Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Expressions of Anarchic Freedom"
According to the Washington Times, that's Pope Benedict XVI's take on gay marriage:
Pope Benedict XVI, in his first clear pronouncement on homosexual "marriages" since his election, yesterday condemned same-sex unions as fake and "expressions of anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.
Gotta love the Times' house-style scare quotes around "marriage" whenever they mention gay marriage. (Should the "Times," which I enjoy immensely, get similar treatment, I wonder?)
Don't mistake Pope Ratzi for just another dress-wearing fag-basher, though. He laid into all sorts of other things, too:
The pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of those practices were dangerous for the family....
"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goal posts he said were needed for its future.
Gotta love the details: "artificial" birth control--as if the Church-sanctioned rhythm method is "natural". Whole thing here.
One quick question for the pope: Isn't the desire for marriage among gays precisely an acknowledgement that they want something from a relationship beyond the sybaritic pleasure that many conservatives--and, to be fair, many gay activists--claim defines homosexuality?
Benedict is a classic short-timer pontiff; picked at least partly because he was a long-time Vatican apparatchik who would stay the course until a youngblood (relatively speaking) comes along. As my fellow mackerel-snapping colleague Tim Cavanaugh put it, he's not so much the anti-pope as an anti-climax. Yet in his out-of-the-box excoriations of modernity, Benedict seems to be doing his damnedest to nugde Roman Catholics on to the losing side (e.g. Orthodox/Muslim) of the clash of civilizations.
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 11:31AM|#
It amazes me that Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically still make no provisions for those in society who don't want families.
|6.7.05 @ 11:32AM|#
This guy doesn't seem, er, terribly bright. I mean, there are principles that a guy can have that I don't share, but he keeps making unintelligible arguments in favor of those principles. Marriage = anarchy?
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 11:35AM|#
Before anyone suggests that the unmarried/ childless can, in the eyes of the church, find sanctuary in the clergy, remember that the proest and nunhood require (according to Catholic doctrine) a calling from God.
|6.7.05 @ 11:38AM|#
According to the 700 Club's new indulgence prices, under what they term their business partnership with the Vatican, gay marriage is five times worse than practicing Judaism and more than seven times worse than bearing false witness, but sodomy is just a little worse than adultery.
|6.7.05 @ 11:50AM|#
The pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of those practices were dangerous for the family....
"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goal posts he said were needed for its future.
Artificial birth control? I suppose the good pope favors "natural"
birth control, i.e. overpopulation leading to starving leading to
population decline. All that suffering, because, um, pieces of
rubber are evil. What a sadistic motherfucker! Oh, wait, wait, he
favors futile faith in the good judgment of horny teens.
Trial marriages? WTF? Not sure exactly what that is. Though, it
sounds to me like it might be a good thing, considering that
incompaitibility and hasty marriage often leads to divorce, which
he also abhorrs. Seems you could cut down on the number of
divorces, and strengthen the union of marriage, if people were able
to make sure that said marriages would work before entering into
them.
Free-form unions? Oh, yes, god forbid two people are together
without being married. Holy shit, I had a conversation with a woman
the other day, I guess I should have married her prior to us
engaging in said "relationship".
This guy's idea of unions sounds like a fucking Third Reich issue.
1) Meet woman. 2) Marry woman immediately. 3) Live with woman for
rest of life, no matter how horrible it makes both of you.
And then this fool has the nerve to invoke "freedom" in his little
rant against individual freedom? "Freedom" means that you have
the freedom to what I give you permission to do. No, sorry,
popey, that's not "freedom". That's subservience.
|6.7.05 @ 12:03PM|#
As happily married Catholics, my wife and I have yet to figure out how our marriage will be harmed by what 2 guys in San Francisco do in the privacy of their own home.
|6.7.05 @ 12:06PM|#
It amazes me that Christianity in general and Catholicism
specifically still make no provisions for those in society who
don't want families.
I guess they're saying people who don't want families don't belong
in society.
|6.7.05 @ 12:09PM|#
The Church is not like North Korea,if you don't like the way things are run you can leave.
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Marriage, like every other Gov't license, should be subjected to
renewal periodically. I think every 5 years would be sufficient.
Each partner has to take a test about the other. Favorite color,
food, etc.
Any wife who takes advice from the works of Dr. Phil or the
Venus/Mars guy gets an automatic failing grade on the test.
|6.7.05 @ 12:12PM|#
"Benedict is a classic short-timer pontiff; picked at least
partly because he was a long-time Vatican apparatchik who would
stay the course until a youngblood (relatively speaking) comes
along."
So, basically, Pope Palpatine is the Bob Dole of the Cardinal
College.
|6.7.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Well Jeff, you aren't required to marry and have a family. But
you are required to remain "chaste", which for a single person is
equivalent to being celibate.
If you're looking for a vocation that allows to you fuck around
without having a wife and kids, I'm afraid you won't find that
within the boundaries of Catholic orthodoxy.
|6.7.05 @ 12:20PM|#
Also: people read the freaking Cathechism of the Catholic
Church. Pope Benedict is being villified for doing his _job_.
Everyone is behaving as though Papa Bene could sweep into his
office and change the Church's teaching on divorce, birth control,
gay marriage, etc. by fiat. It doesn't work that way.
If you think the Catholic Church's doctrines are stupid or backward
that is your perogative. But why do people have to ascribe an evil
character to Pope Benedict?
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 12:30PM|#
I concur with Anti-Jeff. I'm sorta relieved that this Pope is
holding the line. When JP II got the big hat, the early footage of
him skiing sent many catholics I know into convulsions.
The Catholic church CANNOT change. It's whole schtick is that it
has primacy on spirituality and has direct authoritative lineage
from Christ. Admitting that Galileo was right took centuries.
I need the church to remain deeply idiotic and irrelevent so I can
maintain a healthy contempt fot it.
|6.7.05 @ 12:31PM|#
" But why do people have to ascribe an evil character to Pope
Benedict?"
It's written on his face.
He shouldn't have used that last jolt of force-lightning on John
Paul II.
|6.7.05 @ 12:33PM|#
anti-jeff's got it.
If Kerry had won in November we would still be in Iraq, there would
be dumb SCOTUS decisions regarding medical marijuana, and the TSA
would strill be frisking paraplegics in airports.
Just because he's got a bully pulpit doesn't mean the head guy can
change all the rules!
|6.7.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Jeff-
What is your favorite food? What is your favorite color? I need to
do some studying before I go home tonight.
|6.7.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Oh well, at least he's not wishy washy. I appreciate a guy who
just lays it on the line. And really, what would we do if the
Catholic Church suddenly became the Unitarians with candles and
genuflection? Where would the fun be in that?
I would think though that more conservatives would pick up on the
obvious conservative argument for gay marriage, i.e. that
it ought to tame the rampant promiscuity and irresponsibility that
allegedly defines the gay experience. Can't you see Pat Robertson
on a crusade to "Domesticate the Homosexuals"? And then gays would
drop their push for marriage, they'd be so horrified by the whole
idea, and the conservatives would win. It's brilliant, I tell you,
brilliant.
|6.7.05 @ 12:55PM|#
I would think though that more conservatives would pick up
on the obvious conservative argument for gay marriage
That would require them to admit that homosexuality actually
exists, i.e. that it's more than "behavior".
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Ah, Jennifer, but we need not renew a license. We pay as we go,
like a cell phone.
(a tie betweem authentic jambalaya, spiced over-the-top, and a good
strong curry. I'm partial to most shades of red, but have recently
been appreciating greens a lot more.)
|6.7.05 @ 1:08PM|#
Figures it would all be spicy stuff. Ketchup's about as spicy as
I care to go, and I hitch my wagon to a man who thinks Tabasco is a
beverage.
For me it's crab alfredo pasta, and indigo.
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 1:10PM|#
Oh, those Italians and their views on homo-sexuality:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3305633a4560,00.html
|6.7.05 @ 1:11PM|#
If I wasn't in a constant slow burn over eminent Domain abuse,
individual liberites, medical marijuana laws etcetera, I would
probably stop reading H & R so much and get more work done. So,
in a way, the evil "they" keep me interested in reaffirming my own
libertarianism. The catholic church has a similar problem. Without
the evil "They" (homos) how will they keep the faithful
interested?
Nothing gets fundies and their ilk more hot under the collar than
the notion that someone somewhere is having a really good time and
getting away with it. If you want to test the theory, spend some
time with a fundie explaining to them that most gay people aren't
as permiscuous as they think and see what reaction you get. It is
imperative to them that they believe that gays are incapable of
settling down.
|6.7.05 @ 1:16PM|#
"a tie betweem authentic jambalaya, spiced over-the-top, and a
good strong curry."
Wow! You said it! Some of the best things in life...
I'm not sure why people who aren't Catholic care about what the
pope says. He's not making public policy.
|6.7.05 @ 1:18PM|#
I suppose the good pope favors "natural" birth control, i.e.
overpopulation leading to starving leading to population
decline.
