samedi 30 mars 2013
jeudi 28 mars 2013
Géocentrisme contemporain même connu en français? Wow!
La bonne nouvelle, dans un certain contexte, est que finalement je trouve une page en français qui traîte de Sungenis et du géocentrisme contemporain (il y a des choses qui sont beaucoup plus sacrées comme Bonne Nouvelle un Jeudi Saint, mais je reconnais mon indignité, vu qu'une querelle avec la paroisse m'ait pu amener à m'abstiner de la Communion les dernières années). La mauvaise nouvelle est que cette page n'est pas très géniale:
Brigitte Axelrad - SPS n° 294, janvier 2011
« Galilée avait tort : l'Église avait raison »
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1589
Première remarque: elle cite bien-sûr l'œuvre de mon cher Sungenis.
Deuxième remarque: elle la cite apparemment sans l'avoir lue. La preuve? Je la cite:
Une partie de l'œuvre de Sungenis est effectivement là pour rappeler l'autorité biblique. Une partie pour rappeler celle de St Robert Bellarmin (en 1616) et surtout du Pape Urbain VIII (en 1633). Mais une partie est aussi là pour les arguments scientifiques en faveur du géocentrisme. Et la citation que je viens de faire ne montre pas que Brigitte Axelrad ait lu cette partie là.
Michelson-Morley et Sagnac? Non? « Les expériences scientifiques montrent que la terre est immobile au centre de l'univers » - c'est une rubrique de chapître qu'elle a lu. Mais après de la citer, elle ne cite pas les expériences scientiques que ce chapître donne, que Sungenis et les autres citent fois après fois, à savoir Michelson-Morley et Sagnac, mais simplement son évaluation des compétences des impliqués.
Rappelons, je cite ceci d'après mes connaissances en Sungenis et son livre et son œuvre, que:
Mes sympathies de ne pas avoir parcouru les 350 pages de science (je n'ai pas eu accès au livre moi-même), mais si on veut faire la critique d'un livre, soit on se borne à critiquer ce qu'on lit (comme je viens de faire avec Guide critique de l'évolution*), soit on se tait par le fait de ne pas avoir lu. Brigitte Axelrad prétend avoir lu ce qu'il fallait, mais ne cite pas ce qu'il fallait citer pour critiquer le livre - sans doute plus facile pour son but polémique.
En plus, troisième remarque, elle résume un point valable comme ceci: « Le Géocentrisme : Ils le savent, mais ils le cachent », reprenant le thème récurrent de la théorie du complot. Non, il ne s'agit pas d'un complot dans le sens classique, comme par exemple un complot de noircir Marie Stuart avec les Casket Letters. Il s'agit plutôt d'une non-volonté (collective) d'admettre qu'on ait été sur la fausse piste - précisément ce qu'elle reproche à nos chers géocentriques des États-Unis, dont Sungenis.
Quatrième remarque, elle ne sait pas différencier "géocentrisme" et "ptoléméisme" ou même "système géocentrique hérité d'Aristote" - assez fatal, vu que St Robert Bellarmin et son homonyme Robert Sungenis n'étaient et ne sont pas adeptes du Ptoléméisme, mais du Tychonianisme, dans le cas de Sungenis avec une modification que je partage (ellipses au lieu de cercles parfaits) et une que je ne partage pas (que les étoiles soient aussi fixés en orbite sécondaire autour d'un soleil dont l'orbite est le primaire). La preuve, elle dit cette ineptitude:
Galilée n'a jamais, grand jamais été obligé de retracter ses observations sur les phases de Vénus. Elles s'expliquent très bien dans le système de Copernic, elles s'expliquent autant bien dans le système de Tychon Brahé, que ni l'Inquisition de 1616, ni les juges de 1633 n'ont mis en cause. Or, le système de Tychon Brahé est précisément géocentrique, il dit que la Terre est centre absolu de l'univers et le soleil un centre éloigné et lui-même en rotation autour de ce centre absolu, et que en dehors de la terre, uniquement la lune, le soleil lui-même et les étoiles fixes n'orbitent pas directement autour du soleil. Une position que les phases de Vénus ne peuvent pas refuter. Et que Michelson Morley et Sagnac ont chacun de son côté confirmée.
Cinquième remarque, elle fait de la rhétorique floue dans un certain sens:**
Elle ne dit pas lesquelles. Ni comment. Peut-être parce qu'elle a un agenda? Voyons:
Et c'est qui qu'elle cite tout en haut? Un communiste connu, Berthold Brecht. Et un drâme dont Galilée est le héros. Je préfère alors plutôt Le cercle de craie Caucasien.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard
Jeudi Saint
28-III-2013
*Triviu, Quadriviu, 7 cætera : Guide critique de l'évolution? Un guide critique sur certains points! [sur certains points, et non pas sur tout le livre, donc]
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/guide-critique-de-levolution-un-guide.html
** En une autre page, je viens d'avoir la preuve que l'enseignement public semble repandre un malentendu à propos le géocentrisme dantan:
On n'imaginait point de tout que ce qui n'était pas le centre "gravitait" forcément autour du centre. En avez-vous des preuves que ça soit le cas qu'il le fasse maintenant, d'ailleurs, plutôt que d'orbiter pour d'autres raisons, par exemples volontaires de la part de Dieu et des anges? Question que je viens aussi de poser à Sungenis, car il se vante d'une "mécanique du géocentrisme" ... comme je ne le fais pas.
La source de cette dernière citation est d'ailleurs une page qui ne cite même pas Tychon Brahé - et qui a été rédigé sous les directives d'un professeur de lycée:
Hélio- /Géocentrisme
http://camille.ollivier.free.fr/Helio-geo-centrisme/
Mise à jour, 16-IV, réactions:
I Brigitte Axelrad n'a pas répondu. J'ai vu son profile où elle met un lien vers Observatoire Zététique. La zététique et - pour faire simple - un "esprit critique" appliqué précisément envers des prétentions surnaturels, comme spiritisme, ufologie, tout ça, mais aussi envers le surnaturel religieux, donc envers Lourdes (me semble-t-il), envers la Résurrection (peut-être) et surtout envers le Créationnisme Jeune Terre dans ce contexte. Donc envers le Géocentrisme aussi.
L'idéal du zététique est Scooby Doo ou - dans le Chien des Baskervilles - Sherlock Holmes. Le mystère ne survit qu'à distance, on approche les regards et c'est le scepticisme qui emporte - notons que ceci relève du romanesque. Dans des cas comme Lourdes, il y a des miracles qui survivent mieux le regard de près et du scepticisme qui survit mieux à distance.
Par le fait de ne pas repondre (et par le fait de ne pas entrer dans les détails il y a deux ans) elle montre vis-à-vis le Géocentrisme contemporain un scepticisme qui survit mieux à distance.
II Ensuite je viens d'envoyer un courriel à un astronome il y a qqs jours:
Un astronome aurait pu répondre sur cette question en une quart d'heure. Je ne prétends pas être astronome moi-même. Lui, il avait/a (toujours) une adresse internet liée à l'observatoire de Paris. Il n'a pas répondu encore.
III Ce matin une personne qui avait pu regarder le message il y a qqs semaines m'a dit que les sujets - dont ceci - étaient compliqués. En ne pas étant pleinement d'accord je lui ai demandé "au moins l'héliocentrisme n'est donc pas un sujet tout simple à prouver, c'est juste tout simple que tout le monde à peu près est d'accord que les scientifiques le savent mieux?" - elle n'a pas nié. (Notons, une femme africaine n'est pas forcément tellement avide du débat, des discussions d'un sujet de désaccord, surtout avec invités, que les hommes européens, elle a bien pu être simplement polie).
IV Finalement, Sungenis m'a ajouté sur son réseau de LinkedIn./HGL
*Clarification le lendemain:
Ce n'est pas l'année martienne à elle seule qui, selon le géocentrisme donne le décart le plus important. C'est biensûr les positions extrêmes de Mars par rapport à la Terre. P. ex. si le Soleil est dans la Vierge et Mars au-delà du Soleil dans la Vierge ou inversément le Soleil est dans les Poissons et Mars audelà du Soleil dans les Poissons - la périodicité est un produit de l'année martienne par rapport au Soleil et l'année solaire par rapport à la Terre. Mais, quelle que soit la périodicité, pour une distance pensable aux étoiles fixes, on aurait une parallaxe entre les positions extrêmes de 20° etc. observables de Mars, pour une autre distance pensable plus loin une parallaxe de 5° et pour la distance réelle, si les téléscopes sur Mars sont là, on n'a pas de parallaxe observable avec les isntruments qui se trouvent sur Mars.
D'où ma question à l'astronome: quelle est cette distance?/HGL
Brigitte Axelrad - SPS n° 294, janvier 2011
« Galilée avait tort : l'Église avait raison »
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1589
Première remarque: elle cite bien-sûr l'œuvre de mon cher Sungenis.
Deuxième remarque: elle la cite apparemment sans l'avoir lue. La preuve? Je la cite:
Les adeptes du géocentrisme ne peuvent, eux, se référer qu'à la Bible. À chaque argument scientifique, ils répondent : « Il est dit dans la Bible que… ».
Une partie de l'œuvre de Sungenis est effectivement là pour rappeler l'autorité biblique. Une partie pour rappeler celle de St Robert Bellarmin (en 1616) et surtout du Pape Urbain VIII (en 1633). Mais une partie est aussi là pour les arguments scientifiques en faveur du géocentrisme. Et la citation que je viens de faire ne montre pas que Brigitte Axelrad ait lu cette partie là.
Michelson-Morley et Sagnac? Non? « Les expériences scientifiques montrent que la terre est immobile au centre de l'univers » - c'est une rubrique de chapître qu'elle a lu. Mais après de la citer, elle ne cite pas les expériences scientiques que ce chapître donne, que Sungenis et les autres citent fois après fois, à savoir Michelson-Morley et Sagnac, mais simplement son évaluation des compétences des impliqués.
Rappelons, je cite ceci d'après mes connaissances en Sungenis et son livre et son œuvre, que:
- Michelson-Morley donne que: "soit il n'y a pas d'éther qui soit le médium de la lumière, soit la terre est immobile dans cet éther";
- Sagnac donne que: "la lumière se répand dans un éther, car sa vitesse est affectée par la vitesse du médium";
- ensemble ils donnent le syllogisme:
- si la lumière se répand rélative à un médium, la terre n'a pas de mouvement autour du soleil (MM)
- mais la lumière se répand rélative à un médium (Sc)
- donc la terre n'a pas de mouvement autour du soleil (conclusion de Sungenis)
- si la lumière se répand rélative à un médium, la terre n'a pas de mouvement autour du soleil (MM)
Mes sympathies de ne pas avoir parcouru les 350 pages de science (je n'ai pas eu accès au livre moi-même), mais si on veut faire la critique d'un livre, soit on se borne à critiquer ce qu'on lit (comme je viens de faire avec Guide critique de l'évolution*), soit on se tait par le fait de ne pas avoir lu. Brigitte Axelrad prétend avoir lu ce qu'il fallait, mais ne cite pas ce qu'il fallait citer pour critiquer le livre - sans doute plus facile pour son but polémique.
En plus, troisième remarque, elle résume un point valable comme ceci: « Le Géocentrisme : Ils le savent, mais ils le cachent », reprenant le thème récurrent de la théorie du complot. Non, il ne s'agit pas d'un complot dans le sens classique, comme par exemple un complot de noircir Marie Stuart avec les Casket Letters. Il s'agit plutôt d'une non-volonté (collective) d'admettre qu'on ait été sur la fausse piste - précisément ce qu'elle reproche à nos chers géocentriques des États-Unis, dont Sungenis.
