Tags
I’m struck, reading Chalcedon’s interesting post on the Ottoman Empire, by something upon which I have commented before, from a different perspective, which is that despite what people used to say when I was at University, religion remains a potent factor in politics.
It doesn’t work domestically in the way it did in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Then, the Liberal Party, and latterly the Labour Party, was seen by ancestors as the repository for their votes because those parties stood for the rights of the Nonconformists against the Conservative Party which was seen as the Anglican Church at prayer. On issues we felt strongly in, such as temperance or the compulsory payment of Church rates, the Liberals could be relied upon to campaign in a direction we wanted, as they could on the issue of paying for Church schools on the rates. None of those issues has any resonance in domestic politics any more.
That leads, naturally, to the view that politicians don’t need to worry about religion. As Blair’s liar-in-chief once said: ‘We don’t do God.’ Well, that was very little Englander of him, because the greatest power in the world, America, does, and so, now does Russia, and so too does the whole of the Middle East; the Chinese will find soon enough that religion matters. So, to leave it out of the equation leads to real and serious risk of error.
To expand on one of C’s points, our intervention in Iraq, as in Saudi Arabia, evokes accusations of being ‘Crusaders’. However much we may not do God, for those who do, the attribution to the former ‘Christendom’ of a religious motive is natural enough. We may not see the world in that Manichean way, the powers with which we wrestle do.
I know that the Copts are very dear to the hearts of C and of Jessica, and if we look at what has happened to the indigenous Christians of Iraq and now Syria, as well as of Egypt, we can see that however much our countries have no religious motives, the Muslims in those states will take out their resentment on the local Christians. One of the more shameful (and where might we start and end of we did such an audit?) aspects of our intervention in the Middle East is the impact it has had on the Christians there.
Does this matter, except to those Christians? I think it does. If we are seen not to be bothered protecting Christians, we are seen as weak, and we are seen as being interested only in financial and political gain. But we shall have neither of those things, and if we project our own lack of interest in faith on the inhabitants of the Middle East, we simply give them the impression that we have no values other than money.
That raises a searching question. Just what were we looking to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan? Whatever it was, we have stirred up a nest of hornets. We have neglected to do anything to cultivate any connection with the locals. We didn’t, and don’t, need to favour the Christian minorities, but when we bang on about human rights, we’d sound mildly more convincing if we included people like the Copts in that; that would be something the Islamists could understand.
somepcguy said:
The fact is that while many, maybe most, of the citizens of the UK and the US have values, the only thing which the majority culture in either country values is money (OK, it is a little more than that, but the rest of the values are just as shallow).
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I fear that in great measure you are right.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Excellent post, Geoffrey. yes we “do God” and part of our trouble the last few years is we’ve been trying not to, sort of a ‘little America’ if you will. Problem seems to be that our leadership has a problem figuring out what, if anything, they believe.
Although in truth, we’ve usually ‘done God’ in a sort of negative manner. We don’t do the old “Gott mit uns” but our brief has always kind of been that a man’s beliefs are his and he shouldn’t be penalized for them (as long as they don’t infringe somebody else’s)
And that’s the problem with Islam, by doctrine and dogma they do penalize others for their beliefs, and that doesn’t go down well here.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, I think there is a fundamental divide here, and your current President send out such mixed signals it is hard to know if he believes in anything other than he should be President.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I think that may be his core belief, and that he’s really the King without day-to-day responsibility, except he forgot to appoint a prime minister. :-0
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Well, when you’re omniscient, who needs a Prime Monister – ‘l’etat, c’est moi’.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed, not to mention “Apre moi, le deluge”
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
If he’s not careful, it will come earlier than that.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I wouldn’t be surprised. And perhaps not disappointed.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
From my perspective you might have mentioned philosophy (aka ideology) as part of the mix of religion and politics. It seems that religion might also be reduced to our differing views of morality that includes religions. We in the West had at one time and still do to some great degree a morality formed by the Judaeo Christian ethic. But sadly, everywhere, we see a retreat from these values to be replaced with nuanced dialogue with our enemies grounded in ideological, political and philosophical lines. I think we are on the brink as once were in early days of Mussolini of dismissing our successful past for a new try at nationalism, socialism, atheistic communism, marxism and the like. It is shrouded in fog and misdirection by the political players but I think what we thought was settled after Hitler and Stalin has poked up its head once again with a new, nicer face that has made them acceptable to many people and have lost the recent history with these ideologies to counter their marketing job on our societies and especially our youth; to whom these ideas seem novel and new and full of promise.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That’s a very deep and perceptive comment, Servus. It takes a deal of thought, but you’re on to something important there.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Well Geoffrey, when the Father of all Lies, who is at the center of all confusion, what else can I attribute this return to failed principles we once left behind as relics of days gone by? It’s the most ancient battle of all and is only ramping up with new players and new tactics.