May be he had "sexually molesting young boys" as a form of natural
birth control.
|6.7.05 @ 1:18PM|#
I guess they're saying people who don't want families don't
belong in society.
As a general rule, society sucks anyway.
/randroid mode
Not David- It's fairly easy to just lay it on the line when you've
got several centuries of precedent backing you up. Of course, the
fun part of most religions is that it's like having a treehouse.
You can arbitrarily exclude people. Not that I begrudge the
Catholics, or any religion for doing this. You're right, there's
not much fun in belonging to a religion that is all warm-n-fuzzy
and open to everyone.
|6.7.05 @ 1:23PM|#
MK,and homosexuals need "fundies" and Catholics to reinforce their whining sense of victimhood.
|6.7.05 @ 1:31PM|#
well, there is that whole "weight of the state" thing going on.
then again, i can see how that's just whining...if i inform on the
los alamos nuke lab and get my head kicked in outside a titty bar
at 3 in the morning.
once we get around to legally limiting the rights of christians, we
can all sit around in a bitchy circle...the homos, the jesus freaks
and the papists. then we get to start a band, though the band will
break up because of a fight over who gets to sing. the jesus freaks
have no rhythm, the homos are unreliable guitar players and
catholics just can't sing. terrible scene, really...
|6.7.05 @ 1:31PM|#
Wellfellow-
No, the pope is no longer allowed to set public olicy, but a lot of
the people who DO spend a lot of time listening to him.
|6.7.05 @ 1:40PM|#
Jennifer,
True, a lot of voters/policy makers have stupid ideas. I'm guessing
the pope isn't the problem, though. Perhaps the problem is that we
have a system where one group can vote over the rights of
others.
fyodor|6.7.05 @ 1:41PM|#
ralphie,
If you drop the "s" at the end of "homosexuals" and add the word,
"activists" after it, I would agree. But otherwise, you be full of
sheet. Homosexuals don't need a sense of victimhood to be
homosexuals the way the Catholic Church likely thrives on a
demonized other to attract members, without whom it does not
exist.
|6.7.05 @ 1:51PM|#
Without the evil "They" (homos) how will they keep the
faithful interested?
Exorcisms. And saints. Two more reasons why they should have gone
with Arinze.
|6.7.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Has anyone made an article of clothing called a Victim
Hoodie yet?
I think you can get them from Major League Baseball. Just go to
their store and look for "Chicago Cubs."
|6.7.05 @ 2:01PM|#
Jeff:
Has anyone made an article of clothing called a Victim Hoodie yet?
[nerd] Is that a reference to San Andreas? [/nerd]
|6.7.05 @ 2:04PM|#
Ralphie,
Oh yes, fundies and catholics also need to use ad hominem
attacks.
thanks for reminding me.
|6.7.05 @ 2:08PM|#
"without whom it does not exist"
You guys have a very odd perception of what attracts people to
religion. Hint: it's not about hating on the homos. Yes, there are
religious haters, but they are hardly representative of the
whole.
Why is it so hard to understand that many, many heterosexual people
would find it "disordered" or "unnatural" for Jimbo to put his Tab
A into Joe Don's Slot B? Those attitudes have held sway for
millenia; but I'm sure that you will vanquish them with your
superior appeal to "reason". Fuck Yeah...
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 2:09PM|#
Evan,
Sorry, I'm not a gamer. My blazing nerdity stops at comics, SF, and
frequent posting on libertarian chat boards.
"Blazing Nerdity" would also make a great band name.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 2:12PM|#
Ha! Ha! You can attack the Catholic Church in as many ways, and as many times as you want to, however, it isn't going to make one damn bit of difference. The fundamental dogmatic principles of the Catholic faith will never be changed. "Simon, I name you Peter, and you will be the ROCK upon which My Church is founded, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Your statements, and those of the above commentators only serve to identify you, and they, as the primary "problem" that we have in this country today. The word "moonbats" comes to mind, but if I say that, then I am guilty of an "ad hominem" attack and I will not do that. Instead, I will classify you and the afforementioned commentators as belonging to that misguided, woefull, and wholly disgusting body of "citizens" who belive in the principle of "freedom without responsibility". I could throw biblical quotes at you all day to irrefute everything you say but that would not matter. You simply have chosen to not belive in the bible, or God, and instead, would rather mistakenly believe in your own "intelligence" and that of anything spiritual, your back is turned. Hey, it's ok, we don't want people like you in the Catholic Church, or any where near it. Your useless puling about the tenents of the Catholic faith, or your childish attempts to ridicule an entire religion because of the sins of predators who used our faith to attain posistions of attack upon defenseless members of our faith, is laughable, and sad. In regard to your statement that NFP or to the layman, the "rhythm method" is anything but natural, I conclude that you are speaking "tongue in cheek" and have absolutely no idea what NFP really is. As one who has practiced it for years, I can tell you there is nothing "unnatural" about it. The greatest thing about the Catholic church is that it WILL NEVER change it's doctrine. If you believe in something that goes against it's dogmatic principles, there is a VALID MEANS of voting your displeasure with it. You can vote with your FEET, and walk away, and go join the Episcopalians. KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL DICK BEATERS OFF MY CHURCH!
|6.7.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Jeff,
My blazing nerdity begins and ends with Grand Theft Auto. [nerd] In
San Andreas, there are various clothing stores, which carry various
clothing articles for purchase. One of those stores is called
"Victim", and its product line includes a hoody. So, you can see
why I mistook your "Victim Hoody" line for a nerd reference.
[/nerd]
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 2:17PM|#
And, Captain, JP II's declaration of primacy states quite clearly that we CANNOT walk away from Catholicism, as it is universal, and we are all Catholic whether we acknowledge it or not.
Jeff|6.7.05 @ 2:19PM|#
Evan: That's funny. I thought it was a cute liberal-esque pun. Like something Rush Limbaugh would run on one of his fake commercials.
|6.7.05 @ 2:20PM|#
fydor,
Homosexuals might require organized religion to exist. Well not
require it, but I have a theory that homosexuality is much more
prolific in very religios societies, or at least in societies with
very strict religious rules.
|6.7.05 @ 2:23PM|#
You guys have a very odd perception of what attracts people
to religion.
I don't. For the vast majority, it is something they are raised
with from birth. "Attraction" plays little role in it. Therefore,
appeals to reason make perfect sense. As for attitudes towards
gays, it's hard to see them as anything other than learned from
parents and peers. When I was five years old, I had no idea what a
"faggot" was, but thanks to my peers I knew it was the worst
possible thing you could be.
|6.7.05 @ 2:25PM|#
"Ha! Ha! You can attack the Catholic Church in as many ways, and
as many times as you want to, however, it isn't going to make one
damn bit of difference."
you may want to mention that to the protestants. they did not get
the memo!
|6.7.05 @ 2:29PM|#
I hate to jump in at the end, but The Captain is a little over the top. And wrong in some instances. Of course we want all people in the church even if they disagree with us. Why do their opinions matter? It's their souls that matter. Recognizing sin is important but not integral to salvation. God will provide for the ignorant. All the Pope is doing is his job. Pointing out sin. If you don;t think it's a sin, fine, don't confess it. But that's not what the church believes. The Captain is correct about NFP, however. My wife and I love it, and I would encourage people to research it. It's an amazing way to connect physically and spiritually to yourself and your spouse.
|6.7.05 @ 2:31PM|#
anti-jeff:"Why is it so hard to understand that many, many
heterosexual people would find it "disordered" or "unnatural" for
Jimbo to put his Tab A into Joe Don's Slot B?"
Many, many heterosexual people would find it "disordered" or
"unnatural" for Grampa to put his Tab A into Grandma's Slot
B.
But we don't require people to divorce when they start sagging, do
we?
|6.7.05 @ 2:31PM|#
KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL DICK BEATERS OFF MY
CHURCH!
Your church has done more than enough to make me unwelcome without
any help from you, thanks.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 2:32PM|#
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin
Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. (he
left because of nooky) and was a rabid anti-semite.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded
by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not
grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox
in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot
of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American
colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by
Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and
Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in
London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your
religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John
Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis
Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York
in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with
William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in
which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its
founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as
'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church,"
"Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is
one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past
century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the
year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same
Church.
|6.7.05 @ 2:32PM|#
dhex...
Hm "Jesus freaks ain't got no rhythm...".
Wasn't that a George Michael song?
|6.7.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Evan,
One would think that after your horrific little tirade kicking off
this comments section (calling the pope a sadistic little
motherfucker), you might hang back from commenting on someone
else's angry frothing.
|6.7.05 @ 2:33PM|#
anti-jeff,
Are you saying I should hate the game, not the playa.
Popin' aint easy.
|6.7.05 @ 2:35PM|#
The Captain writes: "If you are Catholic, you know that your
religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God,
and it is still the same Church."