Quatrième remarque, elle ne sait pas différencier "géocentrisme" et "ptoléméisme" ou même "système géocentrique hérité d'Aristote" - assez fatal, vu que St Robert Bellarmin et son homonyme Robert Sungenis n'étaient et ne sont pas adeptes du Ptoléméisme, mais du Tychonianisme, dans le cas de Sungenis avec une modification que je partage (ellipses au lieu de cercles parfaits) et une que je ne partage pas (que les étoiles soient aussi fixés en orbite sécondaire autour d'un soleil dont l'orbite est le primaire). La preuve, elle dit cette ineptitude:
Mais quelle preuve avait-on de l'héliocentrisme, avant la Relativité ? Dans le géocentrisme du début du XVIIe, tout tourne autour de la Terre. La Lune, puis dans l'ordre, Mercure, Vénus, le Soleil, Mars, Jupiter et Saturne (Uranus et Neptune n'ont pas encore été découverts). À partir de 1609, Galilée, pointant la lunette astronomique vers les cieux, va lui trouver des « défauts ». En janvier 1610, il découvre quatre petits astres tournant autour de Jupiter, qu'on appellera par la suite les satellites galiléens. Cela remet partiellement en cause le géocentrisme. Quelques mois plus tard, il découvre que Vénus, comme la Lune, a des phases. Cela ne contredit pas le géocentrisme, mais on ne peut expliquer pourquoi Vénus est de plus en plus petite au fur et à mesure qu'elle devient pleine, alors que l'héliocentrisme de Copernic explique sans peine le phénomène : si Vénus rapetisse au fur et à mesure qu'elle s'illumine, c'est parce que, vue depuis la Terre, elle passe de l'autre côté du Soleil. Ce qu'elle ne peut évidemment pas faire dans le système géocentrique hérité d'Aristote.
Galilée n'a jamais, grand jamais été obligé de retracter ses observations sur les phases de Vénus. Elles s'expliquent très bien dans le système de Copernic, elles s'expliquent autant bien dans le système de Tychon Brahé, que ni l'Inquisition de 1616, ni les juges de 1633 n'ont mis en cause. Or, le système de Tychon Brahé est précisément géocentrique, il dit que la Terre est centre absolu de l'univers et le soleil un centre éloigné et lui-même en rotation autour de ce centre absolu, et que en dehors de la terre, uniquement la lune, le soleil lui-même et les étoiles fixes n'orbitent pas directement autour du soleil. Une position que les phases de Vénus ne peuvent pas refuter. Et que Michelson Morley et Sagnac ont chacun de son côté confirmée.
Cinquième remarque, elle fait de la rhétorique floue dans un certain sens:**
Chaque découverte de la science apporte une nouvelle preuve que le géocentrisme n'est pas une représentation qui correspond à la réalité.
Elle ne dit pas lesquelles. Ni comment. Peut-être parce qu'elle a un agenda? Voyons:
La science des coperniciens avait en face d'elle les Écritures et la croyance en une vérité révélée et devait livrer bataille contre l'irrationnel. C'était les savants qui étaient persécutés.
Et c'est qui qu'elle cite tout en haut? Un communiste connu, Berthold Brecht. Et un drâme dont Galilée est le héros. Je préfère alors plutôt Le cercle de craie Caucasien.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard
Jeudi Saint
28-III-2013
*Triviu, Quadriviu, 7 cætera : Guide critique de l'évolution? Un guide critique sur certains points! [sur certains points, et non pas sur tout le livre, donc]
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/guide-critique-de-levolution-un-guide.html
** En une autre page, je viens d'avoir la preuve que l'enseignement public semble repandre un malentendu à propos le géocentrisme dantan:
C'est ainsi que longtemps on s'imagina que la Terre constituait le centre de l'univers, et que tous les astres visibles gravitaient autour d'elle.
On n'imaginait point de tout que ce qui n'était pas le centre "gravitait" forcément autour du centre. En avez-vous des preuves que ça soit le cas qu'il le fasse maintenant, d'ailleurs, plutôt que d'orbiter pour d'autres raisons, par exemples volontaires de la part de Dieu et des anges? Question que je viens aussi de poser à Sungenis, car il se vante d'une "mécanique du géocentrisme" ... comme je ne le fais pas.
La source de cette dernière citation est d'ailleurs une page qui ne cite même pas Tychon Brahé - et qui a été rédigé sous les directives d'un professeur de lycée:
Hélio- /Géocentrisme
http://camille.ollivier.free.fr/Helio-geo-centrisme/
Mise à jour, 16-IV, réactions:
I Brigitte Axelrad n'a pas répondu. J'ai vu son profile où elle met un lien vers Observatoire Zététique. La zététique et - pour faire simple - un "esprit critique" appliqué précisément envers des prétentions surnaturels, comme spiritisme, ufologie, tout ça, mais aussi envers le surnaturel religieux, donc envers Lourdes (me semble-t-il), envers la Résurrection (peut-être) et surtout envers le Créationnisme Jeune Terre dans ce contexte. Donc envers le Géocentrisme aussi.
L'idéal du zététique est Scooby Doo ou - dans le Chien des Baskervilles - Sherlock Holmes. Le mystère ne survit qu'à distance, on approche les regards et c'est le scepticisme qui emporte - notons que ceci relève du romanesque. Dans des cas comme Lourdes, il y a des miracles qui survivent mieux le regard de près et du scepticisme qui survit mieux à distance.
Par le fait de ne pas repondre (et par le fait de ne pas entrer dans les détails il y a deux ans) elle montre vis-à-vis le Géocentrisme contemporain un scepticisme qui survit mieux à distance.
II Ensuite je viens d'envoyer un courriel à un astronome il y a qqs jours:
S'il y a vraiment des observations astronomoques par "téléscopes" sur Mars, quelle est donc la distance minimum à la sphère des étoiles fixes ... à supposer biensûr que la cosmologie moderne est fausse et qu'il y a alors une sphère des étoiles fixes?
Je sais que les parallaxes prévisibles selon la thèse héliocentrique n'ont pas été (n'avaient pas été en 2006) vérifiées de Mars, parce que les téléscopes (ou peut-être on appelle les instruments à lentilles autre chose en français) qui s'y trouvent (si ce n'est pas un escroc, ce qui n'est pas du tout ma thèse priviligiée, mais au contraire une conclusion que j'aimerais éviter) n'ont pas la même force que les grandes téléscopes qu'on utilise sur terre pour vérifier le phénomène de Bessel.
De ce côté là la phénomène de Bessel pourrait bien être que des anges meuvent les étoiles ou certaines des étoiles en temps avec le soleil (abstraction faite de la rotation diurne de l'univers). Le contraire aurait, avec des télescopes plus forts, pu être vérifié de Mars, mais ne l'a pas été.
Par contre, je me rends compte que si la la terre est immobile et la sphère des étoiles était par exemple juste en dehors de la distance de Pluton quand il est le plus loin et audelà du soleil (pluton en aphélie, terre en aphélie et terre et pluton en opposition vus du soleil - je ne sais pas quand une chose comme ça serait arrivée, mais ça doit pouvoir être arrivé), alors une autre parallaxe serait prévisible dès qu'on se trouve sur Mars, ne fût-ce qu'avec des téléscopes trop faibles pour un angle de zéro point 76 secondes de l'arc - comme c'est le cas pour proxima Centauri dans le phénomène de Bessel.
Donc, quelle est la distance minimale que ces étoiles doivent avoir de nous et de Mars pour qu'on ne détecte pas de parallaxe martienne notable déjà avec les instruments qu'on a sur la planète rouge, par exemple des parallaxes martiennes de 20° 20' 20" par année martienne?*
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Un astronome aurait pu répondre sur cette question en une quart d'heure. Je ne prétends pas être astronome moi-même. Lui, il avait/a (toujours) une adresse internet liée à l'observatoire de Paris. Il n'a pas répondu encore.
III Ce matin une personne qui avait pu regarder le message il y a qqs semaines m'a dit que les sujets - dont ceci - étaient compliqués. En ne pas étant pleinement d'accord je lui ai demandé "au moins l'héliocentrisme n'est donc pas un sujet tout simple à prouver, c'est juste tout simple que tout le monde à peu près est d'accord que les scientifiques le savent mieux?" - elle n'a pas nié. (Notons, une femme africaine n'est pas forcément tellement avide du débat, des discussions d'un sujet de désaccord, surtout avec invités, que les hommes européens, elle a bien pu être simplement polie).
IV Finalement, Sungenis m'a ajouté sur son réseau de LinkedIn./HGL
*Clarification le lendemain:
Ce n'est pas l'année martienne à elle seule qui, selon le géocentrisme donne le décart le plus important. C'est biensûr les positions extrêmes de Mars par rapport à la Terre. P. ex. si le Soleil est dans la Vierge et Mars au-delà du Soleil dans la Vierge ou inversément le Soleil est dans les Poissons et Mars audelà du Soleil dans les Poissons - la périodicité est un produit de l'année martienne par rapport au Soleil et l'année solaire par rapport à la Terre. Mais, quelle que soit la périodicité, pour une distance pensable aux étoiles fixes, on aurait une parallaxe entre les positions extrêmes de 20° etc. observables de Mars, pour une autre distance pensable plus loin une parallaxe de 5° et pour la distance réelle, si les téléscopes sur Mars sont là, on n'a pas de parallaxe observable avec les isntruments qui se trouvent sur Mars.
D'où ma question à l'astronome: quelle est cette distance?/HGL
mercredi 27 mars 2013
I might have been wrong about United Arab Emirates ...
I thought the readers there of my blogs were part of those behind blocking and a sense of censorship, but it seems the authorities over there are friendly to Christians, and since there are such there, my readers can have been coming partly from that group.
Look at this news, hope they will have a very good Easter celebration there:
Spectator: An Oasis of Tolerance
Look at this news, hope they will have a very good Easter celebration there:
Spectator: An Oasis of Tolerance
Ceux qui insultent mon français, insultent Mgr Marcel Lefèbvre et Abbé Dom Gérard
Comment ça? Bon, juste comme ça ... non, blague à part il y a une raison. Ceux qui insultent mon français insultent ceux qui m'ont appris le français. Et ça veut dire, en ordre chronologique:
Qui est-ce donc qui insulte mon français? Des gens qui, soit me disent que je ne peux pas être un écrivain parce que je ne maîtrise pas le français, soit me le "prouvent" en abusant les privilèges d'administrateurs pour introduire des erreurs dans les textes que je produis, soit encore imaginent que je sois un anglais ou américain qui parle aussi peu le français qu'eux mêmes l'anglais et que le contenu de mes blogs serait donc uniquement en anglais, ou pire encore en un français avec accent (mais, comment justement l'accent pourrait-il être détecté dans un blog, vu que le texte est écrit et l'accent est en oral?).
Des gens qui me proposent des sujets sont biensûr les bienvenus. Si je trouve mes sujets en réponse à des choses anglophones, je réponds plutôt en anglais.***
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
Mercredi de la
Semaine Sainte
Jour de Trahison par Judas
mais aussi des Saints Stigmates de
St François d'Assise
et du martyre (si un Anglicain peut
être martyr) de Charles I
27-III-2013
* Moine ou moîne? Pélérin ou pèlerin? Chrétienté ou chrétienneté? Et, faute classique pour un suécophone, hésiter entre mésure et mesure, reponse et réponse (en syllabe atone en suédois, e et é sont grammaticalement identiques, s'écrivent "e" les deux).
**Peut-on écrire ça en français? En latin il n'y a de toute façon pas de problème avec "quem speravi fuisse ...", mais là j'ai oublié ou non pas appris le mot pour cible.