LikeLike
NEO said:
You are indeed Servus, nor should it be forgotten than Hitler and especially Mussolini, looked very good as they came to power, compared to what was. Not really all that different than 2008 except it had been going on a lot longer. never forget, he’s the only Italian that ever “Made the trains run on time”.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Oh yes Neo, after the fear inflicted on their own people they then became the saviors of their people from the unjust actions of those that they supported to do exactly what they did do: terrorize the populace. We are just a bit more sophisticated today and the time scales are reduced due to the ability to communicate and regulate happen so much quicker.
LikeLike
NEO said:
No. no matter how much we see that NAZI, Fascists, and Communists are merely different flavors, they didn’t see it that way. Granted it’s a bit nuanced but Hitler and Mussolini both really did think they were saving their countries from communism, and I’m not sure they weren’t right, how much worse would WW II have been if the Soviet Union had included Germany and Italy- the answer is that Lenin would have won.
Were they nearly or just as bad in practice-sure, but both countries were already socialist and had been since before the first war.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
The hatred between the competing ideologies was being argued all over the world and Mussolini in the beginning seemed to be gaining support. Any notion that themselves though that they were saving their countries I attribute to those supporters who idealized these men as we see today with Obama and those who idolize him. I see each of them as self-centered, power hungry oligarchs that killed their dissenters. They did not allow anyone to disagree to what would aggrandize them and their ambitions.
LikeLike
NEO said:
As do I, as an American in 2013. How would I have seen Hitler if I was a German in 1932 taking a couple of wheelbarrows of Reichsmarks down to the bakery to try to buy a loaf of bread, and not all that concerned about government theory, I might have seen it differently.
Remember Germany and Italy only became countries (Empires, really) in the mid 19th century without any real freedom built into their structure.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
True enough, Neo. It was a time of experimentation in the political sphere. There were new competing philosophies and no one had seen these ideas tried and in the spirit of fixing what was clearly not working we cannot disparage the early stages of followers from around the world. It is only when the venom started showing itself as they came down on the side of ethnic cleansing and eliminating opposition by being murdered and jailed that the rest of the world and many of the people began to wake up. I hope it doesn’t take us that long this time.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, and it’s always hard to translate American practice back to the old world-it almost works, sometimes with the UK, anyplace else and the foundations aren’t there.
Theirs aren’t necessarily bad, although some are, but they are completely different.
It starts with the basic differences between the Common Law and the Code Napoleon based on the Justinian Code, it just doesn’t translate very well.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
All I can say Neo is that it was a confusing time then and we are in a dark and confusing time at present. It isn’t just the loss of law, destruction of political systems or countries but ultimately it is centered on the loss of souls.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I can’t argue with that at all SF, mostly because it’s true.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Neo, I guess that’s why its the oldest continuous war that has ravaged mankind. Just the latest in the battle fought between principalities and powers that are beyond our full understanding.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, ever since Eden itself, leading to the two oldest professions.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Im going to try one more to post a link to the vaticans new throne. This is a news story, but im not interested in the story….what i want u to see is the throne the Pope sits on. Heres my attempt at posting a link.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I went thru google browser instead of the Lava soft browser. Everything online now a days is a scam to get ur money.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Geoff, what do you think our catholic friends have to say about the throne of the Holy Father? How nice and holy spirity it looks?
