black blood in them somewhere in fact 99.999% of
Americans are mongrels who have
european-Ayran-native-american-african-negroid-indian-mongol genes.
Errol
Steve Marshall
>...like I should have been glad to have been a slave of the Bab
>or Baha'u'llah. Right? --Cal
Not you, Call. You'd have been too uppity. :-)
cheers
Steve
Paul Hammond
So, did you do a genealogy test on those "several whites" you
talked to - or was it really ignorant blacks who were your
informants (so ignorant, they didn't even know they were black)?
Adelard
> themostg...@yahoo.com (Adelard) wrote in message news:<
> > I think I can blame them when they display in the churches, the
> > portray of Jesus as a white man with blond hair and Angels as small
> > white babies. Remember he was a jew, kind of black. Don't you think?
> >
> >
> > Peace,
> > Adelard
>
> Adelard - who would have suspected that you were a racialist yourself?
>
> So you don't like white babies?
I think Pat responded to you eloquently, let's me just respond to you
the above.
You missed my point, because of your ignorance maybe. But we learn
each other, no problem.
Just imagine if in the churches, they could include black babies as
Angels, do you understand how psychologically speaking, it can help
the minds of Africans who have been colonized by Europeans in Africa.
If you go to Africa, you can see the sense of inferiority, many of
Africans feel toward Whites which is one of the factors, that
Continent is not doing well.
When I talk about this issue, I spoke globally, but you missed it, You
think about the USA only maybe, even in the USA, there are
African-Americans and Asians and so on.
Peace,
Adelard
Dermod Ryder
<reli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a38fb763.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Pat is no more pure Irish than the man in the Moon. As you say Cal
> most Americans have black blood in them somewhere in fact 99.999% of
> Americans are mongrels who have
> european-Ayran-native-american-african-negroid-indian-mongol genes.
Pat has never claimed to be Irish. He has sated that he is an American with
Irish ancestry.
Do you have an Irish passport?
Pat Kohli
Really wrong. According to fact, skin color comes from melanin. It is all
the same color, though some have more than others. According to fact, all
humans have African ancestors - remember that physically our closest
relatives are the chimps and gorillas, and they are not native to Eurasia,
Australia, or the Americas.
We are all one family, but don't believe the facts, listen to the truth
from Baha'u'llah.
Pat Kohli
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
I've got my mongrel passport.
Wasn't Georgie 1/3 Flemish, or was it 1/9? Maybe some Scottish (note I did not
suggest that he might be part Scotch), maybe some English, Welsh, Irish, and
purely himself, of course, clearly adjusted.
Susan Maneck
>"Elohim" meaning "gods" (plural)?
Dear Pat,
Actually grammatical form of the word means goddesses. In Hebrew, as in Arabic
the 'h' makes it a feminine form.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>> ancestry through genealogy such as the Mormons are expert in.
Oh, so that's how you get to be white!
Pete Jorgensen
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
> Wasn't Georgie 1/3 Flemish, or was it 1/9? Maybe some Scottish (note I did not
> suggest that he might be part Scotch), maybe some English, Welsh, Irish, and
> purely himself, of course, clearly adjusted.
>
Yo Dermod,
How can that be? The Gaelic's first came from Iberia (now called
Spain) to Erin (now Ireland) and then they moved in on the Picts,
Caledonians, etc. and called themselves Scots. I realize it gets
especially confusing considering some of the Scots moved back to
Northern Ireland, and some of them moved to West Virginia –notably the
Buchanan family. Although Pat Buchanan insists that he opposes
immigration.
I'm going back to bed.
reli...@yahoo.com
Jorgensen at pet...@hotmail.com wrote on 16/12/03 12:47 pm:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:<3FDE882D...@ameritel.net>...
>> Dermod Ryder wrote:
>
>>
>> Wasn't Georgie 1/3 Flemish, or was it 1/9? Maybe some Scottish
(note I did
>> not
>> suggest that he might be part Scotch), maybe some English, Welsh,
Irish, and
>> purely himself, of course, clearly adjusted.
>>
>
> Yo Dermod,
>
> How can that be? The Gaelic's first came from Iberia (now called
> Spain) to Erin (now Ireland) and then they moved in on the Picts,
> Caledonians, etc. and called themselves Scots. I realize it gets
> especially confusing considering some of the Scots moved back to
> Northern Ireland, and some of them moved to West Virginia 坣otably the
> Buchanan family. Although Pat Buchanan insists that he opposes
> immigration.
