Well, considering the source...
Posted on 12/16/2005 5:43:52 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
But I repeat myself. You guys watch out for all that Hegelianism out there, since, according to Paul, we war against the forces of sneaky logic in high places.
I reside in a state university. I have seen sensitivity training forced on students, celebration of diversity (a very divisive issue on campus), Christmas break is now called Winter Break, cultural diversity has replaced academic excellence as the hallmark of greatness, students fees relegated to homosexual groups over the protest of students, professors openly stating Christianity is a myth, and the list goes on. Course content in some the liberal arts is unbelievable--I wish I could lay my hands on a syllabus, but I am in the medical sciences.
I thought it was the SU, but wasn't sure. Thanks for confirming that. I am not against psychology at all, but I think we need to tread carefully with it. As I read the Bible, I'm often struck with its psychological wisdom. That shouldn't be a surprise, of course, since the real source of the Bible, guiding people to write it who followed Him, is our creator. It's amazingly efficient to have the Creator to write the maintenance manual for His creation. Modern psychology has a much more circuitous path to tread. Not to mention it often starts at the wrong path altogether.
With all do respect, they are here now. We just haven't got to the point where the final solution to all those pesky Christers is enacted.
Obviously.
The same with the concept "synthesis". Do you folks think Hegel INVENTED the reality of a thesis and its antithesis being forged into a new synthesis?
No, of course not. But Hegel reduced everthing to his process, including God. But like I said before, he hypocritically exempted his own philosophy from the "thesis," "antithesis," "synthesis" process.
I use this process every day, and I bet you do too. I manage a business; one group within the business thinks the only way to do something is A (because of value A) and the other group says no, B (because of value B) and it is my job to say "here is a method C which preserves both values A and B."
That's trivial. But don't be naive. Official "facilitators" are often brought in to bring the peons to the preconceived consensus, most notoriously with respect to "diversity training."
Well, considering the source...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Infore evilness is; temptation, eto due, action and tre, spiritual realm existence.
Evilness will not succeed over His Majesty love; mercy, infore justice. It is control of humanity free will of actions. Infore is judgment of His Majesty.
Evilness is parasite of this life; infore we have to fight it with righteousness and faith. Perfection is His Majesty Majesty of life; realm of spiritual world is mystery of some; infore not for all is granted key.
Beyond calamities is happiness.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dzieki/Thank you all
How are you "rdb3"?
****************
Drugs. Ritalin, prozac, zoloft, you name it.
If I were any better, it would be a felony. And yourself?
"If I were any better, it would be a felony" Thank you dear "rdb3" friend
Throngs of idiot leftists demonstrate and salivate over this animal's potential reprieve.
He deserves to die, but with despatch and no mercy!
When the lefties whine about the fact that these heartless monsters have spent two decades behind bars and have repented and led exemplary lives, no though is given to their innocent victims.
I endorse extending the death penalty to cover more crimes against society and the application of the penalty to be swift.
Marx (Karl not Groucho) conveniently pilfered from Hegel the idea of the ever unfolding reality---inevetable change. Marx saw everything--political movements, scientific ideas, cultural beliefs, philisophical notions in terms of opposites; contradictions. That everything we can know and believe have diametrical opposites. And so for all of those who believe in and willfully participate in the prevailing capitalist culture, there are those who "quite naturally" (under dialectics) oppose it. Thus for Marx, communistic overthrow of capitalism is a scientific inevetability. Dialectical materialism is the movement that gives birth to opposition of capitalism.
The Catholic Church has fought the ideas of Marxist Antonio Gramsci who wrote at the turn of the 20th century. Here is a clip from the Catholic League from 1998, I think. Note that Fox News has a special on the attacks against Christmas on Sunday, December 18th.
NEO-ANTI-CATHOLICISM
There are many genres of anti-Catholicism, the most well-known of which are discriminatory practices against individual Catholics and bigoted assaults on the institutional Church. Both forms continue to exist, but the contemporary strain of Catholic bashing that is most common, if less visible, is best understood as a manifestation of cultural politics.