Yeah, and just like the Catholic Church, Jesus wore obscenely
expensive frocks and pranced around obscenely gilt palaces.
Er, not.
|6.7.05 @ 2:39PM|#
The greatest thing about the Catholic church is that it WILL
NEVER change it's doctrine.
Which is why you still go to Hell for eating meat on Friday, and
celibacy for priests has been mandated for over 75 percent of the
church's history.
|6.7.05 @ 2:43PM|#
"you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in
the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the
same Church."
And if you're Greek Orthodox or Coptic, you know the same
thing.
|6.7.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Anti Jeff,
GG has already pointed out my very limited knowledge of history.
But didn't Christ bring the Jewish dislike of Homo's to the non
Jews? I mean the Romans were all about little boys and stuff like
that, as were the Greeks before the Roman empire became the Holy
Roman Empire.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 2:52PM|#
Why should I shut up Scott? Is it because I've intruded into your childish little prats against something that I hold very dear? Is it because, as my Irish Catholic mother used to say, "The truth hurts?" Could it be that I have used the crow bar of truth to pry open, even the least little bit, that hard gate of lawlessness and moral turptitude that many people have in this country? I suspect it is. Should I just lay down, and cringe in fear when someone attacks what I PERSONALLY believe? You have all had a lot of fun attacking my Church on this post, and have I told anyone who has expressed THERE BELIEFS regarding this article to as you so calously put it "shut up?" I read this site everyday. I find it to be enlightening, acerbic, and straightforward in its scope, and content. That, however, does not stop me from putting my OWN 2 cents worth in when I feel it is nessecsary. All I ask is that you take your "liberal progressive" agenda and go hug a tree or something.
|6.7.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Kwais-
Jesus said nothing about gay people, one way or the other. Paul was
opposed to all sex (if you expect the world to end at any second I
suppose it makes sense not to want to bring a baby into it), and
especially vilified homosexuality, so when Christianity took over
the Roman empire the anti-sex attitudes went with it. However, the
idea that sex was for procreation ONLY came fromone of the "A"
saints--I think Aquinas, but possibly Augustine.
|6.7.05 @ 2:53PM|#
I'm not worried about my soul because as far as I can tell,
there is no such thing. I walked away from the church (the catholic
church) at precisely the time I was supposed to further embrace it
(confirmation) and have never looked back. Actually, I did look
back to find out a way to be excommunicated, but I lost
interest.
Anyway, I have no real problem with the pope, other than the fact
that he is "doing his job". And his job is to be the mouthpiece for
some invisible, angry, sky-god that doesn't exist, but who's
backwards and twisted rules still do thanks to the man-made
institution.
As Jennifer said, it's not that the pope makes any public policy,
but unfortunately we have politicians who listen very closely to
the pope. It's a problem for freedom-lovers in this country.
Of course, this is all just my opinion, and so I expect some people
to ignore me. Luckily this is still a semi-free country, and they
are free to do that. :)
|6.7.05 @ 2:54PM|#
Jesus originated Catholicism? Who knew!
I'm no expert, but my limited reading of the Bible never gave me
the impression that J.C. would have established all those rules.
Aren't they derived from Old Testament?
|6.7.05 @ 3:01PM|#
And another thing. I don't have a problem with religious people practicing their faiths. I wish Christians would quit trying to convert everyone else, though. I realize their faith requires them to make the attempt, no matter how fucking annoying they get about it, but really. How 'bout if you believe what you believe and leave me out of it? I'll be responsible for my own "sin," thanks.
|6.7.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Accusations
UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION
claiming persecution
logical fallacies
pouting
I love these reasoned discourses on the topic of faith. It's like
visiting my sister, but without the expense of a plane ticket to
Montana.
|6.7.05 @ 3:03PM|#
mk,
Exactly. If you think the Church is bollocks, then make an
argument, but please stop disparaging Pope Benedict as an Emperor
Palpatine because he follows and promotes the tenets of the
philosophical system that he subscribes to... For one thing, it's
infantile, and for another, it's boring.
|6.7.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Captain Sir!
You are aware, I'm sure, that there is really no such thing as free
will?
I believe in God, I believe that it is a mathematical inevitability
that God exists. And God is all powerfull, and there are no Gods
below God, only men.
However, everything that you believe, and every choice that you
make, and everything that you want, is a direct result of; Your
genes, your experiences and your environment. None of which you had
a choice on.
Therefore, God determines if you are going to be a Pope, or a
Hitler. God determines if you are going to be straight or gay. God
determines if you are going to be determined to not be the
Antichrist, or if you will accept the position if it were offered
to you.
I only mention that because you talk about who you want in the
Catholic church and who you don't.
Anyhow, your posts are pretty cool. I love me some fire and
brimstone. Keep it up.
Rodney|6.7.05 @ 3:05PM|#
But...but...weren't Saints Serge and Bacchus married?
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html
|6.7.05 @ 3:13PM|#
BTW, thank you Captain and Jennifer for the history lesson. I
was not aware of when all those religions started, nor how the
whole anti homosexaul part got put in.
But the way Captian, you should have mentioned when the Jewish
religion started, as the son of God was a Jew and all.
I think that it was started sometime before the year 0, either by
Moses, or Abraham. I'll have to look into that one.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 3:18PM|#
@ Jon H Hmm, I've been a Catholic my entire life and I have
never seen a priest, as you say, "prance around" The priests frocks
are not obscenly expensive, and if some churches are as you say
"gilt" it is because the glorification of God is something that is
extremly important to the Catholic religion and the temple wherein
we worship that same God, should be contructed in accordance with
that concept.
@ Jennifer No, what you said is a fallacy. You do not go to hell
for eating meat on Fridays, and yes, Celibacy for priests was not
something that the church mandated at it's beginning. The point you
miss is that to a Catholic, it is all about imitating Christ's
sacrifice for us, by sacrificing things from our own life. People
in todays society are not apt to want to sacrifice anything. It's
all about Me Me Me, More More More, Now Now Now.
Christ was very adamant about eliminating sin from a persons life.
He didn't tell the Magdalene "Ok, I saved your ass from that rabid
bunch of do gooders, so, how much do you charge?" He said in no
uncertain terms, your faith has saved you, go and sin no more. He
also, in direct contravention to old testament teachings said that,
"even if you think it, so have you done it" People think Yeshua ben
Nazarate was some kind of hippy, running around with flowers in his
hair and preaching that everything was sunshine and roses. This is
a false interpretation of His ministry. Are we to love our enemies?
Emphatically, YES. Are we to forgive those who do wrong against us?
Again, emphatically, YES! But are we to embrace sin as a result of
this? You know the answer to that even if you deny that it is
true.
PintofStout|6.7.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Started with Jesus Christ, huh...or was it Zarathustra/Zoroaster
of Persia...or was it Baal of Phoenicia..semantics, semantics. I
guess it could be all of these and more.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ancient.html#origins
(scroll down)
|6.7.05 @ 3:25PM|#
Captain-
Until 1964 or so (whenever Vatican II took place) you WOULD go to
Hell for eating meat on Fridays. And the early Catholic Church
allowed priests to marry; the celibacy thing only got started
basically to protect property rights.
|6.7.05 @ 3:26PM|#
"The priests frocks are not obscenly expensive, and if some
churches are as you say "gilt" it is because the glorification of
God is something that is extremly important to the Catholic
religion and the temple wherein we worship that same God, should be
contructed in accordance with that concept."
i believe the comment refers to the vatican. which is, as we must
all agree, quite exquisite and ornate.
otherwise, let he with the oldest religion win! [p.s. you're losing
to the hindus real bad, dude]
|6.7.05 @ 3:31PM|#
Anti-jeff,
It seems that the gist of the article is that the new Pope is
defining his papacy so far through what he is against. He has
framed the discussion that way, not I. Other than that, I agree
with you. He certainly isn't behaving in any way that I didn't
expect.
My limited understanding of the church that the Captain speaks of
is through my limited readings of Aquinas' Summa
Theologica, which I found to be terribly dry, and Augustine,
who I found lacking.
|6.7.05 @ 3:34PM|#
Captain,
I said God bless you, because you were defending OUR church.
I said shut up, because you are doing it badly. You are angry
(justifiably) and alienating people instead of enlightening them.
Maybe you should read all of my posts above before you take off on
me?
Most of the posts here are silly, but the power of God is
recognized by the church as a mystery. We even acknowledge the
supreme being as the Mystery of the Trinity. Being a Catholic means
being able to say that we don't know everything. God, in his
infinite mercy, judges all and no man should claim sole ownership
of the truth. My French Catholic grandmother taught me that.
I agree that today's culture cannot accept even the idea of sin,
but that does not grant us the right to call them sinners and
reject them. We can only enumerate sin and embrace the sinner, not
the sin.