***Et si je les trouve en français ...
- Mes professeurs de français au collège et au lycée, dont une avait fait ses études à Aix en Provence;
- Dom Gérard Calvet en prêchant (avec d'autres moines et prêtres et retraitants à Sainte Madeleine du Barroux) et en auteur de Demain la Chrétienneté (comme je m'en souviens, bien que plus récemment j'ai vu Demain la Chrétienté*), Mgr Lefèbvre en auteur de Ils L'ont découronné, et M. l'Abbé Bryan Houghton (que j'ai espéré avoir été** - plutôt que Notre Seigneur - le cible du Life of Brian, espécialement la scène "Romani ite Domum") en auteur de Prêtre rejeté, sans oublier à la même époque environ des traducteurs des éditions Budé, là où mon Grec était trop faible pour me tenir juste au texte et aux lexiques;
- à l'orale des travailleurs à Svallerup et des pélerins vers St Jacques, et, sur le retour, une dame russe et française;
- déjà chez elle et encore depuis mon arrivée en France des Bandes Dessinées (elle me prônait sa collection de Sylvain et Sylvette, j'ai moi-même découvert Claire, Julie et ... zut alors, j'ai oublié l'autre ... et la production d'un Arleston qui est très aimable comme scénariste, là où il ne prône pas son anticléricalisme), j'ai aussi relu des classiques que j'avais décoverts en traductions suédoise ou allemande - Hergé, Peyo, Franquin, Goscinny et Uderzo, comment s'appelle l'auteur de Rahan ...;
- même des français avec qui il m'est arrivé de parler (oui, oui, je vous assure, malgré les gens qui ne me disent rien ou qui se content avec un "vous parlez très bien le français" il m'est quand même arrivé à converser avec des personnes d'origine franco-française et avec des immigrés coloniaux et ex-coloniaux).
Qui est-ce donc qui insulte mon français? Des gens qui, soit me disent que je ne peux pas être un écrivain parce que je ne maîtrise pas le français, soit me le "prouvent" en abusant les privilèges d'administrateurs pour introduire des erreurs dans les textes que je produis, soit encore imaginent que je sois un anglais ou américain qui parle aussi peu le français qu'eux mêmes l'anglais et que le contenu de mes blogs serait donc uniquement en anglais, ou pire encore en un français avec accent (mais, comment justement l'accent pourrait-il être détecté dans un blog, vu que le texte est écrit et l'accent est en oral?).
Des gens qui me proposent des sujets sont biensûr les bienvenus. Si je trouve mes sujets en réponse à des choses anglophones, je réponds plutôt en anglais.***
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
Mercredi de la
Semaine Sainte
Jour de Trahison par Judas
mais aussi des Saints Stigmates de
St François d'Assise
et du martyre (si un Anglicain peut
être martyr) de Charles I
27-III-2013
* Moine ou moîne? Pélérin ou pèlerin? Chrétienté ou chrétienneté? Et, faute classique pour un suécophone, hésiter entre mésure et mesure, reponse et réponse (en syllabe atone en suédois, e et é sont grammaticalement identiques, s'écrivent "e" les deux).
**Peut-on écrire ça en français? En latin il n'y a de toute façon pas de problème avec "quem speravi fuisse ...", mais là j'ai oublié ou non pas appris le mot pour cible.
***Et si je les trouve en français ...
mardi 26 mars 2013
Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ...
1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
Kevin Annett writes extensively about Catholic intents of genocide ... even when such cannot at all be proven.
He writes about Urban II, who did not write that killing and enslaving Saracens cleansed from sins, but that fighting Saracen tyranny and liberating Oriental Churches was a preparation for cleansing from sin. He writes about Adrian IV's Laudabiliter which speaks about restoring law and suppressing vice, and extending the Church (Celtic Catholicism was then in schism). He writes about Inter Caetera by Alexander VI which divided the Pagan world between Spain and Portugal but in the sense of hoping they provide the natives with good missionaries, and that they could take the resources that natives were anyway not using (the ones found by Christopher Columbus were hardly mining for precious minerals). He makes reference to Romanus Pontifex which seems to enslave all non-Christians until you read the context and find it enslaves people militarily resisting the Christian expansion. There is one item he really does cite - and I am at this point forced to rewrite hours of work because it was sabotaged at Nanterre University Library - which is apposite if one wants to know whether Catholic priests deliberately contaminated Indian children with TB. It is a letter which he shows in a scan at page 75.
COPY.
Frazer Lake, B.C.
January 28th. 1938
R. H. Moore Esq.,
Indian Agent,
Vanderhoof B.C.
Dear Sir:-
RE: DOROTHY PAUL, LeJac.
Father Grant has asked me to write to you concerning the above. as she has a fair amount of sputum it endangers the infant child of Harry if she goes home.
While I am aware that the Indian Dept. will not hospitalize Indians suffering from Pulmonary tuberculosis, Bishop Coudert has offered to arrange for her hospital treatment at Smithers if the Dept. refuses to do so. In view of this I would recommend hospital care for Dorothy. It would also be nice if she could have a chest-plate to confirm my diagnosis.
Yours truly,
John C. Poole
To Kevin Annett this is Figure 8. It shows Indian Department did not usually pay for hospital treatment, but he totally forgets it also shows that on occasions or at least one, Catholic clergy did pay when the state would not do so. Figure 8(a), next page, is a newspaper clip. In it an Anglican clergyman named Trevor Jones in 1953 says the government now has the policy, which it did not previously have, to hospitalise every active case of TB. To Kevin Annett this is proof the governement did not hospitalise for TB, but he forgets that Anglican clergy were opposed to that, as is shown by Trevor Jones.
It is significant that the father of the Dr. Pitts who described the two standards of care system in the residential schools was Reverend F.W. Pitts of the United Church of Canada, who, as Principal of the Alberni residential school during the 1930’s, allegedly exposed children to tuberculosis and caused their deaths.
According to an eyewitness and survivor, Willie Sport,
“That Principal Pitts was trying to kill us. I was the only kid who survived. Pitts took eight of us and he fed us this canned meat. He didn’t give it to anybody else. Then we all got sick with the TB. Every other boy died, but my Dad broke into the infirmary and got me out, and took me to my grandfather who was a medicine man. He sucked the black poison out of each of my lungs three times, then spit it out, I seen it. But all the other kids died, thanks to Pitts.”
(March 28, 1998, Port Alberni, B.C.)
A church official infects and kills seven children, while his state-paid doctor son exonerates the crime, and many like it, by operating according to an unspoken law that has him look the other way when native children grow sick and die. The ease with which such a tag team operation occurred between church and state in Canada, and accounted for so many supposed “deaths due to natural causes”,indicates an obvious criminal conspiracy.
OK, it is Pitts Jr. who describes the double standard so we know about it. How does that make him guilty of exonerating the crime? Not one bit: he was an onlooker, powerless to other reactions than simply describing the ill-deeds.
But was even his father guilty of intentionally killing seven Indian boys? I think not.
Willie Sport saw himself and seven other boys get first fed with canned meat and then sick with TB. Was the canned meat the thing that infected them? Or were they already infected and fed canned meat precisely to boost their immunity system? I think that is likelier. Unfortunately we cannot ask him. He died, as well as Archie Frank did, in January 2002. And if he was grandson of a medicine man, his grandfather can have posed as saving him (I wonder what medical experts say about his treatment for TB: "He sucked the black poison out of each of my lungs three times, then spit it out, I seen it") while telling his grandson a tale of fear and undue suspicion of Principal Pitts. Obviously a medicine man did not want anyone in the tribe, least of all his grandson, to admire or approve of the white folks.
Now, so far the witness accounts I have been reading need not have been lies. But with Irene Favel I think that is the case: it is so close to Maria Monk type classic calumnies that I am not confident she is honest, I think she lies, unless she was extremely scared from being kept away from her family and listening to rumours without foundation and totally misunderstood everything:
I’m Irene Favel. I’m seventy five. I went to residential school in Muscowequan from 1944 to 1949, and I had a rough life. I was mistreated in every way. There was a young girl, and she was pregnant from a priest there.
And what they did, she had her baby, and they took the baby, and wrapped it up in a nice pink outfit, and they took it downstairs where I was cooking dinner with the nun. And they took the baby into the furnace room, and they threw that little baby in there and burned it alive. All you could hear was this little cry, like “Uuh!”, and that was it. You could smell that flesh cooking.
If she felt mistreated in every way - basically humiliated, I suppose, and I think she should not have been, I think the law that made these residential schools was atrocious mislegislation, as well as later and earlier laws or pseudo-laws for school compulsion - she may have considered the people around her more cruel and capable of worse cruelties than they really were.
One thing comes out: she did not watch the burning of a child. She did not see what happened to a child given birth by a resident, she did not see who made the resident pregnant. Whether what she did not see were things she reconstructed for herself or were told and if someone was trying to joke with her fears, I do not know. She may also have been obliged recently to lie.
But if all this were true, this is no indiction against the Vatican, if it went on priests abusing their position like this would not have wanted the Vatican to know. But the case of Bishop Coudert and Father Grant do not suggest they would have wanted every Canadian Catholic clergyman to know either.
Saying that Aristotle formed St Thomas Aquinas' mind is hardly correct. Saying that he formed St Augustine's mind is patently absurd.
Here is a link on Aquinas and Aristotle about Slavery and Servitude:
http://www.e-aquinas.net/pdf/zagal.pdf
And here is a quote from Catholic Encyclopedia about abolitionism as a Catholic virtue:
"Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church." (from article Slavery and Christianity)
Here is one quote from an anti-Catholic site (google the quote, you will find it) quoting the Holy Office:
"Slavery itself ... is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law ... The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."
Source: Statement of the Holy Office of the Vatican, 1866
Note very well: "The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty" - in other words a slaver who specialises in chasing people and depriving them of liberties to sell them as slaves (because of skin colour or merely weakness) is a crook. One who himself deserves either slavery or - death penalty.
No, one cannot safely argue the Vatican wanted to classify Indians as "naturally slaves" and therefore dispensable.
If we look at Catholic tradition, once the fact of someone's just slavery (after a crime for instance, or by rebellion against just rule) is established, there is a further consideration: "and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."
Why were Indians less regarded than that in practise?
If one back then obeyed a sanatorium doctor who said such and such a child was well enough "for an Indian" to go back to school, one was certainly cooperating with a system spreading death, not by too much ill will against the child, but by too little good will for him and too much good will for the the expert.
In our days psychiatrists are enslaving people and these are betrayed by people who do not have too much ill will against them personally, but too much well will for the psychiatrists. Also as experts (although they are not experts as physicians can be experts on TB)*.
Hannah Arendt in "The banality of evil" studied Eichmann at the trial in Israel. He had been kidnapped to stand trial after first fleeing to some South American state. She was shocked to find Eichmann was, quite like herself, a Kantian. But Kant by the Critique of the Practical Reason had in fact prepared for too much skepsis about one's duties according to conscience and too much relying on orders. Some people after trying to pay for a patient (whom they maybe saved, by paying) and getting a no felt they had done enough. In a sense they had. God did not require of them to do more than they could. But had they done all that they could? We live in a century of defeatism, when it has become very easy to say one has done all one could. "Knowing me, knowing you, this is all that we can do," my countrymen in ABBA sang about the double divorce. Or young mothers who felt they had no choice but to abort. Or people who think that when it comes to me as a writer, they should obey those telling them I am not so (like those behind the sabotage which stopped me from publishing the original version of this essay) and ignore my writings as those of a fool. It is so much easier and so much more confortable to do what is expected of one, and if one does more, to give up after some time if it doesn't help.
In a sense Catholics have perhaps been guilty - but of passivity. Precisely as with the men agreeing to have me treated (at least previously) as a mental patient, or, if not, at least not letting me decide freely how I prove the opposite. People who sheepishly have heard "he's a drunkard, look how often he is tired" and who have seen me tired and concluded I am a drunkard. Or people who, as sheepishly have heard "he's delusional, look if he doesn't defend Geocentrism" and who have then seen me defend Geocentrism and concluded I am delusional. People with too little energy to ask if a non-drunkard but homeless could be extremely tired due to sleep deprivasions, or if a man of intelligence could defend Geocentrism - especially with too little energy to ask themselves these questions when asked by experts to ask themselves the opposite questions. They have left me in a fix and my mother in a worse one, and myself not in a position to help her.