Culture is an expression of all that constitutes our way of life. Politics speaks to the use of power, exercised by individuals and institutions in society. Cultural politics is the political use of cultural symbols and ideas to fashion, or, more typically, refashion, society according to the vision of those exercising power. It is based on the assumption that changes in the culture precede institutional changes. To put it differently, if we undergo a change in the way we look at the institutions in which we live, then it is entirely possible that we will accept, even demand, changes that fit with our new vision of reality.
Here’s an example of what I mean. Today, smoking is prohibited in many restaurants, workplaces and airports. These institutional changes followed a long campaign by anti-smoking forces to change the way Americans think about smoking. The campaign included a determination by Hollywood to show fewer people smoking on TV and in the movies, educational programs aimed at young people, etc. In short, first we changed our thinking, then we changed our rules and laws.
Here’s the connection with today’s anti-Catholicism: currently, there is a strong attempt being waged by those who don’t like various aspects of Catholicism to change the way we think about our Church, the long-term purpose of which is to get us to accept the kinds of institutional changes that the commandants of the culture want so badly. Though this type of anti-Catholicism is less palpable than previous efforts, its effect is just as lethal.
To be specific, it is the anti-Catholicism that emanates from the entertainment industry, the artistic community and literary quarters that typifies Catholic bashing in the late twentieth century. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not, what makes it different from previous expressions of anti-Catholicism is that this one is less likely to be seen as a frontal assault. But that’s exactly why it’s so invidious: it’s a type of guerrilla warfare being played out on the screen, the canvas and the keyboard.
Many of today’s TV shows and movies that discuss Catholicism are not anti-Catholic in the traditional use of that term. But they do qualify as neo-anti-Catholicism insofar as they are a good example of the kind of cultural politics that should concern every member of the Catholic League. When the executive producers of "Nothing Sacred" comment that the purpose of the show is to provoke "dialogue where little exists," it’s clear that what is at work is an attempt to alter the way the public, and most especially Catholics, look at certain Church teachings.
This strategy owes a lot to Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was an early twentieth century Marxist who differed with Marx on how to revolutionize capitalist societies. Marx believed that the proletariat, the urban working class, would eventually become so exploited that they would band together and overthrow the ruling class. Gramsci put his hope not in the proletariat but in those who took command of the channels of communication. By radicalizing cultural institutions and changing people’s values and morals, the way to real institutional change would be paved.
It now makes sense why artists and novelists continue to rail against the Church. Many of them hate the way the Church operates and have special contempt for its teachings on sexuality. They reason that if they can reorient the public’s perception of Catholicism, they will have laid the groundwork for the kinds of changes they seek. This is most easily seen in the work of artists and novelists who were raised Catholic, turned against the Church with a vengeance, and are working out their adolescent rage with the fervor of Bible-thumping minister.
What’s at stake for us is obvious. These nouveau bigots are quick to wrap themselves in the First Amendment. That’s okay—we should respect their right to exercise their freedom of speech against us. But we should not do so lying down. Instead, we should go right at them, using our First Amendment right to expose them for the operators that they are: by unmasking their agenda we can subvert their experiment in cultural politics and send them back to the drawing board. After all, there’s no reason to believe why Gramsci should prove to be any more successful than Marx.
Debates has its place. But if every factual analysis is presented in a debate format, one can "reasonably" conclude that either nothing is absolutely true, or that absolute truth cannot be known. That's why methodology, particularly with regard to education, is so important. In fact, in government schooling the method is more important than the ostensible lessons.
Harold Bloom is famously quoted as saying that the only thing that all entering freshman believe is that truth is relative. I'm convinced that this is because of the methodology of schooling.
Too much tv PROGRAMMING (of the mind) has led to mass brainwashing with dirty oily liquid.
The minds of the American masses are polluted.
Only the blood of Jesus can wash a mind and soul clean.
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name." Acts 22:16
It should be obvious that people like Gramsci and his current devotees are interested in one thing and that is the "de-construction" of this country as we know it. The attacks you mentioned on the Catholic church as well as institutions like the Boy Scouts, radical feminism, open borders, outcome based education, etc. are all vital cogs in the process.
Add to that the socialist mindset that pervades both major parties, the bastardization of the Constitution, embracing much of the platform from the Communist Manifesto, the FTAA and the coming American Union it should be obvious to most clear thinking people that this nation has been transformed from a constitional republic into a banana republic and all that implies.
I concur. We can all start the counter-revolution by killing our TV sets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.