|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
I suspect that we are both of an age to remember the world before the so-called permissive society.
I do not know about America, but in Britain the horrors of back-street (illegal) abortions are not something to be forgotten. For the gay community, the law that made male homosexuality illegal in Britain was finally disposed of over thirty years ago. It was known - correctly - as the blackmailers charter. Gays could be threatened, blackmailed, dismissed from jobs, or attacked in the streets - it was considered normal, and going to the police was not always a good idea.
I have visited the area of Poland where the previous Pope, JPII, was born. The anti-abortion pictures that I saw there in churches was stomach-churning propaganda. That medieval hatred is the same as the hatred against Gypsies or against Jews.
I agree with you. With one exception.
The current Pope does see ethics in terms of right and wrong. However he does see the ethical distinctions between them. Bush and Blair do not.
The danger is, as the article I referred to points out, that in fact the Pope and Bush see their extremism as common ground.
However, if - as I hope - the Pope takes a hard ethical line but is deeply humane in the treatment and attitude to individuals, then he can be a genuine help in bringing back greater moral certainty.
However, the article indicates that he may be more extreme than I perceived, or than the general publicity indicates.
What remains beyound question is that Bush - with his hireling Blair - remains a threat to all people, and to the ethical standards of America.
I would hope to see something positive, but - as I have said often before - I do not like Nazis, and what George W. Bush Junior and the Pope have in common is a very strong link to the Nazis. The Popes father was a Bavarian policeman - in the early 1920s some of the Bavarian police tried to stop Hitler (smashing the Beer Hall putsch) while others actively helped them, even breaking the law to give them protection. On 9th - 10th November 1938, the Bavarian police stood with their arms folded watching a pogrom unequalled in Europe since medieval times. Did the young Ratzinger have to join the Hitler Youth - or did he want to ?
Lets be serious - the power of the Pope is purely symbolic. Sure he has nearly a billion followers, but they do not all take what he says literally. However, if the bad view of this Pope proves to be the right one, then it may be that the visions of Saint Malachy will come true - and he said that there would be only one more Pope after this one and that the power of Rome would be destroyed.
More relevant is the question of the imminent destruction of Teheran.
Why are you bothered ? If you are gay or have a friend who wants an abortion, then you are still free to live your chosen lifestyle - for the moment. If the stormclouds of the extremists limit those rights and freedoms or even endanger you, then we will all be in danger.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1086
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| and of course thomas jefferson was a fine moral compass with his slaves and many illegitament children... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. Kevin, was Jefferson equating superstition with religion, in that passage, do you know?
We have read various things about the personal beliefs of the various Founders (as they are called), and about the apparent intention (on the part of some, if not all) of them to a] pay respectful homage to the Creator, while b] taking pains to provide for the separation of Church and State.
As a cynic when it comes to matters of "profession of belief," I have a hard time not seeing ANY public or written acknowledgement of Faith as in some measure seeking approval/hedging one's bet. "After all, it can't hurt, and what if there really IS an afterlife; better to play it safe! Plus, I'll look good. It doesn't 'play well' to be agnostic. . ."
Call to mind the image, published very shortly before one of Mr Bush's ordeals (election? declaration of war?), of Mr and Mrs Bush in church: she is calmly praying -- or at least her eyes are shut; he has his face clenched as if he's praying REALLY HARD for something -- good publicity, maybe? Anyone who would consent to being photographed at prayer is playing with self-condemnation, to me -- it's not the private act of prayer which is suspect, but the public display of it. . .
RH -- I see we largely agree. But I'm having trouble interpreting what follows. How would you define "moral certainty' -- or, at least, what you mean by the phrase?
I wonder what would be the point of being Catholic but not taking what the pope says literally? Isn't that a bit of "having your cake and eating it too" -- on your part? If one objects to the pope's hard line, then we can say "well, it doesn't matter too much, because not everybody takes him seriously."
Life is hard enough without being raised to believe the pope is infallible, and then growing up with the realization that some of it is probably dispensible -- but which parts? Aren't we all schitzophrenic enough, without dealing with a communally-legitimized hypocrisy in our daily lives?
Why am I bothered? Maybe I care about people I will never know, who suffer needlessly for someone else's notion of "morality" -- someone else who is in a position impose that notion on them. Isn't life hard enough, without a completely unnecessary ideologically-driven and (potentially) state-sanctioned tyranny, all in the name of "God"?
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1664
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now I have read the piece by Sidney Blumenthal, linked above by Richard. One hasn't often seen such pertinent references and quotes assembled thus, on one aspect of the subject we are discussing.
I had not been aware of the unanimity of feeling on the subject, among Washington, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson -- among others.
Perhaps it is time for the aroused fanatics, fond of invoking the supposed Christian nature of America's founding, to be confronted with such evidence. And who will do it? By their very nature, agnostics and athiests are not "joiners" and "organizers." Is it time for some of them, nevertheless, to stand up together -- or individually -- and speak?
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Is it time for some of them, nevertheless, to stand up together -- or individually -- and speak?
|
Together or individually. Look at the range of former US Diplomats, intelligence officers, soldiers and judges - as well as academics, lawyers, accountants, doctors and others - who speak out.
But make no mistake - it can be dangerous.
We each see the part that affects us - and some speak out. Atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever.
There are more of us than there are of them.
The frontline troops in this so-called war are really the auditors, lawyers, journalists and others who will not go along with the culture of corruption. There is no unity among the evil ones. Bush and Sharon despise each other - that much is clear. Blair is just a crawler waiting to be noticed. And the Pope ? He lacks the essential for a priest: humility.
Always remember that the Nazis - like the Crusaders - lost.
What matters in the ludicrous story of the five year-old being handcuffed is that her familys lawyer did speak out.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