And so far, except for the probably false testimony of Irene Favel, this is the kind of passivity I have seen in Catholic clergy when it was about Canadian Indians as well, when the lives of those Indians were not actually saved by the efforts of the clergy. Or nearly saved by too little effort. I do not know if Bishop Coudert succeeded in saving Dorothy Paul and Harry's baby.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
and Cyberespace of BB
Day after Annunciation
26-III-2013
*Say that someone talks to persons not present in an agitated way ... is it auditory hallucinations - or emotional relevance passing before absense known as such? Many are simply adressing the mental images of other persons in situations they would like to experience, and often this is to hatred as pornographic imaginings are to lust. Without any hallucination being involved.
samedi 23 mars 2013
Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued)
1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
From exhibit 1:
Accused Residential Schools, Roman Catholic:
Accused Indian Hospitals - none Roman Catholic, what I could see.
Exhibit number 2:
Comment: an infamous text, especially considering the previous words, in 9, 6, which gives principals a right to confiscate any earnings made by the residents.
But was George V responsible for this or was the then cabinet and the House of Commons responsible for it? I say the cabinet of 1920 with the HoC 1920. As to his person, George V did "rule but not govern". That may have been a mistake, he might have ought to have done a coup d'état like King Gustav III of Sweden to stop this and was culpable by omission of action, but those culpable by their own actions were certainly the cabinet and the House of Commons.
Exhibit number 3 failed to establish, though it may be established otherwise, that the schools operated under joint authority of the Government and the various Churches. Its form of application included the confession of the applicant, presumably in order to make an Indian child or youngster of Catholic confession attend a school of Catholic confession. But this does not establish by itself how much or little beyond the Catechism that the religious personnel was responsible for.
Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 - I did not recognise anything like a name of the 15 Catholic residential schools in the incriminating reports by Dr Peter Bryce from 1907/1909 (I actually neither saw his signature nor the year either, and one death rate was 25%, one was 33% - i e lower than claimed for the overall general deathrate). Kevin Annett gives then orally 40% for the "Pegan" Catholic school - which is not among the 15 listed.
Exhibit nr 7, P H Bryce Med Dr news article said nothing about any specifically Catholic school in excerpt visible on video.
Exhibit nr 8, A National Crime, published in 1920 by P H Bryce may have been THE reason why in 1922 a Catholic priest sent contaminated children away from the school and back to the reservations.
75% tuberculosis death File Hill or Fire Hill, Alberta - the Catholic School in Alberta was Ermineskin, as enumerated as nr 9. But maybe two names for same school? I do not know.
Exhibit nr. 9, several pages of a police report signed by Police officer Clearwater, seems to concern a school run by a Miss - not a Mrs, but not a Sister or Mother either. In all probability a Proestant school, and certainly not closely tied to the Vatican.
Exhibit nr 10. Interviewed person had been released from Sanatorium with his sister before being admitted to the school.
Sanatoria are institutions - not restricted by any means to the ethnic minorities, but general, usually - of a medical and curative type directed at curing precisely tuberculosis. If he was released from Sanatorium, his doctors there must have thought him well enough to go to the school or they should not have let him away from the Sanatorium (my grand mother was in one in Sweden, she recommended eating cream because she had been given cream in the sanatorium as part of efforts to boost her immunity system). If he was put in a residential school while still liable to infect others with TB, the fault is the Sanatorium Doctor's, not the Vatican's. He added "there was none to examine", meaning that there was no medical personnel on the school, presumably, to question the decision of Sanatorium Doctors. This kind of decision can have been well off the responsibility part of the religious institution giving the instruction. It can also have been a deliberate trust in sanatorium doctors.
Exhibit nr 11 is a bare statement from an inmate of Kuper school (Catholic, nr 2 of the listed ones) that he was forced to play with diseased children. He does not state how he knew they were diseased, nor whether they had been to sanatorium or not. Nor whether there was any written document from the Sanatorium that the school trusted without owing that trust, or whether the school simply neglected all precautions, which is somewhat less likely. Exhibits 12 and 13 (and 14?) are short enough to warrant the same observation as exhibit 11.
In case of trusting Sanatorium Doctors, there is a Catholic principle about trusting expertise when speaking on behalf of this expertise:
St. Thomas d'Aquin - dit-il qu'il faut faire confiance à l'expertise?
I have here - in that article - argued that it does not apply to cases when the expertise is a sham expertise, as with Heliocentrism or Common Descent of all animal and all plant species from just a few types of life. Or for that matter psychiatry.
But obviously it does not apply either when there is a serious doubt on whether the expertise is honest or not, like they might be deliberately lowering a standard of care for a group. So, are Catholics responsible for Kuper school or are Sanatorium Doctors to blame for this? I do not know. Nor does Kevin Annett. Still less does he know anything about a Vatican involvement in any plan to kill by exposure to disease.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library of Paris
23-III-2013
From exhibit 1:
Accused Residential Schools, Roman Catholic:
| 1. Christie (Meares Island, BC) | 2. Kuper Island |
| 3. Sechelt | 4. St Paul's (Vancouver) |
| 5. St Mary's (Mission) | 6. Kamloops |
| 7. St. Eugene (Cranbrook) | 8. Lejac |
| 9. Ermineskin (Alberta) | 10. Blue Quills (Saddle lake) |
| 11. Muscowequan (Saskaychewan) | 12. Norwood House (Manitoba) |
| 13. Sandy Bay | 14. Spanish (Fort Albany, Ontario) |
| 15. Shubanacadie (Nova Scotia) |
Accused Indian Hospitals - none Roman Catholic, what I could see.
Exhibit number 2:
10-11 George V, Chapter 20, 10, 1: Every Indian child between the ages seven and fifteen years who is physically able ...
Comment: an infamous text, especially considering the previous words, in 9, 6, which gives principals a right to confiscate any earnings made by the residents.
But was George V responsible for this or was the then cabinet and the House of Commons responsible for it? I say the cabinet of 1920 with the HoC 1920. As to his person, George V did "rule but not govern". That may have been a mistake, he might have ought to have done a coup d'état like King Gustav III of Sweden to stop this and was culpable by omission of action, but those culpable by their own actions were certainly the cabinet and the House of Commons.
Exhibit number 3 failed to establish, though it may be established otherwise, that the schools operated under joint authority of the Government and the various Churches. Its form of application included the confession of the applicant, presumably in order to make an Indian child or youngster of Catholic confession attend a school of Catholic confession. But this does not establish by itself how much or little beyond the Catechism that the religious personnel was responsible for.
Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 - I did not recognise anything like a name of the 15 Catholic residential schools in the incriminating reports by Dr Peter Bryce from 1907/1909 (I actually neither saw his signature nor the year either, and one death rate was 25%, one was 33% - i e lower than claimed for the overall general deathrate). Kevin Annett gives then orally 40% for the "Pegan" Catholic school - which is not among the 15 listed.
Exhibit nr 7, P H Bryce Med Dr news article said nothing about any specifically Catholic school in excerpt visible on video.
Exhibit nr 8, A National Crime, published in 1920 by P H Bryce may have been THE reason why in 1922 a Catholic priest sent contaminated children away from the school and back to the reservations.
75% tuberculosis death File Hill or Fire Hill, Alberta - the Catholic School in Alberta was Ermineskin, as enumerated as nr 9. But maybe two names for same school? I do not know.
Exhibit nr. 9, several pages of a police report signed by Police officer Clearwater, seems to concern a school run by a Miss - not a Mrs, but not a Sister or Mother either. In all probability a Proestant school, and certainly not closely tied to the Vatican.
Exhibit nr 10. Interviewed person had been released from Sanatorium with his sister before being admitted to the school.
Sanatoria are institutions - not restricted by any means to the ethnic minorities, but general, usually - of a medical and curative type directed at curing precisely tuberculosis. If he was released from Sanatorium, his doctors there must have thought him well enough to go to the school or they should not have let him away from the Sanatorium (my grand mother was in one in Sweden, she recommended eating cream because she had been given cream in the sanatorium as part of efforts to boost her immunity system). If he was put in a residential school while still liable to infect others with TB, the fault is the Sanatorium Doctor's, not the Vatican's. He added "there was none to examine", meaning that there was no medical personnel on the school, presumably, to question the decision of Sanatorium Doctors. This kind of decision can have been well off the responsibility part of the religious institution giving the instruction. It can also have been a deliberate trust in sanatorium doctors.
Exhibit nr 11 is a bare statement from an inmate of Kuper school (Catholic, nr 2 of the listed ones) that he was forced to play with diseased children. He does not state how he knew they were diseased, nor whether they had been to sanatorium or not. Nor whether there was any written document from the Sanatorium that the school trusted without owing that trust, or whether the school simply neglected all precautions, which is somewhat less likely. Exhibits 12 and 13 (and 14?) are short enough to warrant the same observation as exhibit 11.
In case of trusting Sanatorium Doctors, there is a Catholic principle about trusting expertise when speaking on behalf of this expertise:
St. Thomas d'Aquin - dit-il qu'il faut faire confiance à l'expertise?
I have here - in that article - argued that it does not apply to cases when the expertise is a sham expertise, as with Heliocentrism or Common Descent of all animal and all plant species from just a few types of life. Or for that matter psychiatry.
But obviously it does not apply either when there is a serious doubt on whether the expertise is honest or not, like they might be deliberately lowering a standard of care for a group. So, are Catholics responsible for Kuper school or are Sanatorium Doctors to blame for this? I do not know. Nor does Kevin Annett. Still less does he know anything about a Vatican involvement in any plan to kill by exposure to disease.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library of Paris
23-III-2013
vendredi 22 mars 2013
Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far
1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
1, plan of genocide) Duncan Campbell-Scott: "we must accept that in the course of our work enormous numbers of children will in fact die from tuberculosis: this cannot be avoided" ... echoing Glencoe cynicism (also "courtesy" of clan Campbell), as far as my historic memories go.
2, contamination with disease) Government Medical Officers like Peter Brice of Ontario said Churchmen deliberately contaminated children with smallpox - which denomination ran most schools back then? Was he anticlerical?
1919 - medical inspection is abolished "under Church pressure" - which churches?
Can it be that medical personnel put the blame back on medical officers, and can it be they were right? [This was written before I had heard of Sheepshanks]
1920 - attendance at these schools is rendered obligatory. 1929 - legal guardianship over residential school children tranferred to the clergyman principal who ran the school
At this time Pius XI was getting out of difficulties with Mussolini, difficulties that had ridden Papacy and Italian Church since 1870!
3) 1928, 1933 - sexual sterilisation laws (certainly not condoned by Pius XI, see Casti Connubii, they were in turn followed by Sweden in 1935 [repealed in 1970's] and - Nazi - Germany in 1936, but not by Catholic Austria).
Sterilisation clinics were ran by United Church Missionaries, mainly.
I find it a safe bet that Catholic Québec had no sterilisation laws whatsoever and that no Amerindian child was sterilised in a Catholic school, at least not at first.
Look internationally at it: Lapps in Sweden (and possibly Norway too) were sterilised not for being Pagan, but for having a non-agricultural, non-bourgeois, nomadic - but not hunting and fishing and gathering based, rather herding - lifestyle. They were Lutherans since centuries back and so were their persecutors. Except insofar as these were more into Enlightenment thinking than their victims.
Spain and Portugal had no sterilisation campaigns. Austria had none as long as it remained free from Third Reich, i e up to 1938. In Spain sterilisation of mental patients was considered and rejected. The chief psychiatrist, Valleja Nájera, a culprit it seems when taking away children from reds immediately after the war - since these were considered war criminals - had seen cases of cataleptic schizophrenia which he considered due to castration. I suppose these castrations were committed early in the War, like the illdeeds perpetrated under Yagüe at Badajoz by Moroccan auxiliary troops. Franco ordered that illdeed to stop. Some think he ought to have foreseen it and ordered it earlier.
Canadian and Swedish and some states of US authorities were democratically elected and acted as badly as Hitler in 1936.
Salazar and Dollfuss had stopped normal elections with more than one party, and Franco come to power in 1939 without any election, but they were not acting the "gardener of other men's or women's fertility".
Reason? They were Catholic.
