Posted on 08/27/2002 3:11:05 PM PDT by jstone78
Does that mean that you would also support the campaign by some Native Americans, to remove President Andrew Jackson from the 20 dollar bill? Many Native Americans feel the same resentment against Jackson, that you do about Queen Isabella, that "some crimes cannot be overlooked".
If someone proposed Andrew Jackson today, I would oppose having him on the bank note. Given his policy on a National Bank and the economic damage it caused, the decision to put Jackson on the $20 was an affront to Jackson and to our banking system. It was a stupid political move.
I opposed Jackson's decision to move the Cherokee's because it was an afront othe Constitution. The Supremem Court had rightly ruled that states cannot overturn federal treaties with Indian nations. Jackson told teh court "You made the decision, now enforce it."
For that alone, he should have been impeached. Jackson was exactly the type of demagogue the Founders warned us about.
But the interests of a nation must always precede the interests of special interest groups. Andrew Jackson, whatever his faults, advanced the cause of the American nation, just as Queen Isabella advanced the Spanish cause.
The issue isn't Spain honoring Isabella I, but the Roman Catholic Church making her a saint. The RCC is supposed to be catholic, not particularist to the patriotism of individual nations.
The RCC, by virtue of its name is supposed to be universal and undivided. (look up catholic).
Yeah, my bad.
I don't think that the RCC should make that exemplary behavior by sainting Pius IX.
Unless his action is condemned, the cannonization of Pius IX would be disastrous to Catholic-Jewish relations.
It would do the same, if not more damage, than the opposition by some leftists and leftist Jews to Pius XII is doing.
There is a reverse to PC, which is the glee in breaking the PC orthodoxy. It can go to far, like the attempts of some to try to contextualise Hitler.
The problem with Gottfried's peice is that he plays fast and loose with facts for his political agenda. Worse his article fosters hate as a political tool. It is the mirror opposite of the PC attack.
Gottfried opposes political correctness, whether it is proposed by liberals, Marxists, or neoconservatives. Gottfried occupies the same status as an independent Jewish thinker, that Thomas Sowell occupies in black America. I consider both men to be among the bravest and most brilliant social critics in America.
There is a difference between beeing brave and supporting any cause.
Some people get hysterical and see any attempt to speak of the pain the Germans suffered under Wiemar or during the war as anti-Semetism, because Neo-Nazis use the arguement.
Gottfried sees the factual attack on Isabella I as worthy of attack because the PC left might use it.
Both are knee-jerk reactions and unbecoming of otherwise lucid thinkers.
Sowell has never defended those who enslaved blacks. Gottfried is doing the equivalent.
Historical revisionism.
The Vatican is on pins-and-needles in its relations with Jews, so I suspect objections will be taken into consideration, but will not be determinative.
What a ridiculous question!
It's kinda like my hubby's company deciding it would be GOOD to have non-IT managers running the IT department. D'oh. Real success story there, I hear it every week, if not daily! lol
These were the folks in the Royal family in France (her family too) who fostered church reform in the 1500s.
Although all Protestants were run out of Spain and Portugual about 1541, there has always been a question about who protected them in the earlier period. Some have suggested it was Isabella who was behind it, as was her Grandfather Rene in France.
It's long overdue to canonize a Protestant, particularly one of the unsung founders.
Before that, I have been bothered about the Jews being driven out of Spain and forcibly converted and tortured in some cases. The church owes the Jews a measure of sensitivity because catholics (the only christians during those years) were responsible for pogroms where Jews were persecuted and killed as scapegoats for the plague and other misfortunes that befell Europe. My personal preference is that the church move on and choose saints from her more recent past.
Unless his action is condemned, the cannonization of Pius IX would be disastrous to Catholic-Jewish relations.
sinkspur responded
Historical revisionism.
Where have I revised the facts?
The Vatican is on pins-and-needles in its relations with Jews, so I suspect objections will be taken into consideration, but will not be determinative.
OK.
And when I try to defend the Catholic church from attacks that it is anti-Semetic, my job will be much harder.
And Sowell has defended America's founding fathers against leftist attacks, in his capacity as an American, despite the fact that many of the founders owned black slaves. As an American, Sowell believes in honoring those who advanced the history of his nation. He puts American national interests, ahead of narrow ethnic interests, which makes him a great American.
There is a huge difference. Our Founders did not go around conquering territory and enslaving people. Moreover, we all accept that as humans our founders are imperfect. We don't revere them as sacred.
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.