>
> I'm going back to bed.
The Irish are European mongrels whereas the Americans are World five
continent mongrels. The *Waster* is an odd mongrel who has a mixture
of blarney and leprechaun genes. He thinks he is pure Irish because
he has an Irish passport. That is why he keeps running around chasing
his tail hoping if he catches it the mischievous elf of Irish folklore
will reveal the hiding place of his true identity. An idiot with a gob
full of shite.
Errol
Dermod Ryder
> continent mongrels. The *Waster* is an odd mongrel who has a mixture
> of blarney and leprechaun genes. He thinks he is pure Irish because
> he has an Irish passport.
Who said that I had an Irish passport?
Dermod Ryder
"Pete Jorgensen" <pet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2cd8d852.03121...@posting.google.com...
> How can that be? The Gaelic's first came from Iberia (now called
> Spain) to Erin (now Ireland) and then they moved in on the Picts,
> Caledonians, etc. and called themselves Scots. I realize it gets
> especially confusing considering some of the Scots moved back to
> Buchanan family. Although Pat Buchanan insists that he opposes
> immigration.
The Celtic races are presently accounted as being in Scotland, Ireland,
Wales, Cornwall, Brittany (in France) and northern Spain. If language be
the test than the Gaels are in Scotland and Ireland whilst the others are
but cousins for Irish and Scots Gaelic are practically indistinguishable
whilst Welsh (though having some words in common) is very different.
I think that modern concepts of race or nationality, apart from matters of
colour or physiognomy, are based on cultural affiliations to a very great
degree. There are racial charecteristics even in Europe - Nordic races tend
towards blond hair and fair skin whilst Italians tend towards darker hair
and skin - all products of climate. The hallmark of the Celt is supposed to
be red hair so, when you see somebody with red hair you'll know that once,
possibly long ago, there was an Irishman with a fast horse who visited and
probably stayed for at least a short time.
Culture produces attitudes which are discernible as a general (though
stereotyped) societal trait. The Northern Irish, due, no doubt, to the
influx of Scottish blood are perceived to be somewhat dour, possessed of a
"work ethic" second to none, stubborn, law-abiding and steadfast whilst the
Southern Irish are generally very laid back, lacking in respect for the law
and not at all possessed of a need to do today what can be put off until
tomorrow. Yet they have much in common from the same traditional music to
the tradition of hospitality and friendliness. Throughout Ireland and
Scotland it is not at all unusual for complete strangers to strike up a
conversation in the street - something that one would not do in, especially,
Southern England where there is a great deal more reserve about such
behaviour. If, as I have often done, you nod "Good morning" to people on a
bus or train in Ireland the greeting will be reciprocated - in London, on
the Tube, they look at you as if you've just escaped from the lunatic
asylum. Irish pubs never close on time ... especially the ones frequented
by the Police. The pace of life is markedly different twixt Belfast, Dublin
and Cork. I'm not sure if it still exists but there once was a "Holy Hour"
from 2 - 3 in the afternoon in Dublin ... to force people to go back to work
after the lunch hour.
The English are universally recognised by the Scots and Irish as being a bit
on the t'ick side - something that was confirmed, just this week, by my
eldest daughter who is currently in Southern England. Her employers asked
her to get some local references as they could not accept any from previous
employers in Norn Iren as it ... wait for it ... was a foreign country.
Strangly they didn't know that the official title is the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I've told her to educate them gently.
That's culture and that's what defines race and nationality today IMHO.
It's a damn good thing ... life would be so boring if we were all the same.
Of course, racial, cultural or nationality differences are not proper reason
for hatred.
> I'm going back to bed.
Now that's another thing that shows racial/cultural differences. The Irish
rarely hit the pit early of an evening. Indeed, not so many years ago, I
watched a farmer in West Cork ploughing his fields at midnight by the light
from the tractor lamps and after he had come back from the pub ... early for
once!
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
James Error Joyce, the Anglian?
Dermod Ryder
"QisQos" <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Racialism is not a Catholic value as you know, since all human beings
> in the Faith are considered to be members of the body of Christ and
> therefore any materialist philosophy like racialism, or social
> philosophy like nationalism has been tradtionally discouraged in the
> Church.