Pius XI, once again, had forbidden it in Casti Connubii.
In Mexico it seems Yaquis have been sterilised - by Porfirio Diaz, who was not a Catholic, but excommunicated. A freemason.
In Perú the Quechua speakers have been subjected to sterilisation - by Fujimoro, who was not a Catholic, but an immigrant from a Pagan nation, and an adherent of political correctness and enlightenment correctness and progress, but not of Catholicism.
2 again) Catholic priests sent children infected with smallpox back to their villages, documented in 1922. - Maybe the purpose was to not have smallpox kill the school off? Maybe they thought they would be treated at a separate place and therefore not contaminate the village? And maybe that was asking too much medical common knowledge of the natives.
Maybe the statistics of 50% mortality was a medium for all confessions, which percentage would have been very much lower in the Catholic schools, very much higher in the Protestant ones, and possibly worse among United Church of Canada than among Anglicans, though that may be wrong.
4) Theft of land charge - if theft, then committed by Crown. Churches profited from it, but took it from Crown, not from Aborigines.
It is also a question whether any nation has a right to keep land as collective ownership and not have agriculture anywhere or only on very limited gardens. (This does not mean it is to be considered of natural law to have Monsanto have its way ...)
The Indian ownership of land without agriculture may according to some parts of international law have been considered genocidal. Since lack of agriculture impedes a population to rise in numbers.
Since when?
Since Vitoria, one lawyer who theorised about why Spain had the right to conquer the Western Indias.
But he was partial, he was a countryman of the men who were subduing the Indians. Or so you might say.
Indeed, and the lawyers who defined genocide in 1945 or 1946 or up to 1948 were hardly on the bench of the accused at Nuremberg either. Nor their countrymen.
However, the Spanish Crown did not uniformly use this as an excuse of taking land away from Indians.
a) Encomiendas were theoretically collective property of the Indians, though under the overseeing of a white Spanish military man. An Encomiendero was not an owner. And Encomiendas were not insalubrious like the reservations were. That was the solution in Perú and Mexico, where agriculture already existed, but where according to the debate between Sepúlveda and Las Casas other reasons existed for disowning the previous sovereignty of Indian nations, namely idolatry with human sacrifice. Encomienderos could be cruel of indignation over that past or of greed, but they were not quite left to their baser instincts.
b) Franciscan Missions in California were not encomiendas, but Indian villages with agriculture and spiritual life overlooked by Franciscans.
c) Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay were also not encomiendas, but only Indians and Priests were allowed there. Apart from teaching Indians agriculture they raised the level of culture in other ways too, notably musical and liturgical. They were also improving medical standards (!)
So, Canada from 1820's on used Vitoria in a baser way than the Spaniards had done. But they did go by international law in doing so.
2 again) Sheepshanks, Anglican clergyman, murderer by intentional inoculation with smallpox, landgrabber. - Well, Pius XI in 1924 opened some approches to Russian Orthodox, but in 1928 he wrote Mortalium Animos in order to warn against panchristianism, false irenism, indifferentism, relativism ... can he have had men as Sheepshanks, or the United Church of Canada, or its German counterpart Evangelische Kirche (Prussian Union Church between Calvinists and Lutherans) with its at the time feeble for Arisches Christentum care of modernist Bible scholar Adolf von Harnack in mind?
Local police had no authority to investigate into Residential Schools even when deaths happened on them ... - Sounds very much like what happened in Austria after 1938. What Dollfuss and Schuschnigg (long live their memories!) had kept away, at a personal cost, and what Hitler's troops brought along in ... in that case it was handicapped, more precisely something like trisomies, and the residence after a few months had one hundred percent mortality and no investigation was conducted.
Since I brought up Austria, the Nazi expert of Gypsy Questions was actually, technically, an Austrian. Tobias Portzschy. He came from the East of Remnant Austria or German Austria, of what previously had been Hungary, and his city's main education facilities were - as much in Hungary and very little in Tyrol - Calvinist Protestant. He was a Nazi and as such in prison under Schuschnigg, for illegal agitation. After Anschluss he became the Gipsy Question expert and his ideals were pretty "West Coast Canadian", and at that pretty Protestant and progressive, if you get the hint.
At 0 hours, 26 minutes and 39 seconds, I have so far heard nothing about sterilisations in Québec. Grace à Dieu! Neither have I so far - but that may change - heard any charge against the Archbishops of Montréal of the Roman Catholic religion from the 1920's on to present.
Non quaranteening, non removal of children infected with tuberculosis - Thank you for making my point about the 1922 handwritten letter about Catholic priests removing small pox infected children from school, back to Indian villages. They were perhaps not unaware of possibility that the village might be ill prepared with medicla knowledge to handle the case, but they evidently wanted no small pox deaths on school grounds. That Roman Catholic priest you mentioned earlier was obviously not a Sheepshanks.
Ottawa despatched document destruction teams during the 1960's etc. (destruction of evidence) - "Dans la communauté, Wright fut officier de milice et juge de paix, il contribua financièrement à la construction de l'église anglicane de Hull et il était Maître d'une loge maçonnique." - The founder of Ottawa was not Catholic but freemason. (Acc. French wiki on Philemon Wright, who according to French wiki on Ottawa founded your capital - as masonic as Washington D.C.)
5) Death rates due to tuberculosis, disease and violence are forty times higher. This is often because many of the symptoms of the residential school induced dysfunction are passed on to the survivors' children and grandchildren in the form of unrelenting (or unrelating?) intergenerational trauma. - Sounds Jewish populations having passed through Auschwitz would suffer from things like that too. Except in their case they can dilute that by: a) mingling with non-Jews (unless they have very Ashkenazi noses), b) mingling with Jews from New York and Buenos Aires (René Goscinny never was in those ghastly places, but he resented it, as in 1945, on hearing a rumour of Hitler having escaped, he made a caricature of Adolf the painter - painting walls with colours with strong dissolvents, so he gets high on the gaz from the paint), c) mingling with Jews with dangerous but non-camp backgrounds (from the Red Army, from the being hidden by Catholics - and sometimes even Nazis - or from the Zionist groups in conflict with Arabs since before 1940 ...). But some seem to have been really mentally remodelled for the worse by the experience. The actress who made Lady Dracula or Countess Dracula was a camp survivor. She was gentle with children, but she very much enjoyed frightening ... thank God she did it in movies and not in camps of any sort!
In answer to your conclusion of 33 minutes, 39 seconds, sorry, but it is at least so far idiotic to put Catholic Church in Canada and even Vatican on level of culpability with Anglicans like Sheepshanks or Calvinists like West Coast of Canada (or Mr. Portzschy, the Protestant Nazi Gypsy expert), when the one real evidence of a particular case from Catholics in 1922 can be very well interpreted as an act intended to protect lives at the school, and when the Vatican was positively condemning the Sterilisation laws (and therefore also any clergy that sympathised with or perpetrated them by civil obedience). It is as if the King of Spain were to blame for the deeds of General Custer (notoriously non-Spanish) or of Jefferson Davies (not very loyal to the Spanish crown either).
Part of the ensuing may very well be in the end - I have not yet watched it - due to Catholics being scared and huddling behind a necessity to adapt when under non-Catholic régimes, a thing which held back lots of criticism in Germany too - and the Church was persecuted, especially in Poland.
And why did you not mention any lodge as possible culprit? You mentioned a secret commission at the very start, they owe probably more or at least as much to the lodges as to the Royal Family.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
22-III-2013
Appendix, Evidence sources:
video of evidence summary by court, more worthy to be called biassed (or even conniving) prosecution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvhfXAd08TE
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM
The same, Mortalium Animos
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
And though this is not Canada but South America, here is evidence for Vatican taking the Native side:
Pope St Pius X, Lacrimabili Statu
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10ind.htm
1, plan of genocide) Duncan Campbell-Scott: "we must accept that in the course of our work enormous numbers of children will in fact die from tuberculosis: this cannot be avoided" ... echoing Glencoe cynicism (also "courtesy" of clan Campbell), as far as my historic memories go.
2, contamination with disease) Government Medical Officers like Peter Brice of Ontario said Churchmen deliberately contaminated children with smallpox - which denomination ran most schools back then? Was he anticlerical?
1919 - medical inspection is abolished "under Church pressure" - which churches?
Can it be that medical personnel put the blame back on medical officers, and can it be they were right? [This was written before I had heard of Sheepshanks]
1920 - attendance at these schools is rendered obligatory. 1929 - legal guardianship over residential school children tranferred to the clergyman principal who ran the school
At this time Pius XI was getting out of difficulties with Mussolini, difficulties that had ridden Papacy and Italian Church since 1870!
3) 1928, 1933 - sexual sterilisation laws (certainly not condoned by Pius XI, see Casti Connubii, they were in turn followed by Sweden in 1935 [repealed in 1970's] and - Nazi - Germany in 1936, but not by Catholic Austria).
Sterilisation clinics were ran by United Church Missionaries, mainly.
I find it a safe bet that Catholic Québec had no sterilisation laws whatsoever and that no Amerindian child was sterilised in a Catholic school, at least not at first.
Look internationally at it: Lapps in Sweden (and possibly Norway too) were sterilised not for being Pagan, but for having a non-agricultural, non-bourgeois, nomadic - but not hunting and fishing and gathering based, rather herding - lifestyle. They were Lutherans since centuries back and so were their persecutors. Except insofar as these were more into Enlightenment thinking than their victims.
Spain and Portugal had no sterilisation campaigns. Austria had none as long as it remained free from Third Reich, i e up to 1938. In Spain sterilisation of mental patients was considered and rejected. The chief psychiatrist, Valleja Nájera, a culprit it seems when taking away children from reds immediately after the war - since these were considered war criminals - had seen cases of cataleptic schizophrenia which he considered due to castration. I suppose these castrations were committed early in the War, like the illdeeds perpetrated under Yagüe at Badajoz by Moroccan auxiliary troops. Franco ordered that illdeed to stop. Some think he ought to have foreseen it and ordered it earlier.
Canadian and Swedish and some states of US authorities were democratically elected and acted as badly as Hitler in 1936.
Salazar and Dollfuss had stopped normal elections with more than one party, and Franco come to power in 1939 without any election, but they were not acting the "gardener of other men's or women's fertility".
Reason? They were Catholic.
Pius XI, once again, had forbidden it in Casti Connubii.
In Mexico it seems Yaquis have been sterilised - by Porfirio Diaz, who was not a Catholic, but excommunicated. A freemason.
In Perú the Quechua speakers have been subjected to sterilisation - by Fujimoro, who was not a Catholic, but an immigrant from a Pagan nation, and an adherent of political correctness and enlightenment correctness and progress, but not of Catholicism.
2 again) Catholic priests sent children infected with smallpox back to their villages, documented in 1922. - Maybe the purpose was to not have smallpox kill the school off? Maybe they thought they would be treated at a separate place and therefore not contaminate the village? And maybe that was asking too much medical common knowledge of the natives.
Maybe the statistics of 50% mortality was a medium for all confessions, which percentage would have been very much lower in the Catholic schools, very much higher in the Protestant ones, and possibly worse among United Church of Canada than among Anglicans, though that may be wrong.
4) Theft of land charge - if theft, then committed by Crown. Churches profited from it, but took it from Crown, not from Aborigines.
It is also a question whether any nation has a right to keep land as collective ownership and not have agriculture anywhere or only on very limited gardens. (This does not mean it is to be considered of natural law to have Monsanto have its way ...)
The Indian ownership of land without agriculture may according to some parts of international law have been considered genocidal. Since lack of agriculture impedes a population to rise in numbers.
Since when?
Since Vitoria, one lawyer who theorised about why Spain had the right to conquer the Western Indias.
But he was partial, he was a countryman of the men who were subduing the Indians. Or so you might say.
Indeed, and the lawyers who defined genocide in 1945 or 1946 or up to 1948 were hardly on the bench of the accused at Nuremberg either. Nor their countrymen.
