Posted on 07/20/2007 7:33:05 PM PDT by RTO
If you believe that, I have a tomcat that will take care of your canary while you are on vacation.
“For all your prose and numerous quotes you failed to answer the question.”
Sir, you propose, on the one hand, genocide, and on the other, suicide. To force an argument between such diametrically opposed extremes is a rhetorical tool typical in Soviet-style dialectics. I answered your question plainly and directly: self-defense and the use of proportionate force. I stated clearly that I would defend my own life, that of my family, and that of my fellow countrymen, if needs be. So what part of that declaration is not within your comprehension?
However, being dissatisfied with my answer, for reason, as I interpret the obstinate tone of this discussion, that you desire to make this issue a Hobbesian Choice, between two equally repulsive evils—genocide or suicide. I will not provide the satisfaction of affirming either, because both are morally wrong, and will always remain so, no matter the repetition of the question.
“You have characterized all Muslims as representing these vile and perfidious acts. The jihadists have sworn to destroy you.”
No, I have characterized Islam to be predisposed to that temperament, and those actions. Not every Muslim shares that inclination, but nevertheless the disposition exists within the text of the Quran and in later directives of Mohamed. Whatever the “jihadists have sworn” is irrelevant to the discussion, since I have plainly stated the moral imperatives that define my duty.
“Dubai Ports, in essence, was going to become an agent of CIA,” Mr. Scarborough said in an interview.
If you believe that, I have a tomcat that will take care of your canary while you are on vacation.
RE: I offered nothing of my “belief” or disbelief in the merits of this story, I merely passed the article as a matter of interest—canaries, tomcats and other assorted creatures notwithstanding.
RTO
“During twelve years of education in Catholic schools, I never heard one Bishop, priest or Nun deny the nature of the inquisition. They often used it as a teaching tool. Has history changed so much in the last 30 years?”
From these words, suffer me to offer my observations:
1. You are, or once were, a practicing Catholic;
2. 30 years reverts to 1977, but I am uncertain as to whether this marked the beginning or the ending of your Catholic education.
If the former, then you were quite set in the middle of the “modernist” thinking with which revisionist liberals infected the Church.
If the later, then too, being 1965, you would still be post-Vatican II, and under the influence of notorious theologians: Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum—all of whom, prior to Vatican II, were under suspicion by the Holy See for promulgating heretical writings. Post Vatican II, their theological novelties became prescribed in the name of the Council. Following them were the unfortunate liberal cadre of rebellious priests, feminist nuns and incompetent bishops, all of whom were eager to push a revisionist agenda upon the Church—and most especially within the “American” Catholic Church.
“In the history of the major western religions, there have been periods of time when men under the influence of religious zealotry have committed unspeakable acts. These mis-quided zealots did not represent the true nature nor the future of their religion.”
Agreed, but not to the extent that you have been led to believe in the matter of the Spanish Inquisition. Moreover, the “future” of the Catholic religion is as it always was from the time Christ instituted His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, constant in its Faith, morals, and dogma—that is why it has persevered for 2000 years, despite those who have sought to destroy it, even from within.
As I do not desire to go off-topic ad nauseum, I will offer three solid tomes for your erudition, all three of which were authored by historians of unimpeachable character and scholarship:
Characters of the Inquisition, by William Thomas Walsh
Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader, by William Thomas Walsh
Religious Liberty, by Michael Davies
Of course, there is Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)—likely the most famous and influential Catholic historian of the past two centuries. His rare understanding of the central role of the Catholic Faith in forming Western Civilization—from the time of Christ up to our own—still opens the eyes of many today.
I have only a few of Mr. Belloc’s writings, but during the period of 50 years, before suffering a stroke in 1946, he wrote over a hundred books on history, economics, military science and travel, plus novels and poetry. He also wrote hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. He served for a time as a member of the English House of Commons and edited a paper called the Eye-Witness. He visited the US several times, giving guest lectures at both Notre Dame and Fordham Universities. As you can see, I hold him in great esteem.
I hope this will provide you—and “others who may read this thread”—with perfect understanding
All of these complex plans and electronics and satellites and surveillance etc. ...
YET THE BORDERS ARE STILL WIDE OPEN!
It is literally “Through the Looking Glass”.
“In none of these cases were the trading partners mutually dependent. The American Colonies and Japan were being exploited and hostilities ensued as a result of escalation of the exploitation...”
No disagreement there, save that you might explain how Japan was being “exploited” while on its happy jaunt of military conquest across the Asian continent.
“...In the case of the South, the North was attempting to restrict the economic viability of the South’s ability to trade productively with any of its trading partners.”
No disagreement there, either (and it warms my heart that you did not cite slavery a relevant cause, as rather it was but a convenient pretense), save that the South was a bit slow to understand that manual agrarianism was sorely outdated.
In fact these two correct assertions aptly demonstrate my previously stated point:
Economy is something transient and trade is fickle. If nothing else these two impostures hide a wolves-den of evil beneath a pretense of so-called mutual benefit. When that pretense is stripped away, and the ulterior motives exposed, hostilities are not far off.
Mutual whatever... it matters not a wit, for all this economic posturing is more to do with self-delusional vanity, rather than the fostering of mutual respect and global tranquility. Man will always look for some way to satisfy himself, and exalt his superiority over creation, while keeping the Creator, Jesus Christ, wholly out of the picture—that is the cult of man. Such exclusion, which is in essence a pragmatic naturalism (rationalism), one may confidently assert has served to provoke more human conflict than any other single cause.
Nations do not have allies, but only interests, and those interests are about as fixed as the ocean sands. That axiom holds true for all secular humanist endeavors—political, social, and cultural—regardless of the entity’s size or composition. It will always be so until Christ himself returns to prove the folly of the enterprise.
“It is literally “Through the Looking Glass”.”
Got it spot on, sir. Orwellian, is it not? And what do you think the push for implantable bio-identification chips is all about? I suppose that will become the ultimate REAL-ID. Pray, what will we do when that comes upon us with a vengeance? As my tag line states: “What will you do without freedom?” Is it not peculiar that we must give up freedom so to keep freedom? As you stated, Through the Looking Glass we have fallen.
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.