The only thing that ever interested the Church was the increase of its power
and it's still the prime concern it has. Fortunately pluralist states have
helped curb that to the benefit of all.
.
Dermod Ryder
> Cal,
>
> Really wrong. According to fact, skin color comes from melanin. It is
all
> the same color, though some have more than others. According to fact, all
> humans have African ancestors - remember that physically our closest
> relatives are the chimps and gorillas,
Talking of Error ......
> and they are not native to Eurasia,
> Australia, or the Americas.
Do you have a theory as to how his ancestors reached Ireland?
> We are all one family, but don't believe the facts, listen to the truth
> from Baha'u'llah.
Rubbish! I'm not related to Error!
>
Dermod Ryder
"Adelard" <themostg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfdf12c8.03121...@posting.google.com...
> To be precise on this, If they had black slaves, it's because Christ
> and Muhammad didn't forbid slavery. Baha'u'llah had to abrogate that
> law and make end to the Koranic law.
Nah! The "anglians" in Britain did that first.
Dermod Ryder
> tribal hatreds than anything else - the Church is simply a convenient
> scapegoat for you and your kind.
Just as it is in Norn Iren too?
Dermod Ryder
Indeed ... but nobody else did!
>
ALMA ENGELS
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8337-3FD...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
blacks can be considered black. The rest are white based. As for the law
you cite, please do tell where it is applied today.
Actually color or race doesn't matter though you are fixated on it.
Alma who is not black but rather a mongrel white.
ALMA ENGELS
"Dermod Ryder" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:broaa9$5r07d$1...@ID-84503.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> >
>
>
Cal E. Rollins
On the mongrelization of Americans, one Irish/English genealogist friend
told me a while back that the English and Irish were probably just as
black as white Americans, although the Germans weren't. My German wife,
however, used to pride herself on being Asian from the Attila the Hun
invasion of her country. Some Baha'is try to horn in on everybody's
race and others try to have no race at all. We're weird. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Would you have liked to have been a slave of the Bab or Baha'u'llah? I
didn't ask whipped by them but made to work for free. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Nope I didn't test anybody. Some Baha'i sociologist in the 40s
expounded that 95 percent whites being black theory based partially on
the one drop of black blood law still on American books and giving the
U.S. Census hell. (See the brouhaha on Internet about the 2000 Census.)
It's not my theory. I know I'm black and have no problem with it. I
don't even have a problem with my French slave-master ancestry or my
Indian one drop of blood. 'S all the same to me. What you are is
anybody's guess, since you probably haven't the vaguest yourself based
on your Baha'i thingie. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Well we don't know what Baha'u'llah meant about the oneness of mankind.
If He meant what you think or say He did how do you explain His having
had black slaves? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
What is that question about having an Irish passport? Will my passport
get me into and out of Ireland? I assumed it would. When the
advisories came out to avoid travel in terrorist targeted countries I
cancelled my plans for the UK and Europe. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I can't say how you got to be white, but most of the whites in
Mississippi get to be that way by hook and crook. Blacks get to be that
way by passing for white and some black women having to put up with the
likes of Strom Thurmond and Prez Jefferson. Whites have caused America
a real problem in that regard. Luckily being white isn't that much of a
premium any longer although the vestiges of privilege still hang in
there. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
As I understand it from various sources like Seagal in _Islam's Black
Slaves_ it was the British occupiers who told the Ottomon folk they
couldn't have slaves any longer. So didn't Baha'u'llah forbid what the
British Government had already said what his countrymen couldn't do? Why
do we take credit for our Manifestation being the first to forbid
slavery? Well, I guess He was, but... --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
The last fixation you gave me was boobs. Now its whiteness and
blackness. Well at least you didn't combine them and declare my new
fixation to be white/black boobs.
And if you present the theory that only five percent of American blacks
are black but white, you could have fooled an awful lot of us black folk
who get treated like we're black. Of course your theory proves what
Darwin said all along: Black is dominant. 'Cause you don't see that
many white blacks walking around. Man, you need to work on your
feminine logic. That proves you're not the man Darrick said you were.
Right? --Cal
Pat Kohli
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3FDE70DB...@ameritel.net...