In short, chill, for the love of Christ.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 3:48PM|#
Hindus? I did not say that Catholocism is the "oldest" religion
in the world. Read what I wrote, and stop "spinning" it. The belief
that the Christ is the Son of God, and also, IS God is what I am
talking about. My treatise is specifically pointed at the formation
of all other sects of Christianity. Copy that? "Christianity." That
Christ is a Jew is non debatable. That the Jews are Gods chosen
people is also non debatable. That I am a Gentile, being fed
"scraps from my masters table" is also non debatable. My treatise
serves to enlighten those who are not aware of when such sects as
the Lutherns, or Protestants in general, came to be formed. It is
also meant to convey the authority of the Catholic Church as being
the OG's if you will. Or more specifically the OCR. (the original
Christian religion) That some have taken a dislike to it's
teaching, and branched out to their own houses, is an imutable
fact, however, it does not change it's intrinsic truth.
@Jennifer Well, you are correct in that assesment and I would
submit to you that, indeed, then, the Catholic Church IS
progressive in a way, hmmm?
|6.7.05 @ 4:05PM|#
you got it backwards, man; i'm rooting for the oldest
religion.
anyway, you clearly put stock in age as proof of authority. which
raises the question as to whether the catholic church of today can
claim that mantle, not only in having changed several times in
response to social, political and military pressure, but the sort
of murky 300 years or so of transition from heretical jewish sect
to the dominant force of rome.
in other words: who is more correct? a dead trinitarian or a dead
arian? which one is more OCR?
|6.7.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Isn't the desire for marriage among gays precisely an
acknowledgement that they want something from a relationship beyond
the sybaritic pleasure...
Yes... and that something they want is other
people's money.
|6.7.05 @ 4:16PM|#
Oh man, do you think The Captain goes down to the local college
campus and rails and hollers at all of the students going to
class?
I had no idea there was any such thing as a Catholic Pentecostal.
(Pentecostal Catholic?)
El Capitan, I just have to say that you, sir, have been wonderful
entertainment.
|6.7.05 @ 4:19PM|#
"Yes... and that something they want is other people's
money."
Well, hell, even Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili were allowed to
register for gifts at Macy's.
What is marriage about, if not free stuff?
|6.7.05 @ 4:20PM|#
Isn't Christianity just an evolved/hijacked form of Osirianism? So it's debateable whether Hinduism is older than Christianity.
|6.7.05 @ 4:26PM|#
"Yes... and that something they want is other people's
money."
clearly venality is at work here. clearly.
|6.7.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Metalgrid - If we're talking archetypes of sacrificed hero-god, then... um... sort of. Christianity is somewhat unique because of the somewhat wussy incarnation of it's hero-god. The Osiris myth and the Jesus "myth" (I hesitate to call it that... residual fear of pitchforks) are similar, but only in a meta-sense.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 4:30PM|#
Scott, I apologize for misinterpreting your beginning comments. I will never, however, appologize for offending the people who want to twist our Church's teachings, or more specifically our Church's leaders' comments on the state of moral health of this world to demonize our Church as "intolerent" or "hateful". Those that would use those teachings as a means of self-aggrandizment for the cause of immorality, are dangerous to the concept of this countries 1st amendment guarantees of the freedom to practice religion. Many cases are already taking place whereby the "champions of immorality" are using our Church's teachings to establish laws prohibiting us from believeing, and speaking out that things such as homosexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. etc. and to be subservient to the pervasive idea of "political correctness". Even though I rant and rave, I realize that this is only one more "sign of the times" and that, what I fear in the near future, we will have to take our beliefs "underground" for the time leading up to what our Church teaches will happen in the end times. The "champions of immorality" will continue to chip away at our freedom to practice any religion, or to believe the things that we believe because they say that it is only out of hate that we do or say them.
|6.7.05 @ 4:35PM|#
captain, do you seriously think christianity is going to be
forced "underground" in america?
[p.s. trinitarian or arian?]
|6.7.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Captain,
Preface: I am not making fun of you and I respect Christanity and
Catholicism a great deal.
Do you really think that the government is driving religion
underground? Churches have never been more alive. Witness the
"megachurch" phenomenon, the success of evangelical programs like
Alpha and Emmaeus (I know, it's a wierd catholic HS thing, but it's
wildly successful), and the growing dominance of Christanity in the
non-white world. I don't think the church is dying in any way,
America's just letting go of some of it's official, gov't sponsored
love affair with Christianity. As a Christian, you can look at this
as a great thing. Leviathan's off your back! You can finally honor
God and ignore Caesar. So lighten up a little, it's not the end
times yet.
|6.7.05 @ 4:40PM|#
The Captain said (at 2:12):
"Hey, it's ok, we don't want people like you in the Catholic
Church, or any where near it."
Ah, if only all Christians were of that opinion! Then we could all
agree to a "live and let live" philosophy. But too many Christians
work themselves into a lather over the state of my non-existent
soul, and since they are butting into MY business, it's fair game
for me to butt into their business.
Spread the word, Captain. Call off the missionaries and I'll call
off the criticism.
|6.7.05 @ 4:45PM|#
Captain-
Yes, the Church has evolved, and good for it, I say. But doesn't
that contradict your statement that "the Church will never change
it's [sic] doctrine?"
|6.7.05 @ 4:46PM|#
RC: Lacking any concrete evidence for either myth (there's about as much evidence of christ as there is evidence of a re-incarnating osiris), I am forced to address it in terms of archetypes. Then again, I did some digging into several Hindu myths and one can see facets of the same (re)incarnation of the divine in human form there as well. At this point, I'd have to say man has just about exhausted their imagination in inventing contrivences for the manifestation of the divine as a truth. Given the 'enlightenment' and having failed to mainfest the divine with faith, humanity has stumbled upon a new way to search for truth in the form of reason and science.
|6.7.05 @ 4:54PM|#
"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true;
but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have
never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or
of any denomination of Christians in particular." --Abe
Lincoln
Same here, from a lapsed Catholic. Peace be with you all, religious
and non-religious alike.
Adam|6.7.05 @ 4:55PM|#
re: the rhythm method...i thought it was church policy that all non-procreative sex was undesirable and/or sinful
|6.7.05 @ 4:57PM|#
"There is no bigger enemy to religion faith than providing
security to man."
then why is it so popular in america?
i mean, c'mon. you gotta do better than "it's a crutch, bro!"
PintofStout|6.7.05 @ 4:57PM|#
mealgrid,
Refer to the site I linked above. It has a thorough examination of
the existance of a man called Christ and origins of the Christ
myth.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 5:03PM|#
The Bride Groom departed for a time, and after some time had passed, they began capering and dancing joyously about the place, for they had looked upon themselves and truly, believed THEMSEVLES to be Gods, to be the masters of their own destiny. They marveled at their own INTELLIGENCE, and, maliciously scoffed at the WEAK FOOLS who put their trust in an INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY because they were much, much, to concerned with the copious pleasures of the world, and indeed, in their own godhood. "What need have we", they laughed as they danced, "in trusting this myth, this fable, this man-made story?" "Are we not gods ourselves? Shall we not 'Do what thou wilt', in keeping with our supremecy?" "You Christian lot, you believers in myth, away with you! Bother us not with your beliefs, your intolerence of worldly pleasures. We have no time, nor need of sacrifice!" And they turned their faces away from God, and were given unto wanton celebration of their denial. But, alas, in their merry making, they did not see, nor did they choose to see, the Bride Groom returning to to the ceremony, they did not believe in the Bride Groom, nor in His mercy, nor His Love. In His righteous anger, the Bride Groom eschewed the merry makers, for they had not believed that He would return and as is the Bride Groom's right, He cast them out from the ceremony, He banished them from the celebration forever. Forever.
|6.7.05 @ 5:06PM|#
Captain,
I will only say in response that I disagree with your
characterization of what's happening in our current culture, though
I do agree that the cult of relative truths is spreading. Funny
that I've never heard a catholic reference the "end times."
Remember Captain, that our faith has faith in both God and man. Man
is following God's plan whether he likes it or not. Our job is to
emulate Christ and evangelize through our actions. I don't mean
that you shouldn't defend the church. But, personally, I always
think of how my favorite priest might respond and try to
communicate the same warmth and compassion.
|6.7.05 @ 5:09PM|#
Captain-
So has the Church changed its doctrine or what? Apparently this
Friday I can eat steak with impunity, but my great-grandmother, who
had the misfortune to die before the Second Vatican Council, is
burning in hell for that same crime. Or did she only burn until
Vatican II, at which point she was promoted out of hell?
|6.7.05 @ 5:14PM|#
Adam,
Good question. The answer (as I understand it) is that the Church
recognizes that sex is important for a married couple to truly
remain one body. Pleasure is not the end goal, but the mechanism by
which the holy sacrament of marriage is consumated. Sex is
important to keeping a man and woman in love and therefore keeping
the family together. Contraception interferes with this holy bond
by creating obstacles between husband and wife, and disassociating
a woman's body from her natural self.