However, the Spanish Crown did not uniformly use this as an excuse of taking land away from Indians.
a) Encomiendas were theoretically collective property of the Indians, though under the overseeing of a white Spanish military man. An Encomiendero was not an owner. And Encomiendas were not insalubrious like the reservations were. That was the solution in Perú and Mexico, where agriculture already existed, but where according to the debate between Sepúlveda and Las Casas other reasons existed for disowning the previous sovereignty of Indian nations, namely idolatry with human sacrifice. Encomienderos could be cruel of indignation over that past or of greed, but they were not quite left to their baser instincts.
b) Franciscan Missions in California were not encomiendas, but Indian villages with agriculture and spiritual life overlooked by Franciscans.
c) Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay were also not encomiendas, but only Indians and Priests were allowed there. Apart from teaching Indians agriculture they raised the level of culture in other ways too, notably musical and liturgical. They were also improving medical standards (!)
So, Canada from 1820's on used Vitoria in a baser way than the Spaniards had done. But they did go by international law in doing so.
2 again) Sheepshanks, Anglican clergyman, murderer by intentional inoculation with smallpox, landgrabber. - Well, Pius XI in 1924 opened some approches to Russian Orthodox, but in 1928 he wrote Mortalium Animos in order to warn against panchristianism, false irenism, indifferentism, relativism ... can he have had men as Sheepshanks, or the United Church of Canada, or its German counterpart Evangelische Kirche (Prussian Union Church between Calvinists and Lutherans) with its at the time feeble for Arisches Christentum care of modernist Bible scholar Adolf von Harnack in mind?
Local police had no authority to investigate into Residential Schools even when deaths happened on them ... - Sounds very much like what happened in Austria after 1938. What Dollfuss and Schuschnigg (long live their memories!) had kept away, at a personal cost, and what Hitler's troops brought along in ... in that case it was handicapped, more precisely something like trisomies, and the residence after a few months had one hundred percent mortality and no investigation was conducted.
Since I brought up Austria, the Nazi expert of Gypsy Questions was actually, technically, an Austrian. Tobias Portzschy. He came from the East of Remnant Austria or German Austria, of what previously had been Hungary, and his city's main education facilities were - as much in Hungary and very little in Tyrol - Calvinist Protestant. He was a Nazi and as such in prison under Schuschnigg, for illegal agitation. After Anschluss he became the Gipsy Question expert and his ideals were pretty "West Coast Canadian", and at that pretty Protestant and progressive, if you get the hint.
At 0 hours, 26 minutes and 39 seconds, I have so far heard nothing about sterilisations in Québec. Grace à Dieu! Neither have I so far - but that may change - heard any charge against the Archbishops of Montréal of the Roman Catholic religion from the 1920's on to present.
Non quaranteening, non removal of children infected with tuberculosis - Thank you for making my point about the 1922 handwritten letter about Catholic priests removing small pox infected children from school, back to Indian villages. They were perhaps not unaware of possibility that the village might be ill prepared with medicla knowledge to handle the case, but they evidently wanted no small pox deaths on school grounds. That Roman Catholic priest you mentioned earlier was obviously not a Sheepshanks.
Ottawa despatched document destruction teams during the 1960's etc. (destruction of evidence) - "Dans la communauté, Wright fut officier de milice et juge de paix, il contribua financièrement à la construction de l'église anglicane de Hull et il était Maître d'une loge maçonnique." - The founder of Ottawa was not Catholic but freemason. (Acc. French wiki on Philemon Wright, who according to French wiki on Ottawa founded your capital - as masonic as Washington D.C.)
5) Death rates due to tuberculosis, disease and violence are forty times higher. This is often because many of the symptoms of the residential school induced dysfunction are passed on to the survivors' children and grandchildren in the form of unrelenting (or unrelating?) intergenerational trauma. - Sounds Jewish populations having passed through Auschwitz would suffer from things like that too. Except in their case they can dilute that by: a) mingling with non-Jews (unless they have very Ashkenazi noses), b) mingling with Jews from New York and Buenos Aires (René Goscinny never was in those ghastly places, but he resented it, as in 1945, on hearing a rumour of Hitler having escaped, he made a caricature of Adolf the painter - painting walls with colours with strong dissolvents, so he gets high on the gaz from the paint), c) mingling with Jews with dangerous but non-camp backgrounds (from the Red Army, from the being hidden by Catholics - and sometimes even Nazis - or from the Zionist groups in conflict with Arabs since before 1940 ...). But some seem to have been really mentally remodelled for the worse by the experience. The actress who made Lady Dracula or Countess Dracula was a camp survivor. She was gentle with children, but she very much enjoyed frightening ... thank God she did it in movies and not in camps of any sort!
In answer to your conclusion of 33 minutes, 39 seconds, sorry, but it is at least so far idiotic to put Catholic Church in Canada and even Vatican on level of culpability with Anglicans like Sheepshanks or Calvinists like West Coast of Canada (or Mr. Portzschy, the Protestant Nazi Gypsy expert), when the one real evidence of a particular case from Catholics in 1922 can be very well interpreted as an act intended to protect lives at the school, and when the Vatican was positively condemning the Sterilisation laws (and therefore also any clergy that sympathised with or perpetrated them by civil obedience). It is as if the King of Spain were to blame for the deeds of General Custer (notoriously non-Spanish) or of Jefferson Davies (not very loyal to the Spanish crown either).
Part of the ensuing may very well be in the end - I have not yet watched it - due to Catholics being scared and huddling behind a necessity to adapt when under non-Catholic régimes, a thing which held back lots of criticism in Germany too - and the Church was persecuted, especially in Poland.
And why did you not mention any lodge as possible culprit? You mentioned a secret commission at the very start, they owe probably more or at least as much to the lodges as to the Royal Family.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
22-III-2013
Appendix, Evidence sources:
video of evidence summary by court, more worthy to be called biassed (or even conniving) prosecution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvhfXAd08TE
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM
The same, Mortalium Animos
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
And though this is not Canada but South America, here is evidence for Vatican taking the Native side:
Pope St Pius X, Lacrimabili Statu
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10ind.htm
jeudi 21 mars 2013
So, what is feminine for "idiot bloke"?
Lily Allen makes a case for having that phrase, whatever it may be, applied to her. Why? How? Check out this quote:*
Wow. Guess what? The free abortion makes such frustrated men an excuse for abandoning the lady. First of all, there are a lot who foresee themselves as being frustrated, and they leave before the birth and say "you can abort, I not going to be a father". Second of all, the social acceptance of those mores (the more you get of such jerks doing that without telling anyone except close friends, the more people are close friends with such jerks), the ongoing but tacit social acceptance of that bad morality opens a lot of doors for men to leave after the baby is born.
Two more things do: girls who feel no shame to surrender virginity before marriage, and, what Tolkien regretted but CSL supported, no-fault divorce. If men cannot get laid without a wedding ring, and if weddings are not often revoked, then the single mother households are far fewer, since these mothers would not be single. As simple as that.
But abortion adds murder to the "possible solutions" for a situation that should not have arisen in the first place and would not have arisen in the first place if other modernity mongers hadn't tampered with laws and morality the past one hundred years or so.
People coming from or currying favour to such rich as who would reduce human population to 500 million and who were finding ways to divorce and abort when poorer people couldn't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, La Clairière
St Bennett's Day
21-III-2013
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9595724/Lily-Allen-attacks-idiot-blokes-over-abortion-limits.html
PS, the title refers to my lack of knowledge of contemporary colloquial English. I am not English you see, but Swedish. Another heavily abortionist country these days alas, and one I had to leave in the end because of evil doctors tampering with my folks' liberties, mainly because we were anti-abortionist. An anecdote from the years before I left Sweden: a thirteen year old girl tried for five weeks to say I'm keeping my baby - against boyfriend, against parents, against siblings, against school teachers ... after five weeks she agreed. I do not consider her a murderer, I do consider her surroundings unpunished murderers. And herself as pushed into pseudoresponsability for finally by exhaustion agreeing to the murder, which legally only she could agree to.
“BUT, sometimes, quite often, when the baby cries a lot the man gets frustrated and leaves the baby and the lady that had the baby.He sticks his fingers in his ears and pretends that the baby isn’t really there, he stops answering his phone when the lady calls. The lady gets very sad and feels very alone and angry and even though she loves her baby more than anything .....
“So to all the Pro Lifers spamming me with s***. This is one of the many reasons I believe a woman should have a right to choose. The end. She wonders what her life might have been like if she had never had the baby in the first place.”
Wow. Guess what? The free abortion makes such frustrated men an excuse for abandoning the lady. First of all, there are a lot who foresee themselves as being frustrated, and they leave before the birth and say "you can abort, I not going to be a father". Second of all, the social acceptance of those mores (the more you get of such jerks doing that without telling anyone except close friends, the more people are close friends with such jerks), the ongoing but tacit social acceptance of that bad morality opens a lot of doors for men to leave after the baby is born.
Two more things do: girls who feel no shame to surrender virginity before marriage, and, what Tolkien regretted but CSL supported, no-fault divorce. If men cannot get laid without a wedding ring, and if weddings are not often revoked, then the single mother households are far fewer, since these mothers would not be single. As simple as that.
But abortion adds murder to the "possible solutions" for a situation that should not have arisen in the first place and would not have arisen in the first place if other modernity mongers hadn't tampered with laws and morality the past one hundred years or so.
People coming from or currying favour to such rich as who would reduce human population to 500 million and who were finding ways to divorce and abort when poorer people couldn't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, La Clairière
St Bennett's Day
21-III-2013
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9595724/Lily-Allen-attacks-idiot-blokes-over-abortion-limits.html
PS, the title refers to my lack of knowledge of contemporary colloquial English. I am not English you see, but Swedish. Another heavily abortionist country these days alas, and one I had to leave in the end because of evil doctors tampering with my folks' liberties, mainly because we were anti-abortionist. An anecdote from the years before I left Sweden: a thirteen year old girl tried for five weeks to say I'm keeping my baby - against boyfriend, against parents, against siblings, against school teachers ... after five weeks she agreed. I do not consider her a murderer, I do consider her surroundings unpunished murderers. And herself as pushed into pseudoresponsability for finally by exhaustion agreeing to the murder, which legally only she could agree to.
mercredi 20 mars 2013
To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
I do find it good that you distinguish between "child abuse" which is not a disease nor a criminal "condition" - unless repeated and prolonged - but a crime, a criminal occurrence, and "paedophilia" which is or is supposed to be a disease, a medical condition. Exactly as with sodomy and homosexuality, except that sodomy is in many legislation no longer a crime.
I also find it good that you say one should not be punished for a disease.
However, a crime gives society a reason to rid itself of a danger, somehow - the world does it by killing or locking up, in milder cases or when the motivation is economic by fining and the Church does it by defrocking - for heresy or apostasy, for sodomy or child abuse. A punishment for a crime should be compulsory.
A cure for a disease should not be compulsory. If a heart fails, one should not be obliged to accept a transplant. If lungs are damaged by too much smoking, a smoker should not be physically forced to stop smoking and accept operation for lung cancer. If a doctor considers someone a paedophile, that is nowise a reason why he should be compulsorily subjected to a cure for paedophilia.
If a crime is publically known, the criminal should usually be subjected compulsorily to punishment. But not by decision of a doctor, but by decision of a judge. And the judge should have discretion to mildness, to not punishing if he has serious hopes the criminal regrets and will not commit his fault again.
One reason is that doctors have a tendency to overmedicate in and from cases where twice the penecilline needed won't harm the patient and half the penecilline needed will do no good (once one is sure penecilline is good for a disease), and a few other cases like that. That means doctors are prone to overestimate any medical condition. That is they are bad judges of what should be compulsory.
You see, judges need to operate on the assumption of innocence till otherwise proven. Doctors need not.
That is why doctors should have no say about paedophilia as far as imposing compulsions, but judges should have a say as far as judging whether guilty or innocent and imposing punishment on those proven guilty. And of course, guilty of child abuse, not of paedophilia.