> > Cal,
> >
> > Really wrong. According to fact, skin color comes from melanin. It is
> all
> > the same color, though some have more than others. According to fact, all
> > humans have African ancestors - remember that physically our closest
> > relatives are the chimps and gorillas,
>
> Talking of Error ......
>
> > and they are not native to Eurasia,
> > Australia, or the Americas.
>
> Do you have a theory as to how his ancestors reached Ireland?
>
Obviously, they were beamed down by space aliens, in the time of the Longbow.
They would not try it now adays. I don't have a theory if he is second
generation or third generation, but I really have to wonder which ninth is
Flemish.
>
> > We are all one family, but don't believe the facts, listen to the truth
> > from Baha'u'llah.
>
> Rubbish! I'm not related to Error!
>
"We", I said "we".
>
> >
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >Are you refering to the same texts which use the word
> >"Elohim" meaning "gods" (plural)?
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> Actually grammatical form of the word means goddesses. In Hebrew, as in Arabic
> the 'h' makes it a feminine form.
Thanks,
Q, what Susan says looks like what I said, times nine. What were you referring
to?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Paul Hammond
So, you admit you didn't know what you were talking about, right?
Paul Hammond
>
> Actually color or race doesn't matter though you are fixated on it.
> Alma who is not black but rather a mongrel white.
Hear, hear!
Mongrel Paul, who couldn't care less how many drop of "black
blood" flow in my veins (isn't all blood red, even Iago's??)
Paul
Paul Hammond
Living in another part of the UK, one would assume Dermod's
passport, like mine, to begin with a paragraph stating the
concern that "Her Britannic Majesty, Brenda" has for us,
her subjects, when we go a-wandering in foreign lands.
Course, now I've got one of those purple EU-style ones
rather than the old hard-cover black one that lasted me
from 1991-2002
Paul
Paul Hammond
> The Irish are European mongrels whereas the Americans are World five
> continent mongrels. The *Waster* is an odd mongrel who has a mixture
> of blarney and leprechaun genes. He thinks he is pure Irish because
> he has an Irish passport. That is why he keeps running around chasing
> his tail hoping if he catches it the mischievous elf of Irish folklore
> will reveal the hiding place of his true identity. An idiot with a gob
> full of shite.
>
Don't steal my lines, Error. You're the gobshite.
Adelard
>Why
> do we take credit for our Manifestation being the first to forbid
> slavery? Well, I guess He was, but... --Cal
Because the Manifestation of God is the one who inspires the world
through the spiritual forces released by his\her revelation. That's
one of the spiritual verities of the Baha'i Faith.
Peace,
Adelard
Dermod Ryder
He wasn't alive when the British commenced the process of banning the slave
trade - not that such an event will ever deter the "true believer" from
asserting the wildest of things.
Dermod Ryder
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8337-3FD...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> What is that question about having an Irish passport? Will my passport
> get me into and out of Ireland? I assumed it would.
It will. As far as I know you won't need a visa to visit Ireland though you
may need one for Britain. You don't need a passport to travel between
Ireland and Britain or between North and South in Ireland.
> When the
> advisories came out to avoid travel in terrorist targeted countries I
> cancelled my plans for the UK and Europe. --Cal
Aw hell - I was expecting you to buy me a beer in Dublin or Belfast.
>
Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03121...@posting.google.com...
> > Who said that I had an Irish passport?
>
> Living in another part of the UK, one would assume Dermod's
> passport, like mine, to begin with a paragraph stating the
> concern that "Her Britannic Majesty, Brenda" has for us,
> her subjects, when we go a-wandering in foreign lands.
Not necessarily! Having dual nationality, I have a choice for an Irish or
UK passport or both.
ALMA ENGELS
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8337-3FD...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Adelard" <themostg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dfdf12c8.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Why
> > > do we take credit for our Manifestation being the first to forbid
> > > slavery? Well, I guess He was, but... --Cal
> >
> >
> > Because the Manifestation of God is the one who inspires the world
> > through the spiritual forces released by his\her revelation. That's
> > one of the spiritual verities of the Baha'i Faith.
>
> He wasn't alive when the British commenced the process of banning the slave
> trade -
This is news to me. Is this in some narrow legal sense, like "chattel slavery"
(where the slave can be sold up river for money, like a piece of lumber) vice
"serfdom" (where the slave conveys with the property, like a tree on a public
park)? If the British were banning the slave trade, in any meaningful way, it
would have to have been after they dropped all of their major enslavings, like
forcing the importation of opium in China, etc. I'm guessing ... 1950?