Natural Family Planning actually increases a couples association
with their body by contemplating and relying on the woman's natural
self.
|6.7.05 @ 5:19PM|#
"There is no bigger enemy to religion faith than providing security
to man."
then why is it so popular in america?
I would venture that we haven't gotten as far in nanny statism as
the rest of Western Europe and Canada. After all, we're still far
behind the Middle East, Africa and Asia in terms of the percent of
our population that are devoutly religious. Many of the people I
know who define themselves as christians are christians in name
only, and go to church for the social aspects - including the
catholics, so it's not just reserved for episcopalians.
i mean, c'mon. you gotta do better than "it's a crutch,
bro!"
How much clearer does it need to be? Blame it on god, abscond from
responsibility - seems to be the theme of the religious. They're
not doing something because they have a rational basis for it. They
ask themselves WWJD, and then try and do the same thing. That is a
crutch. They screw up, and then say, god didn't want it to happen,
god must have other plans. WTF. Take responsibility, say - I fucked
up, I did x and y and z wrong, and I know how to correct it.
The saddest part is, you can't argue with the religious using
reason and fact because their minds are attuned to faith. As a
result, there's no way to get through to them without resorting to
faith yourself. Then when faith X and faith Y collide, you have the
nice bout of bloodshed that history is packed with. I wouldn't mind
that so much if they decide to kill themselves off, other than for
being caught in the crossfire.
|6.7.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Jennifer,
No one went to Hell because they ate meat. Canon Law does not
determine that. I'm sure many catholics thought that it did, but it
doesn't. In Catholicism, Hell is actually very hard to get into.
Also, I don't believe that Friday penance was ever removed from
canon law, just explained.
|6.7.05 @ 5:28PM|#
re: the rhythm method...i thought it was church policy that
all non-procreative sex was undesirable and/or sinful
Catholic Catechism 2370:
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based
on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in
conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods
respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between
them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast,
"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act,
or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal
self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception,
by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not
giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a
positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of
the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give
itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both
anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to
the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two
irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human
sexuality.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 5:29PM|#
@ Jennifer, no, I do not think it contradicts my statement that the Churches doctrines will never change in that, immorality as defined by the Church remains the same. Changing teachings on such tennents of the faith as eating meat on Fridays being a cause to be cast into Hell is merely realigning doctrine to reflect a more personal choice of sacrifice in ones life. Some of these teachings, along with the practice of selling indulgences in the early Church, were what Martin Luther was so adamant about. Martin Luther was a very true Catholic, and I agree, that I would have been just as appalled by those selfsame practices. Where Luther went wrong, and I truly believe that God put the spirit of reform into him, is that when faced with excommunication, he chose to leave the Church, instead of accepting his chastisement, and continue to use his abilties to reform the Church from within insofar as the abuses such as selling redemption. It's no secret now, that I am a Catholic, but I am a divorced Catholic and subject to what the Church teaches in regard to it. Does this make me angry? Does it make me want to change it? NO! I accept it. If I didn't agree with it, or accept it, then I could just become a Luthern or some other Protestant denomination. I am an Irish Republican Catholic, and I could never turn my back on my faith. No matter how oppresive it might seem to an outsider. What drives me absolutely stark raving mad, is that people in this country are so rabid about changing everything, that they have to try and change my Church, when what they really need to do is just mind their own business. We will sort out the things that need to be sorted out, and we will leave the things that need to be left alone, alone.
|6.7.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Comment by: PintofStout at June 7, 2005 04:57 PM
Very educational reading Pint. Thanks!
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 5:35PM|#
You cannot deny, that in the very beginning of the comments on this post, that the Catholic Church, and it's primarch, were being demonized. This isn't the only site on the web where this occurs, and while it may seem that more and more people are turning to religion, I submit to you, that as that is happening, more and more people who hate religion, are doing everything they can to stop it.
|6.7.05 @ 5:39PM|#
So has the Church changed its doctrine or what? Apparently
this Friday I can eat steak with impunity, but my
great-grandmother, who had the misfortune to die before the Second
Vatican Council, is burning in hell for that same crime. Or did she
only burn until Vatican II, at which point she was promoted out of
hell?
From Changing
The Law Of Abstinence (much more on this subject via that link,
in particular regarding the consequences for non-abstainers prior
to the change):
The universal norm is still that Catholics are to abstain
from meat on Fridays (all Fridays of the year), but the American
bishops' conference judged that a more restricted program of
abstinence (only Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the the Fridays of
Lent) would work best for Catholics here in America. They requested
a variance from the universal norm and the Vatican granted it. Thus
here in America there are a smaller number of days on which
abstinence is required.
|6.7.05 @ 5:46PM|#
This isn't the only site on the web where this occurs, and
while it may seem that more and more people are turning to
religion, I submit to you, that as that is happening, more and more
people who hate religion, are doing everything they can to stop
it.
I think you're wrong about that, Captain. An atheist can no more
prevent a Catholic from believing what he will than a Catholic can
imbue an atheist with faith. One might be able to prevent the other
from expression of his beliefs, but not from truly hnolding
them.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 5:54PM|#
Scott, my friend, I do not know what parish you attend, but "end times" has been a constantly taught subject throughout my life. Yes, peace and love are the highest things a person can aspire to, I will not disagree with you, but scripture says that if you are lukewarm in your faith, then God will spew you from His mouth. Yeshua said that, "if you are ashamed of me in front of your bretheren, then so shall I be ashamed of you before My Father." It's no secret, I'm pretty fired up.
|6.7.05 @ 5:56PM|#
What's the chapter and verse on that Bridegroom scripture you quoted earlier, Captain? I'm very very rusty on my revelations (it's the book I'd always read while the service was going on while I was a kid. That and Bel and the Dragon).
|6.7.05 @ 6:01PM|#
P.S. that is a serious question - I'm working my way through the Bible again and Deuteronomy is killin me, I need some excitement.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 6:03PM|#
Randy, may I call you Randy? Nah, not from the bible, just from my own "mythologically challegened" brain using some artistic license.
|6.7.05 @ 6:06PM|#
That's why it didn't sound familiar! The style was more or less spot on though - I always loved the part when the harlot of Babylon comes out of the freakin dragon's mouth (or something like that). Wierd, wacky stuff.
|6.7.05 @ 6:08PM|#
Mark,
Lay it on us, man, my catechism is at home.
My understanding is that the Church takes a dim view of Revelations
as an un-interpretable prophecy not yet revealed to us.
Captain,
Well, I attend St. Charles Borremeo in LA. I think I will defer to
Mark, and hope he has something for us. As for ashamed, there
should not be shame but there should be humility.
The Captain|6.7.05 @ 6:18PM|#
Scott, your right, Mark is on the money! I have my Catechism right here but have been flying by the seat of my pants which is what I am more apt to do. I attend Our Lady of Guadalupe in South Dakota. My family came to the United States from Ireland just over 20 years ago. Where I grew up, being Catholic automatically put a bullseye on your head, and was leading me down the path of hatred and violence. I bear no hatred to my Protestant brothers as the primary differences being that the places we pray just have different names. I know a wee bit about what it's like to live with religious intolerence, and hatred of my faith by others, and so, apologetically I will say that I get very worked up about it happening here. God Bless this wonderful country!
|6.7.05 @ 6:25PM|#
Captain,
That's funny. I grew up in Alabama, soI know exactly what you're
talking about. And it's why when I hear "end times" the hair goes
up on the back of my neck. Protestants (ok, some Southern Baptists)
love to preach Revelations and claim that the Catholic Church is
the church of the Anti-christ. Anyway, glad to see you've calmed a
bit. And know that the only reason I could be so calm myself is
because someone else was raising hell.
|6.7.05 @ 6:51PM|#
Cap'n,
You mentioned a bit ago that people here were "demonizing" the
Pope. I'm not sure "demonizing" is right. I think we were mocking
him, the way we'd mock any powerful person we disagree with.
But either way, that doesn't mean we were trying to "stop" his
religion. It's a stick-and-stones thing -- if I disagree with the
Pope on these issues, and I think he's being a silly old fool, I'll
say so. They're just words. It doesn't mean I want to ban
Catholocism. I try to persuade people to abandon Catholocism,
because I think it's often harmful, but again, it's persuasion. No
one here, that I know of, wants to ban anything.
|6.7.05 @ 6:54PM|#
Good, everyone's calmed down.
Look, I understand that a lot of people are quite condescending
when they talk about religions, myself included.
I just can't understand how, in this day and age, and knowing what
we know about how the bible came together, and what we know of the
universe (admitting that there is still a lot to know), that people
still have what I consider an irrational belief in any of it.
Especially the catholic church, which again, if you've studied even
a little medieval history, is such a convoluted mess full of
scandals, power grabs, inconsistency, and corruption.