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Wherever the Pope goes to speak he is seated in a high backed chair (new throne to you) that sets him apart from others. What foolishness you keep spewing. Is your heart so black and distorted that the Pope must stand to make you feel better? Should he use a folding chair? And would that satisfy you really? Face it. You are filled with hatred and venom for all things Catholic and your attacks show you for the angry, blind and extremely prejudiced individual the Holy Spirit (questionable to say in the least) has led you to vomit all over everything Catholic. If you could listen and preach a Gospel of Love as much as you can spew hatred and feign deafness you might convince someone that you are indeed filled with the Holy Spirit. As it stands now, you appear to be a member of deranged cult that is spewing conspiracy theories all over the place. What’s next . . . a conspiracy between the Catholic Church and aliens in UFO’s?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Dont feel special good brother Servus. Earlier i was making fun of Bishop Eddie Long, a prot evevangelical. Say good brother Servus, you completely got me wrong. Im not talking about the Pope sitting on a chair. Look at the big thing behind the chair. Thats part of the throne. Do you see the grotesque figure at the top center rite behind and above the Pope? All thru the rest of that big thing you can see distorted faces and ghouls and stuff. You can call me all kinda names, but this thing speaks for its self.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Where was he Bosco? Do you have any idea? I can’t recognize the place. Is it a piece of crappy modern art? Does it signify anything at all? And when you get the answers to that question you might make your case. But until such time, what is your problem?
LikeLike
NEO said:
Just on general principle Bosco, he’s an old and distinguished man who deserves some respect. Servus is correct, your tirades grow tiresome.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Thanks Neo. I cut him a break as suffering from moral theologians classify as “invincible ignorance.” It may be the saving grace that will keep him from imputing any sinful behavior to his words — at least I hope and pray for that. Under all his venom there is a soul made by God but it is obscured, perhaps, through no fault of his own.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Lately, it’s been very well obscured, unfortunately, he was providing useful insight for quite a while but, that period seems to be over.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yeah it’s tiring. I have come to see him in the light of ‘invincible ignorance’ – read this article: 2nd paragraph from the bottom and see if you don’t agree.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I have to say that I am disappointed. The Catholics here have offered Bosco reasoned arguments, but I don’t, alas, see you, Bosco, as keeping up your earlier style where you seemed to be willing to be open to a discussion; which makes me a bit sad.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I welcome your comment Jess. I thought that maybe I was just getting a bit too impatient with the lad. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, I think you and others here have been patient in not responding in kind. I am very fond of Bosco and know he has a generous and a warm side; just wish he’d show more of it.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
As do I, Jess. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Bosco knows he has a standing invitation to write here – I wish he would give us some good insights, not cut and pastes.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Well if he could just give us well-thought out grievances and arguments and enter into debate without falling back into all the canned hate speech, of which he never shows the true origin, that would be a great start. Then maybe would could have a conversation instead of a bomb throwing contest.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That would be good.