> not that such an event will ever deter the "true believer" from
> asserting the wildest of things.
Shurely you don't believe all the patriotic prattling you were fed in 6th
grade, by the Brothers?
Pat Kohli
Dermod Ryder wrote:
Now you'll have to meet him in Montreal, or Quebec, or Vancouver.
Cal, since you are avoiding terrorist-targeted countries, have you any plans to
return to the US, ever?
Paul Hammond
You should be so lucky!
Adelard
> "Adelard" <themostg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dfdf12c8.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Why
> > > do we take credit for our Manifestation being the first to forbid
> > > slavery? Well, I guess He was, but... --Cal
> >
> >
> > Because the Manifestation of God is the one who inspires the world
> > through the spiritual forces released by his\her revelation. That's
> > one of the spiritual verities of the Baha'i Faith.
>
>
> He wasn't alive when the British commenced the process of banning the slave
> trade -
Dear Dermod,
But He was still alive spiritually even before his birth. How then
could Siyyid Kazim Rashti and Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai and so on feel the
spiritual influence of the Coming of Baha'u'llah?
I believe a Manifestation of God can influence the world even a
century of years before his\her coming.
> not that such an event will ever deter the "true believer" from
> asserting the wildest of things.
Not all things can be explained academically in these times.
I said that was one of the spiritual verities of the Faith. Even the
Bible says so concerning the Days of the Coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 8:10
.... I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people
....
Jeremiah 31:31-34
.......After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they
shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,
...
Peace,
Adelard
Cal E. Rollins
America may be a terrorist-targeted country but at least the Government
is making some effort to protect its citizens. Sometimes the
protections are intrusive and off-putting, but I appreciate our good
efforts. I've determined to do guarded travel within America and the
close-by Caribbean until the alarums are turned off. So far, our
greatest fears seem to be influenzia and SARS as we travel. I haven't
gotten a mask yet, but suppose I will have to when I undertake getting
on an airplane. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Then you are one of us who feels that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation in
Pre-existence? How then do you explain to the non-Baha'i sceptic that
He had slaves, which to some is indicative of contributing to mankind's
social death? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Thurmond's daughter was black. Thurmond thought so as well as did she
and her mother. If she had been white, Thurmond would have publicly
embraced her, don't you think? Cute, though mindless your question.
--Cal
Cal E. Rollins
If you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about because I use
secondary or more sources for what I feel I know, you are quite correct
when you say I may not know what I'm talking about. That's why I've
started to say "alleged" or "I heard," etc. I've had too many
challenges recently to what I thought I knew from what others have
written in the Faith. In fact no Baha'i, educated person, or anyone else
really knows, since we're all ignorant of real events and facts not
having been there to witness them for ourselves. And we all can
appreciate how we spin the truth. We Baha'is function under an onus of
"belief" which many facts, such as slavery in the early Faith, are
starting to challenge. One belief is the old one that Baha'u'llah was a
Manifestation even unto Pre-Existence. But, at least we have more
evidence that He evem existed than do the Christians that Christ did.
So don't think I have you white folks' arrogance and project what I know
and say as Gospel. Far from it. I'm as humble as they come.... --Cal
ALMA ENGELS
another mindless. As for cute, hardly think that would apply to you.
Alma
Pat Kohli
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
> Paul,
>
> America may be a terrorist-targeted country but at least the Government
> is making some effort to protect its citizens.
Sending an Army Division to look for Osama?
Freezing the assets of al Qaida?
Face it, they killed 3000 Americans, and the two guys on top of al Qaida
can hide indefinitely from justice.
Meanwhile, our government finds new ways to offend the countries and
governments that would work wih us, and then further alienate Arab youth in
Iraq, our next generation of unlicensed air-liner pilots.
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Everyone knows Thurmond's daughter was white; haven't you heard the news?
You have half a point about embarassment, but eventually the woman came
forward and acknowledged her half-witted father, so I say, "good for her,
even if her Dad" was a pea-brained bigot. Just don't quote me speaking
ill of the departed, okay?
- Pat
Pat Kohli
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
> Paul,
>
> If you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about because I use
> secondary or more sources for what I feel I know, you are quite correct
> when you say I may not know what I'm talking about. That's why I've
> started to say "alleged" or "I heard," etc.