So I'm sorry if anyone's offended by my comments about their faith
or their belief in an invisible, angry, sky being. (For the record,
though, while I agree that religion is, for many, a crutch, I never
said anyone was a weak fool.)
Finally, I have no problem with someone believing and worshipping
as they wish, whether I agree with it or not. That's what's still
great about this country. But please don't preach to me about your
faith. Or if you feel you must, don't get mad when I laugh at
you.
|6.7.05 @ 7:07PM|#
Fundamentalism is the natural progression of a perceived threat
against any way of life. It was bound to happen in Catholicism
too.
I imagine that succeeding generations of Catholics will find
themselves having less and less culturally in common with the RC
Church. Either the Church will change to keep up with modern
culture, or the only parishioners left will be those who hold
steadfast to the traditional teachings.
Given how things have changed since Galileo's time, I think the RCC
tends to be at least a little democratic, in that they eventually
bow to social norms. Every few popes you get a JPII, who makes
attempts to modernize things. The RCC has proven amazingly
resilient in the face of cultural changes.
Remember that Pope Benedict XVI was ordained a full 20
years before homosexuality was decriminalized anywhere in the US,
and a good while before contraception was commercially available.
It will take a few decades, but eventually the RCC will make peace
with gays, just as they made peace with Muslims at the Second
Vatican Council.
|6.7.05 @ 7:21PM|#
Non-procreative sex being considered sinful, goes back at least
as far as the Jewish Torah. Genesis 39 details the story of Onan,
slewn by God for pulling out before ejaculation.* Male homosexual
activity, though strangely not lesbianism, is condemned in
Deuteronomy. In fact, the Torah goes even further than Catholicism
in its aversion to non-procreative sex, forbidding men from having
sex with their wives during the infertile period of
menstruation.
* While some revisionist theologians claim this was merely because
he broke the law of the levirate, this makes no sense, since that
law was given by Moses, centuries after the death of Onan.
Gotta love the details: "artificial" birth control--as if the
Church-sanctioned rhythm method is "natural".
Birth control that uses man-made barriers or ingested chemicals to
prevent conception is artificial. Birth control that takes
advantage of the fact that women naturally have regular periods of
infertility is not. This should not be hard to understand.
|6.7.05 @ 7:34PM|#
In other words, it's okay to have sex when you're LESS likely to conceive, but it's not okay to have it when you're UNlikely to conceive.
|6.7.05 @ 7:41PM|#
Leaving aside the question of relative effectiveness of NFP
(which is not Rhythm method) vs condoms/thePill/etc, the
difference isn't the probability that the method will
succeed.
The difference is that in one case, one or both participants
actively attempt to prevent conception; while in the other case,
they do not.
|6.7.05 @ 8:08PM|#
And really, what would we do if the Catholic Church suddenly
became the Unitarians with candles and genuflection?
What would we Episcopalians do? They'd be stealing our niche!
|6.7.05 @ 8:30PM|#
I though Onan was punished for pulling out when he was told not
to, not for the act of pulling out itself. An lighthearted example
of this applied to H&R. Gunnels was banned for spoofing names,
being a dick, blocking discourse, etc. after Tim had warned him and
he was punished. However, many people continue to do these acts
without being banned. For the mighty Tim did not order them to stop
being Gunnelesque.
My Biblical theology is quite weak, so I could be wrong.
|6.7.05 @ 8:38PM|#
From Wikipedia: "...whenever he had sexual intercourse with
his brother's wife he spilt his seed upon the ground (Genesis
38:7-9); the Bible says that he did this because (under the custom
of levirate marriage) the child would not be considered his, but
his late brother's. In response to this transgression, God killed
Onan."
"Most modern Biblical scholars, however, say that Onan's sin was to
violate the rules of levirate marriage, the Biblical law which
states that a childless widow must marry her late husband's
brother."
|6.7.05 @ 9:25PM|#
Come on, people. Even in the strictest Tridentine days, nobody
went to hell for eating meat on Fridays. Abstinence days were a
"discipline" and failing to observe them was not regarded as a
violation of natural law. Deliberately eating meat on Lenten
Fridays was considered "grave matter" because it was disobedience,
and an exceptionally legalistic interpretation could extrapolate
from that to the idea that it was mortal sin and grounds for
damnation. In reality, nobody outside of Society of Saint Pius X
types and (in much greater numbers) protestants and secularists
looking to poke fun at arcane Catholic rules ever claimed that
the Church said you'd go to hell for eating a hot dog.
Even the legendary Baltimore Catechism advises readers to consult
your parish priest or confessor with meat-abstinence questions-and
given that the average reader of the Baltimore Catechism would have
questions like "My dad took me to a Senators game on Friday night
and they were only serving hot dogs so I ate one; am I going to
hell?" this is as sure a sign as there is that this was
not to be regarded as a life-or-death matter.
I can understand Jennifer, who's mainly looking to poke a little
fun, harping on this point, but Captain, if you're going to set
yourself up as the defender of the faith you shouldn't allow
yourself to get tripped up by legalistic quibbles like this. In
fact, if you're going to set yourself up as a defender of the
faith, you need to can the fightin' Irish blarney. Haven't you ever
seen an episode of Search and Rescue? Witness with a
charitable heart or don't witness at all!
|6.7.05 @ 9:35PM|#
The Catholic Church is against artificial birth control because
they want more Catholics. It would be nice if they would just be
honest and say that.
I am pretty certain there is a god; he, she, or it (whatever) just
doesn't subscribe to any of the petty, mind-controlling rules
religions make up. But let's give Christianity it's due. It gave us
the Golden Rule, and if people followed that one simple directive,
the world might be a better place.
My final word.
If you don't like what a religion teaches, then don't try to be a
member of the church. Form you own.
|6.7.05 @ 9:57PM|#
Male homosexual activity, though strangely not lesbianism,
is condemned in Deuteronomy.
Just like on the Howard Stern Show!
|6.7.05 @ 10:39PM|#
Lowdog,
As I said, the law of the levirate is given by Moses, who wouldn't
be born for hundreds of years after the Onan incident.
In any case, until modern times, the sin of Onan was understood in
both Jewish and Christian scholarship to be coitus interruptus, not
violating the levirate. If the interpretation favored by Wikipedia
and "modern scholars" is correct, it was the best kept secret of
the past few milennia.
It's just coincidence, I'm sure, that quote-whoring biblical
scholars changed their mind on the subject at the same time as
society at large did (as with abortion).
Phil|6.7.05 @ 10:55PM|#
What drives me absolutely stark raving mad, is that people
in this country are so rabid about changing everything, that they
have to try and change my Church, when what they really need to do
is just mind their own business.
Then can you petition church leaders to stay the everlovin' fuck
out of American lawmaking? I mean, after all, they should just mind
their own business, and according to you, if they don't like the
laws, they can just leave, right?
Yeshua said that, "if you are ashamed of me in front of your
bretheren, then so shall I be ashamed of you before My
Father."
He also said, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger
of hell fire." I'm not sure whether "KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL
DICK BEATERS OFF MY CHURCH!" falls under that warning, but there
you have it.
|6.7.05 @ 10:56PM|#
The Catholic Church is against artificial birth control
because they want more Catholics.
How many Catholics have left the Church since Paul VI reaffirmed
the teaching on contraception in 1968? Looks like the master plan
to increase the ranks backfired.
|6.7.05 @ 11:03PM|#
Phil,
It's funny how libertarians are all for free political speech as
long as it's not tied to religion. Does an American citizen forfeit
his 1st ammendment rights by becoming a church leader?
|6.7.05 @ 11:35PM|#
As I said, the law of the levirate is given by Moses, who
wouldn't be born for hundreds of years after the Onan
incident.
This is interesting.
BTW, "The Onan Incident" would be an absolutely marvelous
name for a band.
|6.8.05 @ 12:25AM|#
The Captain writes: "If you are Catholic, you know that your
religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God,
and it is still the same Church."
And if YOU were a Catholic who attended and paid attention in
Catholic school, you would know that your religion was founded by a
deliberative body at Nicea some 325 years after the mortal demise
of one Jesus of Nazareth.
|6.8.05 @ 3:28AM|#
...325 years after the mortal demise of one Jesus of
Nazareth.
Show me definitive proof that Jesus was flesh and not pure
myth.
Jeff|6.8.05 @ 5:56AM|#
Not to get Randroid on everyone, but there is a nice piece on
morals without God at ARI:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11127&news_iv_ctrl=1021
I can sympathize with Captain. For the last twenty five years I
have had to listen to atheism be blamed for every ill in the world,
hear how atheists hardly qualify as human, and (after 9/11) hear
cries to outright ban atheism from public life. Nuthin' like
persecution.
Also, my main problem with Catholicism isn't the murky series of
cultural co-opts that form its origin, but rather the fact that all
human progress was brought to stop for 1000 years while the the
Church held authoritarian sway over the world.