Geoffrey says he has something on this for tomorrow. I’ll look forward to it.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Oh good. I really appreciate his posts. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I’ve just got it, and will set it up for the morning. I like it a lot.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Great. I’m looking forward to it. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
I’m familiar with the term, it’s used in my church as well, and in general leadership as well. I do agree, and I get tired of the squishy sound my head makes on brick walls.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yeah, I’ve moved on to foam rubber walls. It feels sooo much better. You should give it a try. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
That’s a plan 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Works for me. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Servus says its a crappy piece of art. I am told that crappy piece of art is in the Vatican and its the new throne room. I wanted to hear some of the peoples thoughts on that thing. Am i a bad guy for that? Im getting flack for bringing this thing up. Hey, its the Popes throne, not mine. I value peoples opinions in here because i know all of you are sincere and educated. I might not agree on your choise of faith, but i value your thoughts. So, anybody care to tell me whats up with that crappy art behind the Pope? You guys are in europe. You can go see anytime you want. Im here in this big shopping center called the USA. No real history to this place. Ill post something later. I was gonna do it weeks ago but decieded to hold off.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Throne room? Who told you? Give me a link or cite a book or something. It may be, mind you – but we still know nothing about who commissioned the work, who the artist was, or what he was trying to portray. When all that comes out, as you seem to have already jumped to your conclusion, it is all about demons and satan and gremlins and Rome somehow worshipping these things — am I right? Or am I reading too much in your finger pointing?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Servus, i was hoping someone in here could give me all those answers. Im super curious to find out whats up with that. Im looking online now but my browser has been hijacked.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
That’s OK Bosco – here is a link to the sculpture:
http://www.romereports.com/palio/statue-of-the-resurrection-in-vatican-receives-restoration-english-5092.html#.UXW0FpWUphA
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
It isn’t brain surgery, if anyone with an ounce of sense having watched the short video, would recognize that it was taken in the Papal General Audience auditorium in the Vatican. By simply Googling it up comes the image of the modernistic statue of the figure of Christ in the Resurrection. It even tells you who did it. Now go check for yourselves.
P.S. i sent Jess the photo as I don’t know how to up load it.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Thank you David – I’ve never been there. I believe that the Throne Room used by Benedict is the same one that Francis is using: shown here.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Bosco you don’t want to mix the Throne Room with the Papal General audience auditorium they are quite distinctly different in all their aspects.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
hers a pic. No stupid video to sit thru.
So, this artwork is supposed to say what? Ive got my ideas.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
The sculpture, according to the artist (now deceased), was the Resurrection of Christ rising from the Garden of Olives having been hit by an atomic explosion. I’m no fan of modern art but this idea and representation is nothing near your weird and perverted ideas of what it is and what it represents.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Yeah, an atomic explosion. Nice thing to have behind the popes throne. Sorry, but its a ghoul.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
By God, Bosco don’t keep us in suspense we all await with bated breath to hear your pronouncement “ex cathedra cultui.”
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother David, it is what it is. Its ghastly and grotesque. And if that big ghoul at center top is Jesus, im a doggon chinaman. I dare someone to say that this throne inspires spirituality. Well, gods spirit. It does inspire spirituality if youre into demons. I maintain that the CC is coming out of the closet and showing us exactly who is and has been the guiding force behind it.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
For all I know you might be Chinese or from another planet – at least the latter would explain your obsession with this sculpture. Like it or not, it is not a demon as you will probably keep repeating this lie until your dying breath.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Bosco has pronounced ifallibly from his throne – an image of which has been revealed here:
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
And a fine throne it is, Geoffrey. I only want to know what those designs are all about . . . hmmm.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Bosco, if you are going to object to the Catholic Church, try not to sound like a bad imitation of nineteenth century bigots. If you really think that that Catholic Church is inpsired by demons, offer some real evidence, not your own fantasies. You do not favours to the rest of us who aren’t Catholics by such allegations. If you had any idea how daft you sound, you’d not be happy.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Geoff, you want real evidence. I am speachless. The pic of the throne is real. Thats reality. What more do you want? I show a picture and say what it looks like to me. Now im a bigot. The throne is still there. Discrediting me wont make it go away. Still , no one has commented on it but to call me a name or two. I mean, its only the throne of the Pope. No big deal. The same flack i got when i pointed out the clergy wear babylonian dagon hats is the same as im getting now. Im a bad guy for pointing it out. They still wear the fish hats, but its OK because Bosco is a bad guy.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
How many times do you have to be told that your pic is not a picture of the “Throne” of the Pope — no matter how often you keep repeating the lie?
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Do we both agree that the Father of all Lies is Satan? Who then is your father, if you insist on continuing your lies when you have been shown the proof?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Just because you think x does not make it so Bosco. If you are saying that thr Catholic Church is not Christian, be a man and say it direct.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Re: throne room at the Vatican. Geoffrey – I enjoyed your picture and I suppose that the red cardinal’s hat that Cardinal Patrick Keith O’Brien got was an Armitage Shanks Award?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
In the very first flush, I’d have thought.
LikeLike