Sure, and you don't seem to retract or apologize much for the allegations
you repeat.
Cal E. Rollins
Well, as we in the Faith believe, the good of the many must be
sacrificed to the good of the few. Right? So don't criticize your
Government for having the same philosophy. We got Saddam, didn't we?
Now we'll get Osama. Then the Al Quaida. Then we'll have world peace
with plenty of oil to go around. Speaking of that, whatever happened to
the guy with the blue turbin in Nostradamus lore who was supposed to
unite Islam against the West and blow us all to hell for 1000 years? It
obviously wasn't Saddam. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Sorry. Thurmond believed his daughter was black. So did her mother who
was black. So did she. Otherwise he would have embraced her publicly
except confining the embracement to the black community. She didn't
seem to have felt he was "pea-brained." In fact, she felt he was an
alright guy and not what his public image projected. They obviously
loved each other, so who are we to say. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Have you ever heard a Baha'i retract or apologize for anything we repeat
or parrot (which is pretty much everything)? Why should I be any
different from you or the rest of us? --Cal
Pat Kohli
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Well, as we in the Faith believe, the good of the many must be
> sacrificed to the good of the few. Right?
I had not believed that. I had supposed that we were to do what God asked
of us.
> So don't criticize your
> Government for having the same philosophy.
I do not recall criticizing the Government for having a philosophy; my
interests would run along the lines of efficiency, effectiveness, truth,
justice, and the American way.
> We got Saddam, didn't we?
He was not on my list.
>
> Now we'll get Osama.
I fail to understand why we did not get him years ago. That is my problem,
though. Please don't burden yourself trying to explain to me how the
Government would have had him last month, but for his failure to cooperate
as ordered.
(snip)
I stopped taking illegal drugs back in the 70s. It really worked for me.
Pat Kohli
Even if his daughter believed that he was black, I'd still think he was a
pea-brain. He ran for President of the US in 1948 on a platform of racial
segregation.
I am me Cal. If you talk to me about something, I will say what I will
say. It may not be profound; it may even be obvious, but it is what I am
saying. I don't belong to a country club, Cal. If a black man like me
can't speak his peace right here in this barber shop, where is he to go? I
just don't understand why anyone would keep trying to shut me up, Cal. What
is the problem?
I don't mean to disrespect the dead, but beyond his 30 seconds of youthful
discretion, he was publicly a career racist, and un-reconstructed about it.
I may have said that before, but I really can't add to it, I don't care if a
purple space alien beams down from the mother ship and declares him to be
her Daddy, too.
Best wishes!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
I have heard a Baha'i retract and/or apologize for false, or inappropriate
statements. Individuals make these statements, not groups.
I don't recall ever hearing anyone apologize for a slogan which their group
repeats. Generally, when people don't like the slogans of their groups,
they get another group, or, if they just don't like one or two slogans out
of ten or so, then they just don't use those slogans. Is there some Baha'i
slogan which you object to, maybe "One Planet, One People Please", or the
three onenesses? You should be different from me out of the grace of God,
Cal. Didn't you know that already?
Cal E. Rollins
Great! Why don't you lead the way as the Emperor of Apologies and
Retractions? But, in the meantime, please put on some clothes unless
you're a pretty sight to behold? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I doubt anybody has determined that they can shut you up, so why would
they try? Futile. Right? We do know from long years of experience that
one of the frequently used Baha'i techniques is the Gag Order and its
variations;
But the Internet
has set us free
like Baha'u'llah did
with the slaves in 1873.
--Cal
Cal E. Rollins
You may have stopped those illegal drugs back in the 70s, but it sounds
like you're having some kind of a flashback. It happens all the time I
hear.
Maybe we haven't gotten Osama yet because we lack the will to catch and
punish the guy who helped us at one time against our used-to-be enemy.
I like to think of what Ol' Jean Dixon used to say about what she saw
for our American future and what the pilgrims' notes allege the Guardian
said and hope we catch old BL before he spawns the guy with the Blue
Turban who'll fry our bacon. --Cal
Paul Hammond
I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking
about because you started by insisting that "some whites"
had said something. Then, when Pat paraphrased you
as saying that everyone who looked white was really
black, you confirmed that the only way to tell if
someone was *really and truly* white was to apply
to the Mormons in Utah for a pedigree.