You asked for compassion for those guilty of abuse after being themselves abused. I once did so myself, to a Californian judge, about an abuser in the sexual way who had been abused in probably other ways in Concentration Camps. Good and fine. But what is certain is that substituting compulsory treatment thirty years after a crime for punishement thirty years after a crime is not compassion. It is lawlessness, because it makes doctors judges of peoples' crimes, motives, lives.
Medical doctors were invented for curing pneumonias and cancers or broken bones, not for imposing compulsory cores for paedophilia or homosexuality, when it is really child abuse or sodomy that should be punished by a judge.
Of course broken souls need healing too. But their doctor is not from Med School. St Bennet's rule calls the abbot and the Christian faith in general Christ the doctor of souls diseased. If a doctor from Med School calls himself "psyches iater" or psychiatrist, he takes a prerogative of Christ, and one which He chose to share with his Church, not with Med School.
It is time the Church of Christ starts to do some pastoral on its own instead of betraying souls, some of which were indeed very diseased from sin beforehand, others of which were rather innocent, to doctors from Med School who take on mental issues in order to avoid dental or vascular and otorhinolaryngological ones, which are often more disgusting physically.
So, you may have to qualify your statement a bit further when it comes to retaining a reputation for Catholic Orthodoxy.
Doctors are abusing words like homosexuality to put the same label on people who want sodomy and on those who want normal intercourse but have traces of homoeroticism mentally, and words like paedophilia which can cover things as different as:
- abuse of babies, which is a monstrosity
- homosexual abuse of pederastic type, which is the worst crime of sodomitic type, sodomy itself being also a monstrosity
- heterosexual premature "marriage" with prepuberal children
- abuse of minors not really children
- marriage with legal minors not really children (as when pointing fingers at gipsies that wed their daughters at thirteen).
It seems some apply the word even to a notable age difference, if the man is the older. It is absurd to allow such smearing of innocence and such whitewashing (by putting in too broad a category) of monsters. It is absurd to allow it for other reasons, and it is absurd to allow it for an exaggerated respect for Med School too. A respect which does in extension punish (or persecute with the determination of anti-Mafia judges) first disease rather than a crime and then what is not even diseased.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library in Paris
St Ambrose of Siena, O.P.
20-III-2013
I do find it good that you distinguish between "child abuse" which is not a disease nor a criminal "condition" - unless repeated and prolonged - but a crime, a criminal occurrence, and "paedophilia" which is or is supposed to be a disease, a medical condition. Exactly as with sodomy and homosexuality, except that sodomy is in many legislation no longer a crime.
I also find it good that you say one should not be punished for a disease.
However, a crime gives society a reason to rid itself of a danger, somehow - the world does it by killing or locking up, in milder cases or when the motivation is economic by fining and the Church does it by defrocking - for heresy or apostasy, for sodomy or child abuse. A punishment for a crime should be compulsory.
A cure for a disease should not be compulsory. If a heart fails, one should not be obliged to accept a transplant. If lungs are damaged by too much smoking, a smoker should not be physically forced to stop smoking and accept operation for lung cancer. If a doctor considers someone a paedophile, that is nowise a reason why he should be compulsorily subjected to a cure for paedophilia.
If a crime is publically known, the criminal should usually be subjected compulsorily to punishment. But not by decision of a doctor, but by decision of a judge. And the judge should have discretion to mildness, to not punishing if he has serious hopes the criminal regrets and will not commit his fault again.
One reason is that doctors have a tendency to overmedicate in and from cases where twice the penecilline needed won't harm the patient and half the penecilline needed will do no good (once one is sure penecilline is good for a disease), and a few other cases like that. That means doctors are prone to overestimate any medical condition. That is they are bad judges of what should be compulsory.
You see, judges need to operate on the assumption of innocence till otherwise proven. Doctors need not.
That is why doctors should have no say about paedophilia as far as imposing compulsions, but judges should have a say as far as judging whether guilty or innocent and imposing punishment on those proven guilty. And of course, guilty of child abuse, not of paedophilia.
You asked for compassion for those guilty of abuse after being themselves abused. I once did so myself, to a Californian judge, about an abuser in the sexual way who had been abused in probably other ways in Concentration Camps. Good and fine. But what is certain is that substituting compulsory treatment thirty years after a crime for punishement thirty years after a crime is not compassion. It is lawlessness, because it makes doctors judges of peoples' crimes, motives, lives.
Medical doctors were invented for curing pneumonias and cancers or broken bones, not for imposing compulsory cores for paedophilia or homosexuality, when it is really child abuse or sodomy that should be punished by a judge.
Of course broken souls need healing too. But their doctor is not from Med School. St Bennet's rule calls the abbot and the Christian faith in general Christ the doctor of souls diseased. If a doctor from Med School calls himself "psyches iater" or psychiatrist, he takes a prerogative of Christ, and one which He chose to share with his Church, not with Med School.
It is time the Church of Christ starts to do some pastoral on its own instead of betraying souls, some of which were indeed very diseased from sin beforehand, others of which were rather innocent, to doctors from Med School who take on mental issues in order to avoid dental or vascular and otorhinolaryngological ones, which are often more disgusting physically.
So, you may have to qualify your statement a bit further when it comes to retaining a reputation for Catholic Orthodoxy.
Doctors are abusing words like homosexuality to put the same label on people who want sodomy and on those who want normal intercourse but have traces of homoeroticism mentally, and words like paedophilia which can cover things as different as:
- abuse of babies, which is a monstrosity
- homosexual abuse of pederastic type, which is the worst crime of sodomitic type, sodomy itself being also a monstrosity
- heterosexual premature "marriage" with prepuberal children
- abuse of minors not really children
- marriage with legal minors not really children (as when pointing fingers at gipsies that wed their daughters at thirteen).
It seems some apply the word even to a notable age difference, if the man is the older. It is absurd to allow such smearing of innocence and such whitewashing (by putting in too broad a category) of monsters. It is absurd to allow it for other reasons, and it is absurd to allow it for an exaggerated respect for Med School too. A respect which does in extension punish (or persecute with the determination of anti-Mafia judges) first disease rather than a crime and then what is not even diseased.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library in Paris
St Ambrose of Siena, O.P.
20-III-2013
I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ...
1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case
A Citizen's Arrest is there to bring someone before trial even if policemen do not arrest him. Not to substitute itself for a trial.
From a site close to Kevin D. Annett:
St Peter was convicted in Jerusalem and in Rome. He did not loose Papal authority due to that. Even a father does not - in real godly law, divine and traditional human law - loose all authority over his children because he is a convicted criminal.
Unless his crime is precisely abuse of authority - like abusing paternal authority to commit incest. And even then he does not loose authority in matters where the children are safe from incest even while obeying him.
Protestant error. The very echo of Gustav Wasa promising Swedish nobility to get back what their ancestors had donated to the Church.
Kevin Annett himself:
Problem one: St Pius X had no sordid past, and the past of Eugenio Pacelli was only tainted with bad advice about the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici to the then Pope Benedict XV. Like decriminalising usury. And being a librarian (with a preference for clear water among drinks and for mountaineering among sports) like his predecessor Pius XI is hardly sordid.
Problem two: Kevin Annett is quoting politicians of a very anticlerical party, as if they were reliable experts on the Vatican. Their animosity against it is clear, and their assumptions may reflect more of their own experiences of their affairs than of Vatican affairs.
Third: people taking justice in its own hands is a measure of ultimate need. It should not be extended beyond need. Kevin Annett may have a case against Canadian authorities or even against Catholic clergy in Canada, because of what was done by indigenous children in secret. He does not have one against the Church of Christ. If one can argue that children were "deliberately exposed" to smallpox (and ensuing death) by being kept together in schools, one can equally argue that children all over the Western world are deliberately exposed to murder and suicidal temptations by being kept in school, especially after puberty and boys and girls together. Something to tackle before getting into the Vatican's possible involvement in Canadian clergy's possible illdeeds?
Actually, if a Pope is at same time criminal, no Catholic is obliged to observe his secret and criminal orders, no Catholic is obliged to believe the Pope infallible in particular matters, only in what he legislates for all of the Church - openly. There is no such thing as secret legislation. So, attacking the papacy is not a cure for people like Alexander VI. Get at underlings, in such cases./HGL
A Citizen's Arrest is there to bring someone before trial even if policemen do not arrest him. Not to substitute itself for a trial.
From a site close to Kevin D. Annett:
The truth is that a convicted criminal has no authority any more, under the law: including monarchs, popes and prime ministers. We just need to press that point home now.
St Peter was convicted in Jerusalem and in Rome. He did not loose Papal authority due to that. Even a father does not - in real godly law, divine and traditional human law - loose all authority over his children because he is a convicted criminal.
Unless his crime is precisely abuse of authority - like abusing paternal authority to commit incest. And even then he does not loose authority in matters where the children are safe from incest even while obeying him.
Besides, taking back the wealth stolen from us all is justice in action. These churches have never paid a dime of taxes. Now we're taxing them, by reclaiming them with a sort of direct peoples' levy.
Protestant error. The very echo of Gustav Wasa promising Swedish nobility to get back what their ancestors had donated to the Church.
Kevin Annett himself:
During my second speaking tour in Rome, in the spring of 2010, I met with several senior Italian senators and officials of the parliamentary Radical Party. They all said the same thing about why Joseph Ratzinger had been made pope, and what awaited him. To quote one of those politicians,
“Nobody becomes pope without a sordid past, because only with such liabilities can he be controlled by the Curia. It’s the same in any big company. Well, Ratzinger made many indiscretions as a Cardinal and made many enemies. His signing letters ordering criminal concealment was just one sin. He was to be the scapegoat for all of the trash that the church knew would surface”
Problem one: St Pius X had no sordid past, and the past of Eugenio Pacelli was only tainted with bad advice about the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici to the then Pope Benedict XV. Like decriminalising usury. And being a librarian (with a preference for clear water among drinks and for mountaineering among sports) like his predecessor Pius XI is hardly sordid.
Problem two: Kevin Annett is quoting politicians of a very anticlerical party, as if they were reliable experts on the Vatican. Their animosity against it is clear, and their assumptions may reflect more of their own experiences of their affairs than of Vatican affairs.
Third: people taking justice in its own hands is a measure of ultimate need. It should not be extended beyond need. Kevin Annett may have a case against Canadian authorities or even against Catholic clergy in Canada, because of what was done by indigenous children in secret. He does not have one against the Church of Christ. If one can argue that children were "deliberately exposed" to smallpox (and ensuing death) by being kept together in schools, one can equally argue that children all over the Western world are deliberately exposed to murder and suicidal temptations by being kept in school, especially after puberty and boys and girls together. Something to tackle before getting into the Vatican's possible involvement in Canadian clergy's possible illdeeds?
Actually, if a Pope is at same time criminal, no Catholic is obliged to observe his secret and criminal orders, no Catholic is obliged to believe the Pope infallible in particular matters, only in what he legislates for all of the Church - openly. There is no such thing as secret legislation. So, attacking the papacy is not a cure for people like Alexander VI. Get at underlings, in such cases./HGL
mardi 19 mars 2013
Non, nous avions pas et nous n'avons pas un accord ...
... à moins que l'accord soit du même type que celui entre Wurmbrandt et ses gardiens, il disait "nous avions un accord, nous les Chrétiens et les gardiens, nous louions Dieu et les gardiens frappaient." Wurmbrandt n'avait certes pas librement donné un accord d'être frappé, il donnait un accord de plutôt être frappé que de ne pas louer Dieu, même pendant sa captivité.
Le Roumain que disait que nous avions un accord avait fait les comptes sans me consulter, comme les gardiens sans consulter les droits de Wurmbrandt.
Il est dans le métro, il faisait l'advocature (assez connue dans les métros de Paris) "je ne fais pas ceci par plaisir", il me restait un euro et soixante centimes, ou quelque chose comme ça. Je gardais l'euro, j'en avais besoin pour un stylo, et je lui donnais le reste. Un Noir qui était assis un peu à côté me demandait:
"Tu es en difficulté toi-même et tu aides quand même?"