No science. No medicine. 1000 years.
And I am not above ridiculing atheists either. I was quoted
extensively in George Dvorsky's column on the Brights a while
back
http://www.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/294/Default.aspx
|6.8.05 @ 6:30AM|#
Captain-
I had a couple questions about your little parable from your 6/7
5:03 post.
It doesn't sound like its from the Bible, is it from some other
source or did you create it yourself?
I've never heard the term "Bride Groom" in that context, did you
create that as well or did it originate somewhere else?
Your story seems pretty forceful, you realize that Church officials
can only act to reprimand or at most excommunicate members, don't
you? If Church officials or representatives were to assault someone
or steal someone's property you do realize that they would be
guilty of sins and the crimes of assault, theft, fraud, - whatever,
don't you?
|6.8.05 @ 7:10AM|#
[I]Show me definitive proof that Jesus was flesh and not pure
myth.[/I]
[a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com]There is far more
evidence for Julius Ceaser existing than there is for
JEEZ-us.[/a]
Phil|6.8.05 @ 8:20AM|#
That's a good question, crimethink. I'm not sure how it's
relevant to my posing an analogy to The Captain in order to show
him why its permissible for Catholics to want the Church to modify
doctrine rather than adhere to a "love it or leave it" stratagem,
but it's a good question nevertheless.
Let me pose one back: Given its deep involvement in American
politics and culture, is the Catholic Church removed from both
internal and external criticism simply by virtue of being
religious?
|6.8.05 @ 10:08AM|#
Russ R.,
The Council of Nicea was called mainly to try to put an end to the
conflict caused by the Arian heresy. It had nothing to do with the
foundation of Christianity. Catholics believe that Jesus selected
the original apostles and that they spread His message through the
world after His ascension into heaven.
The Nicean Creed is a statement of Catholic belief, but not the
foundation of Catholic belief.
|6.8.05 @ 10:51AM|#
"How much clearer does it need to be? Blame it on god, abscond
from responsibility - seems to be the theme of the religious.
They're not doing something because they have a rational basis for
it."
i would like to meet people who believe things for rational reasons
someday. i don't think they exist, at least in any sort of
totality.
i've met libertoid types who swear they're being rational, but
fundamentally part of that political reaction (and anarchism of all
stripes, for that matter) is the absolute horror at seeing force
used to abuse others. that's not rational. but it's damn
valid.
my only beef with B16 is the gross, disgusting and vile way in
which he speaks of gays, and only because that's going to affect
the legal climate of the united states.
"The saddest part is, you can't argue with the religious using
reason and fact because their minds are attuned to faith."
is this really any different than arguing with anyone else who
believes in anything? we can all come up with nice, rational
explanations for our beliefs - even theologians do it - but at some
point it is still ephemera, faith and mystery. to say otherwise is
to assume you're some sort of robot, in which case you would harbor
no ill will towards the religious because holding such group
bigotries is inherently anti-rational.
to be fair, i'm an apathetic agnostic in a city where no one gives
a flying fuck what i do, even in flatbush. i understand that others
grew up in gross places of intolerance and annoyingness and the
occasional beating, and may be less inclined to share my
attitude.
anit-jeff...the council of nicea was most certainly the foundation
of catholicism and orthodox, institutional christianity, which is
the form we're discussing here today. since modern catholics are
not arians, etc etc and so forth.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Awesome! I've figured out Gaius Marius' real-world
identity
lol -- he does sound a hell of a lot like me. this
particularly:
"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for
pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down
the moral goal posts he said were needed for its future.
excellent point, mr pope.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 11:34AM|#
This guy doesn't seem, er, terribly bright.
to the contrary, mr ligon -- this isn't him speaking off the cuff.
his statements on these points are the church's defense, as an
institutional guardian of western civilization, of a way of life
that the western proletariat -- who for hundreds of years saw the
wisdom of social coercion and cooperation -- is entirely rejecting
for nietzschean idealist freiheit. it are facing -- we all are
facing -- the collapse of western civilization; this drive to break
all social obligations in an orgy of the personal is a
symptom/cause of it. he realizes it, as do many secular historians.
and he's doing what he must do to preserve the west, even if he
(and hte rcc) are not ultimately successful.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 11:37AM|#
This guy's idea of unions sounds like a fucking Third Reich
issue. 1) Meet woman. 2) Marry woman immediately. 3) Live with
woman for rest of life, no matter how horrible it makes both of
you.
And then this fool has the nerve to invoke "freedom" in his little
rant against individual freedom? "Freedom" means that you have the
freedom to what I give you permission to do. No, sorry, popey,
that's not "freedom". That's subservience.
mr williams perfectly exemplifies this drive to total personal
emancipation in his reaction. "no tradition except what i choose
shall stand before my desire! no one shall coerce me into
anything!"
that's the very definition of irresponsible freedom, and is
fundamental to the decay of the west. no one can find the
discipline -- which used to be quite common -- to put their
personal pleasure aside for a day, much less a lifetime -- for the
good of the whole.
|6.8.05 @ 11:43AM|#
Let me pose one back: Given its deep involvement in American
politics and culture, is the Catholic Church removed from both
internal and external criticism simply by virtue of being
religious?
Not at all. But unlike non-religious organizations, the Church is
often not merely criticized, but shut out of political debates,
ostensibly to protect the separation of church and state. But the
Church influencing politics the same way as other organizations do
-- through the voters -- hardly violates separation of church and
state.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 11:47AM|#
The Catholic church CANNOT change. It's whole schtick is
that it has primacy on spirituality and has direct authoritative
lineage from Christ. Admitting that Galileo was right took
centuries.
i disagree, mr jeff -- it can and does change (as you pointed out).
it simply does so very slowly.
and this is the entire point of having an institution. of what use
would the church be if it blew around with the whim of the
proletariat? it would have vanished long ago -- indeed, that is the
definition of institutional death (and the people in charge of
democratizing the world should be made to understand that).
the church is a repository and protector of man's accumulated
wisdom in the form of biblical exegesis. we can all see that the
homeric or teutonic epics are mythological repositories of great
value to the societies that produced and maintained them -- and
that those societies which abandoned them as elevated teaching did
so only shortly before their perversion, decline and
destruction.
why is it so hard to imagine that we are doing the same with the
rcc?
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 11:57AM|#
the pope is no longer allowed to set public (p)olicy, but a
lot of the people who DO spend a lot of time listening to
him.
i would argue, ms jennifer, that its unfortunate they don't. the
rcc has been against iraq and bush's global democratic revolution
from the beginning -- and i find it entirely consistent to take the
papal language against irresponsible, antitraditional idealist
freedom and apply it to the bush administration's multiple wars of
self-centered ideology.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Those attitudes have held sway for millenia; but I'm sure
that you will vanquish them with your superior appeal to
"reason".
the core ridiculousness of postmodern life. reject the history of
our forebears -- only our ideas matter.
|6.8.05 @ 12:00PM|#
"this drive to break all social obligations"
but gaius, that's the thing...he's actually interfering in the acts
of people trying to CREATE social obligation.
sometimes i think you lack the ability to differentiate between a
reasonable and unreasonable obligation, because you're so focused
on the jerry springer-esque circus you feel is destroying western
civilization.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 12:20PM|#
Man is following God's plan whether he likes it or not. Our
job is to emulate Christ and evangelize through our actions. I
don't mean that you shouldn't defend the church. But, personally, I
always think of how my favorite priest might respond and
try to communicate the same warmth and compassion.
amen! :)
mr orrell, correct me if i'm wrong, but catholicism maintains that
we have free will -- i don't know that we are following god's plan
so much as the best of us are committed to the good acts which
benefit society and glorify god by the law laid out in the church.
there's nothing predestined about catholicism -- and so it really
is "our job" to be good.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 12:29PM|#
he's actually interfering in the acts of people trying to
CREATE social obligation.
no -- he's interfering in people's intent to create their own
obligations of their own choice on their own terms.
those may be obligations, but they are not, repeat not social. they
are obligations defined by the individuals alone. that is a
*profound* difference -- and i would go so far as to say our
inability to differentiate between social obligation and personal
ones is at the heart of what is eating away at society from the
inside.
i think postmodern christian fundies are a brilliant example of
this. they want to believe they've taken a severe social obligation
in adopting this piety that they can't stop promoting. THEY
HAVEN'T. they've chosen to do what they're doing, and they decide
what they do and to what extent they'll carry it -- and they don't
give a good god damn about anyone who says otherwise, be they
secular, christian, political or economic.
they have conflated some pietist tenets of self-deprivation with
what is essentially the nietzschean cult of the self -- what
toynbee called syncretic promiscuity -- and huddle with likeminded
individuals in opposition to all society.
that is not social obligation of any kind. it is selfish
idealism.
|6.8.05 @ 12:42PM|#
"no -- he's interfering in people's intent to create their own
obligations of their own choice on their own terms."
they're social obligations, i don't see how you could say they're
not. they're certainly social obligations for the part of society
which sees gays are being fundamentally similar to straights.
unless marriage is inherently a non-social institution, in which
case...what does constitute a social obligation then? something
agreed upon by 51% of the population? something which hedges well
with the last period of time you identify as social?
even the postmodern fundies you mention make up a sizeable portion
of the population, and have their own very well-defined societies,
scary or not. despite the will to power being your favorite
boogeyman, the defining characteristic of our age is, in part, that
social or ethnic minorities no longer have to be crushed by the
group as a whole. it isn't pretty or ordered, but...