When I asked you if you had perform such an exercise
for these "whites" that you asserted had said something,
you said that no, you hadn't.
So, logically, the import of Pat's first statement
still stands - you cannot say that "some whites"
said anything, because you do not know that they
are white.
Ergo, you don't know what you are talking about, and
the fact that you told Pat that there *was* a way
(according to you) to know that someone is white
was just a red herring.
Alles Klar?
Now, how are things between you and Charles these
days?
Paul
Paul Hammond
Why are you telling me this?
Paul Hammond
Adelard
I will tell the non-Baha'i sceptic that back then, slavery
institution was one of the laws found in Scriptures of the past.
Christ didn't abolish it, and Muhammad didn't either, and he even
regulated it.
I will tell him that Baha'u'llah released all the slaves from his
Dad's household when he died.
In Islamic tradition, when a family's member dies, it's often
encouraged to release a Slave. If Baha'u'llah wanted Slaves, he could
have released one Slave or Two, but He released all of his Dad's
Slaves, when he passed away, which would indicate that Baha'u'llah
didn't want Slaves to work for him.
Only one slave didn't want to go, because he might have been in need
of a roof, just like in Africa or in the Third World Countries, we
often use Servants who work for us, in exchange of food and a roof.
Later on, he even told him to leave.
I will tell him that Baha'u'llah was one of the first Manifestation
of God to abolish the Slavery Institution.
Peace,
Adelard
Pat Kohli
Cal,
I am wearing clothes already. If you are looking at some webcam
allegedly showing "Pat Kohli" butt naked, it is not me.
How can I be surprised, though; you've told other lies about me as
well. You are one shameless @$$#*|+, Cal Rollins; I will concede you
are outstanding in that regard.
Pat Kohli
Don't ask me why you've tried to shut me up. If you're curious, ask
yourself; you'd know better than me. Then tell me why you've tried to shut
me up. Then, and only then should you ask me.
Susan Maneck
>would have to have been after they dropped all of their major enslavings,
>like
>forcing the importation of opium in China, etc. I'm guessing ... 1950?
Dear Pat,
I think boarding ships on the high seas to ensure they weren't carrying slaves
(which they did in 1834 constitutes a serious determination to end the slave
trade. The Opium Wars are another matter entirely.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Pat Kohli
Susan Maneck wrote:
> >If the British were banning the slave trade, in any meaningful way, it
> >would have to have been after they dropped all of their major enslavings,
> >like
> >forcing the importation of opium in China, etc. I'm guessing ... 1950?
>
> Dear Pat,
>
> I think boarding ships on the high seas to ensure they weren't carrying slaves
> (which they did in 1834 constitutes a serious determination to end the slave
> trade. The Opium Wars are another matter entirely.
Addicting a nation to opium is a different kind of slavery than chattel slavery.
Owners feed chattel slaves w/ food which should sustain them. All drug dealers
need to provide is the dope; since they don't pay for their salves, they have no
need to maintain them - the cost as much to keep as to get another one.
To say they oppposed chattel slavery during the Victorian era, would be correct.
To say they opposed slavery in general at that time would be incorrect.
Susan Maneck
I've been ignoring most of this thread but let me make a couple of comments in
response to your posts.
You wrote:
"His slave Fiddiyih was a good cook,
since she had responsibility for cooking, cleaning, entertaining, and
waiting on the Khanum head and foot from the time she was five years old
when other kids were out playing and having fun."
You assume that free children of the lower classes got to go out and play
rather than worked. On the contrary, many of them were forced to make silk
carpents all day long. Children worked in those days, whether they were free or
slave.
You wrote:
"Would you have liked to have been a slave of the Bab or Baha'u'llah? I
didn't ask whipped by them but made to work for free."
Slaves in the Middle East were generally paid wages. And some of them would get
downright onery when they weren't paid on time. The Ottoman slave soldiers
would turn over their soup kettles and go on strike. In the Mughal Empire the
slave navy would resort to piracy.
You wrote;
"If she had been white, Thurmond would have publicly
embraced her, don't you think?"
Probably not. Having illegitimate children is still a political liability no
matter what color they are. But he wasn't so ashamed of it he hid it from his
staffers. She visited him frequently in his office, and the staffers all knew
who she was.