J'affirmais. Alors, le Roumain prenait avantage de mon épuisement pour remplir les détails:
"C'est un accord entre nous."
Inexacte. Si je donne à un autre pauvre, ce n'est pas un accord entre moi et ce pauvre, ni à travers lui avec une quelconque loge. Si je donne à un pauvre c'est pour pouvoir demander avec davantage de cojnfiance à Dieu qu'il m'envoie ce qui est bien, et aussi pour ne pas avoir honte quand moi-même je fais la manche.
C'est vrai que le soir même je me suis retrouvé assez bien par une porte ouverte - et le lendemain je me rends compte que le café à côté était peut-être maçonnique. Il y a un café-bar dont le nom laisse entendre ça, au moins. Bon, ce n'était pas la loge que je voulais plaire, mais le bon Dieu.
Aujourd'hui il m'arrive deux fois qu'un vieil homme regarde le panneau avec le lien et l'inscription suivants:
Un A-Z de thématiques
An Alphabet of themes:
http://tiny.cc/2nis6
Mais les jeunes passent avec une exception assez à côté, un peu comme si les jeunes des "bonnes familles" étaient tout aussi strictement tenus par leurs parents que les enfants qui volent et mendient* sur commande de leurs parents. Et comme si l'ordre était de ne pas regarder les sites que je propose.
Donc, si tel ou tel groupe prétend avoir un accord avec moi, sauf pour ce que j'ai vraiment accordé, par exemple c'est vrai que j'ai accordé qu'on imprime mes essais et qu'on joue mes compositions, alors leur prétention d'avoir "un accord avec moi" peut être une excuse néfaste pour me mettre encore davantage en panne. Pour donner à travers leurs contacts l'impression que ce que j'écris ne soit pas à lire par tout le monde et quiconque veut par exemple. C'est à lire par quiconque veut.
Ceci n'est d'ailleurs pas la première fois qu'un dialogue étrange a lieu. Il y a un mois ou qqc comme ça, des beurs au nombre de trois sont dans le métro et un dit - il ne me regarde pas mais ils m'avaient vu:**
"Il y en a qui sont de la conspiration. Ils veulent tout."
Je suppose que des gens qui ont dit "nous avons un accord" derrière mon dos aient pu donner à pas mal de monde que je suis "dans la conspiration". Je ne cherche pas à être introduit en une quelconque loge et je n'ai pas été initié non plus. Je viens déjà de noter que Breivik était un fruit de la loge, du progrès, et non pas du protestantisme fondamentaliste comme des policiers (eux-mêmes de la loge aussi, je suppose) avaient laissé entendre à la première heure après les meurtres.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
St Joseph
19-III-2013
*S'ils mendient juste, et ne volent pas, je ne considère pas ça comme un tort.
**C'était après que j'avais écrit ceci:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2013/02/open-questions-to-rick-ross-center.html
et la veille d'écrire ceci:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/la-scolarite-obligatoire-qui-tue.html
Le Roumain que disait que nous avions un accord avait fait les comptes sans me consulter, comme les gardiens sans consulter les droits de Wurmbrandt.
Il est dans le métro, il faisait l'advocature (assez connue dans les métros de Paris) "je ne fais pas ceci par plaisir", il me restait un euro et soixante centimes, ou quelque chose comme ça. Je gardais l'euro, j'en avais besoin pour un stylo, et je lui donnais le reste. Un Noir qui était assis un peu à côté me demandait:
"Tu es en difficulté toi-même et tu aides quand même?"
J'affirmais. Alors, le Roumain prenait avantage de mon épuisement pour remplir les détails:
"C'est un accord entre nous."
Inexacte. Si je donne à un autre pauvre, ce n'est pas un accord entre moi et ce pauvre, ni à travers lui avec une quelconque loge. Si je donne à un pauvre c'est pour pouvoir demander avec davantage de cojnfiance à Dieu qu'il m'envoie ce qui est bien, et aussi pour ne pas avoir honte quand moi-même je fais la manche.
C'est vrai que le soir même je me suis retrouvé assez bien par une porte ouverte - et le lendemain je me rends compte que le café à côté était peut-être maçonnique. Il y a un café-bar dont le nom laisse entendre ça, au moins. Bon, ce n'était pas la loge que je voulais plaire, mais le bon Dieu.
Aujourd'hui il m'arrive deux fois qu'un vieil homme regarde le panneau avec le lien et l'inscription suivants:
Mais les jeunes passent avec une exception assez à côté, un peu comme si les jeunes des "bonnes familles" étaient tout aussi strictement tenus par leurs parents que les enfants qui volent et mendient* sur commande de leurs parents. Et comme si l'ordre était de ne pas regarder les sites que je propose.
Donc, si tel ou tel groupe prétend avoir un accord avec moi, sauf pour ce que j'ai vraiment accordé, par exemple c'est vrai que j'ai accordé qu'on imprime mes essais et qu'on joue mes compositions, alors leur prétention d'avoir "un accord avec moi" peut être une excuse néfaste pour me mettre encore davantage en panne. Pour donner à travers leurs contacts l'impression que ce que j'écris ne soit pas à lire par tout le monde et quiconque veut par exemple. C'est à lire par quiconque veut.
Ceci n'est d'ailleurs pas la première fois qu'un dialogue étrange a lieu. Il y a un mois ou qqc comme ça, des beurs au nombre de trois sont dans le métro et un dit - il ne me regarde pas mais ils m'avaient vu:**
"Il y en a qui sont de la conspiration. Ils veulent tout."
Je suppose que des gens qui ont dit "nous avons un accord" derrière mon dos aient pu donner à pas mal de monde que je suis "dans la conspiration". Je ne cherche pas à être introduit en une quelconque loge et je n'ai pas été initié non plus. Je viens déjà de noter que Breivik était un fruit de la loge, du progrès, et non pas du protestantisme fondamentaliste comme des policiers (eux-mêmes de la loge aussi, je suppose) avaient laissé entendre à la première heure après les meurtres.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
St Joseph
19-III-2013
*S'ils mendient juste, et ne volent pas, je ne considère pas ça comme un tort.
**C'était après que j'avais écrit ceci:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2013/02/open-questions-to-rick-ross-center.html
et la veille d'écrire ceci:
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/la-scolarite-obligatoire-qui-tue.html
lundi 18 mars 2013
Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ...
... is Jorge Mario Bergoglio or Pope Francis next?
[Series: 1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case]
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
seems to think so:
The Wall Street Journal:
Behind the Campaign to Smear the Pope
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362701947035938.html
I have already myself defended in this connexion, the kind we deal with when clerics are accused of collaborating with bad régimes, both Pius XII and Stepinac:
HGL's F.B. writings:
Pie XII aurait arreté les tuéries de Juifs s'il avait parlé?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2011/02/pie-xii-aurait-arrete-les-tueries-de.html
That one was in French, this is in English (Stepinac comes among a list of others involves in Acharya S' smear campaign):
somewhere else:
Oh, just how cruel were the Christians?
notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2011/04/oh-just-how-cruel-were-christians.html
Smear campaigns have been promised long before they happened. Their perpetrators succeed the people who called the real Christ a demoniac when he came 2000 years ago (some of whom still look for another, alas!)/HGL
[Series: 1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case]
MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
seems to think so:
The Wall Street Journal:
Behind the Campaign to Smear the Pope
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362701947035938.html
I have already myself defended in this connexion, the kind we deal with when clerics are accused of collaborating with bad régimes, both Pius XII and Stepinac:
HGL's F.B. writings:
Pie XII aurait arreté les tuéries de Juifs s'il avait parlé?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2011/02/pie-xii-aurait-arrete-les-tueries-de.html
That one was in French, this is in English (Stepinac comes among a list of others involves in Acharya S' smear campaign):
somewhere else:
Oh, just how cruel were the Christians?
notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2011/04/oh-just-how-cruel-were-christians.html
Smear campaigns have been promised long before they happened. Their perpetrators succeed the people who called the real Christ a demoniac when he came 2000 years ago (some of whom still look for another, alas!)/HGL
mercredi 6 mars 2013
Why Catholic?
This canon (can 13 about sacraments in general of session 7 of council of Trent) ...
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=941113.0
... and this discussion (between Fr Gruner and John Vennari, after abdication of Benedict XVI) ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMf5636AJpY
... are very good reasons. Some Calvinists as well as some Evolutionists would of course not agree. So much the worse for them. And I count "Abbé Pierre" and any follower of Teilhard de Chardin in that sad position of not being Catholic all the while having a Catholic reputation./HGL
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=941113.0
... and this discussion (between Fr Gruner and John Vennari, after abdication of Benedict XVI) ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMf5636AJpY
... are very good reasons. Some Calvinists as well as some Evolutionists would of course not agree. So much the worse for them. And I count "Abbé Pierre" and any follower of Teilhard de Chardin in that sad position of not being Catholic all the while having a Catholic reputation./HGL
samedi 2 mars 2013
I usually do not thank spammers ...
... but this morning I do.
On an old blog of mine, which was dishonestly disconnected while I was in Aix en Provence behind my back, the last post is this:
un jacobite : Notes from a Common-place Book: Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious
http://jacobita.blogspot.fr/2006/08/notes-from-common-place-book-situation.html
First it only contained the link to that other blog with this message, that I will link to, but then I added one of these personality tests to it. So here is the post I linked to then and link to now again:
Notes from a Common-place Book : Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious
http://notesfromacommonplacebook.blogspot.fr/2006/07/situation-hopeless-but-not-serious.html
A quote from it will do:
Now, what has this to do with thanking a spammer? Well, one such tried to spam the post, his spam was caught in a spam trap but was still sent to me as a comment on the post on my old disconnected blog, and therefore I revisited the blog.
Obviously, I am neither an Apologist for Radical Islam nor for Islam at all. But that does not imply I feel a need to distance myself from Radical Islam on every point. I do not feel a need to be Zionist because Radical Islam is Anti-Zionist. I do not feel a need to support Theistic Evolution because Radical Islam is - or is painted as being - Young Earth Creationist. I do not feel a need to take sides in the Jew vs Muslim saga when I really feel for those caught in the crossfire. I e Christians with Apostolic Succession, and, in the case of Maronites, Union with Rome.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre - Paris X
Sts Jovinus and Basileus, Martyrs
2-III-2013
On an old blog of mine, which was dishonestly disconnected while I was in Aix en Provence behind my back, the last post is this:
un jacobite : Notes from a Common-place Book: Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious
http://jacobita.blogspot.fr/2006/08/notes-from-common-place-book-situation.html
First it only contained the link to that other blog with this message, that I will link to, but then I added one of these personality tests to it. So here is the post I linked to then and link to now again:
Notes from a Common-place Book : Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious
http://notesfromacommonplacebook.blogspot.fr/2006/07/situation-hopeless-but-not-serious.html
A quote from it will do:
As is always the case in the Jew vs. Muslim saga, the local Christians get caught in the crossfire. I wonder if the American evangelicals rooting so strongly for the Israeli offensive believe that the substantial Lebanese Christian community is somehow immune from these attacks? I really wonder if they even know they are there.
Now, what has this to do with thanking a spammer? Well, one such tried to spam the post, his spam was caught in a spam trap but was still sent to me as a comment on the post on my old disconnected blog, and therefore I revisited the blog.
Obviously, I am neither an Apologist for Radical Islam nor for Islam at all. But that does not imply I feel a need to distance myself from Radical Islam on every point. I do not feel a need to be Zionist because Radical Islam is Anti-Zionist. I do not feel a need to support Theistic Evolution because Radical Islam is - or is painted as being - Young Earth Creationist. I do not feel a need to take sides in the Jew vs Muslim saga when I really feel for those caught in the crossfire. I e Christians with Apostolic Succession, and, in the case of Maronites, Union with Rome.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre - Paris X
Sts Jovinus and Basileus, Martyrs
2-III-2013
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)