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 1:13PM|#
they're social obligations, i don't see how you could say
they're not.
mr dhex, by what social authority do these contracts exist? what
institution offers them? what history is behind them? what
tradition?
none of the above. society is more than the ideas of the
moment. it must have continuity and history to have
meaning and utility. these contracts, such as they are presented,
are the spontaneous idea of the postmodern gay community; they have
no historical basis.
you almost seem to believe that, because they declaim before an
audience, that the obligation is social. nothing could be further
from the truth; anyone can get up in front of a crowd of likeminded
folks and make shit up. :)
i would go further and say that marriage, in the hands of the
state, is no longer a social obligation. it's a contract whose
terms can be terminated by either party at any time with no
opposition from any authority -- not a contract, in other words,
but an arrangement of convenience. without a power to mandate the
enforcement of its terms -- "until death do us part" -- the
contract is essentially meaningless today, a passing fancy that is
valid only if both parties continuously consent.
that is profoundly antisocial.
their own very well-defined societies
that they have "their own" is testament to the fracturing of our
civility. increasingly, people belong to no group that they do not
select for themselves. there is little compulsory in any of it --
and i may ask, do you know many fundies? i do, and they are
notorious church-hoppers. if they disagree with the preacher, they
get another church. what is social about that? nothing -- its
individual prerogative without limitation.
the defining characteristic of our age is, in part, that social or
ethnic minorities no longer have to be crushed by the group as a
whole. it isn't pretty or ordered, but...
or social. this emancipation is precisely the decline of
civilization.
we may agree that the oppression of this-or-that group is bad. but
the fact that it could be oppressed often without overt action on
the part of institutions for what was perceived as the broader good
was evidence of the strength of civility.
instead, we find our own individual ideas about what should or
should not be oppressed to be far more valid. social history and
tradition are specifically rejected.
that age of social power has passed, i think we can say
definitively, as the pragmatic liberty that was ensured by the
power of society has been largely overturned for the idealistic
rights of man. burke's famous
and awesome attack on the french revolution and the rights of
man has become the attack validly made upon us. it is not less
valid simply because irresponsible emancipation has become more
popular as we have become more decadent and self-indulgent -- to
the point where we can't even keep families together for fear of
trodding on individual rights.
next stop: gradual total disintegration, as people -- increasingly
aware of their freedom to be irresponsible -- choose to opt out of
everything, especially law.
|6.8.05 @ 1:31PM|#
i'd love to know when america was one whole society. since our
social tradition includes the exclusion and enslavement of entire
classes of people.
i mean, gaius, really...would you want to live in the 1850s? if so,
would you want to live in the 1850s as a black man? or a
woman?
fuck that. i'll take the chaos and screaming. there's far more
ordering than you see, and not all of it is rotten. most of what
you're holding up as good were decisions made for the many, by the
few, and embodying all the lovely traits you rightfully decry in
the current administration.
"oligarchical idealism" is what i'd call it.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 1:59PM|#
"oligarchical idealism" is what i'd call it.
i think actually, in my reading, there's remarkably little of that.
upstarts to the established aristocratic order were rare and
usually swiftly destroyed; the instinct of burke is obviously that
tradition is what is fundamentally right -- not because it is an
ideal, but specifically because it isn't. it's time-tested, the
cumulations of all the compromises struck and notions accepted and
rejected in the history of the society.
that's not to say things can't change. burke notably praised the
american revolt -- on the grounds that they, unlike the french,
meant to establish not a government of ideals but one built of the
centuries-old british parliamentary experience. it's simply to say
that things should change slowly, in small applications, with
consideration to and in accordance with tradition and
evidence.
the notion that ideas should be broadly implemented because they
appeared close to a conceived abstract ideal -- as opposed to
history or evidence -- is only as old in the west as kant, rousseau
and that lot.
would you want to live in the 1850s? if so, would you want to live
in the 1850s as a black man? or a woman?
my point is that it doesn't matter what anyone wanted. it wasn't
for them as individuals to decide.
fuck that. i'll take the chaos and screaming.
such is your prerogative in a society that increasingly isn't. but
you should perhaps prepare yourself for a lot more chaos than you
want to see your friends and loved ones suffer through -- all so
that we can feel responsible for nothing.
|6.8.05 @ 2:24PM|#
shrug.
i don't really know what to say. this carpet ride ain't going to
get any slower.
"my point is that it doesn't matter what anyone wanted. it wasn't
for them as individuals to decide."
so the price of order is some form of slavery? not just
constraints, since contrary to your argument everyone everywhere
lives with constraints. they may not be the constraints you want,
or desire, but they're there.
how is this not oligarchical idealism? can you look back to the
tradition which spawned (and eventually spiritually crushed) burke
- and back on many of his most deservedly famous orations - and not
see the deeply depraved actions of the few towards the many that
you call tradition? of course it works - it worked in ireland for
many centuries, fed as these machines are *always* fed, by the
blood of those who cannot defend themselves. of course it works -
idealism is for the public face, and always has been. (monarchies
lived on idealism in public and the usual machinations in private,
i.e. the real world)
the iraq war you decry is very much steeped in tradition, gaius,
and it's an old and sad tale. if anything, it is far less depraved
than the great days of yore when blacks were cattle and women
chattel for breeding, because of the rampant individualism you
despise.
|6.8.05 @ 2:35PM|#
Akira,
There is far more evidence for Julius Ceaser existing than
there is for JEEZ-us.
Only a few dozen Judeans of that era have "official" documents
corroborating their existence. However, it's obvious that more than
a few dozen Judeans existed.
2000 years from now, there will almost certainly be no proof of
your existence either.
|6.8.05 @ 3:44PM|#
2000 years from now, there will almost certainly be no proof
of your existence either.
That depends on the quality of the subcutaneous anti-terrorism
tracking/identity chips that we'll be required to have.
|6.8.05 @ 3:59PM|#
dhex,
Gaius' ideal society works when the vast majority are illiterate
cogs in the machine. They can support the aristocracy and clergy,
sacrificing their lives to the greater good for the promise of
reward in the afterlife.
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 4:45PM|#
so the price of order is some form of slavery?
what if the alternative to all you decry was the dark ages and a
primitive hand-to-mouth existence? we can't pretend to offer the
one horrid consequence without viewing the other.
the iraq war you decry is very much steeped in tradition, gaius,
and it's an old and sad tale.
it profoundly isn't. if we had gone to war there with a
rationalization of land or oil, i would say absolutely it was. but
-- and this point is utterly critical -- we didn't. we went for
freedom. we went for democracy. not a war for material, objective
things. for ideas -- even at the highest level, i'm convinced. read
the bios of the men behind this war. none of them are pragmatists
or kissingerian realists; exactly the opposite.
one cannot take every act of man and reduce it simply to base
things -- even if such considerations always play a part, such
cynicism is to reduce the power of men's minds to value the
unevidenced to triviality. this war -- like some other wars fought
by elements of western society in this century -- is
different.
and i might add that, even if you do not accept that idealism has
replaced empiricism in the western mind, consider: does a society
fleeing from tradition fight no wars? or do they fight them all the
more awfully and constantly?
ideal society
it isn't my "ideal society", mr david. it's just a more durable and
stable state than this antisociety, for all its shortcomings in
your (and my) judgement.
|6.8.05 @ 5:24PM|#
not a war for material, objective things. for
ideas
Which never happened before in western civ -- well, except for the
Crusades, the Thirty Years War, ....
gaius marius|6.8.05 @ 6:39PM|#
who fought the thirty years war for ideas? the peasants, perhaps
-- but the habsburgs fought it for power. and that is an essential
difference between yesterday and today. postmodern leadership in
western democracies is prone to be idealists.
aristocracy is, by its nature, skeptical of new ideas and devoted
to the traditions that kept them in power, regardless of what the
plebian classes were up to -- and so was the german feudal
aristocracy of that time. even up until 1914, britain's ruling
classes saw global power largely as sport, and their role in ww1 as
the preservation of western institutions.
hitler, however, cannot be said to have been fighting for material
reasons. and that impulse dates back to the jacobins -- the first
ruling party to upend the jaded aristocracy in europe to pursue an
idea with violence.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245