Leave a comment below!
There have a been a few movies out there in the past ten years or so that have sort of questioned our society in sometimes subtle ways that have been missed by the chattering classes. I am not even sure it was intentional on the part of the makers or actors. The movies themselves may not have been all that great on their own. Three that come to mind are Forrest Gump, Bruce Almighty and The Truman Show. The short of it is what happens when man becomes the final arbiter over himself or others.
We ARE monsters. Divorce is one of the greatest evils of all time. But, our age is so demonically consumed in its own lust, that it is blind. Like demons from Hell, we will defend the indefensible, because our hearts have grown cold, and we are overcome with evil. We will march headlong into the fires of Gehenna – into the flames of Moloch we will cast our children. Yes, we are evil. The lusts burn too hot to be quenched. God will be completely just were he to unleash upon us his terrible wrath.
I tremble for these thoughts, which I hope are false, but I know them to be true.
Thoughts we all have entertained, JPI.
Humbler than we, not humbler than us.
Ummmm...I sure haven't. I'd dare say very few people have seriously.
The only response I would offer to JPI's post is a quote from C.S. Lewis
"The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." (Mere Christianity)"-(found via Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings)
I am amused that you have decided to take a single example of modern day social criticism, blow it up as if it was an example of all modern social criticism, and compare it with people such as St. Thomas Aquinas. A more in depth look at some of the documentary's being made today would seem in order. Instead it appears as though you are comparing apples to oranges. Though straw men burn merrily, their fire soon burns out.
Paul C.-He sees sexual propriety, what used to be called chastity, as nothing but base oppression; and to him its clumsiness is not evidence of its humanness, but of its injustice.-
So does chastity's 'humanness' make it just? You are apparently saying that the incredible lack of fairness in marital arrangements pre-french revolution were 'protections and sentinels'? Marriage laws that treated women like property, and gave them no power to determine their own fate once entering the 'marital contract' have no protection for the women by far. You might consider the societal benefits to be greater than the demonstrible harm to greater than 50% of that population, but I disagree. Chastity as it has been applied in the past has been injust. The attitudes of those who seek to reimpose it do not particularly reassure me that it would be any more just in the re-imposition.
One of the most interesting things in this post is how you have adopted the same methodology of the thing which you decry. You criticize the film as social criticism, because it fails to self-criticize. However, you have next to no self-criticism in your post. The sole possible exception to this is a quick aside which seems only intended to demonstrate a bit of sympathy. Do you think that there is any situation in which divorce is the right and proper path?
Allright, this is just too much...
Paul C- One often wonders how historians freed from the myopia of our rancorous disputes, distant enough from us to see us more clearly, will picture in their books the men who presided over the age of gas chamber and gulag, the slaughter of the innocents in the womb and the gradual criminalization of Christian conviction, the rise, decline and resurrection of eugenics and the liquidation of national sovereignty,-
Congratulations, you have just managed to smear every single reformer who has lived over the last 200 years.
Have you ever read anything about actual dark ages? It's not as if the years before the renaissance were sweatness and light. The murder rate is historically low, and violent crimes have been trending downwards for decades. Protections for minorities have become enshrined in both culture and law. What period of time in the past would you not consider to be a dark age?
After all, the 19th century saw the rise of a new imperialism. Wars of conquest and eradication swirled across the globe. However, historians do not view people of this period as purveyors of unmitigated evil. They are viewed through historical context, and greater shading is added to their makeup as more facts are revealed.
The possibility of our descendants viewing us as 'monsters' I find hard to believe. It seems to be reliant on a massive change in society that would bring it more in line with your beliefs. Lets just say I'm not too worried about this.
-gradual criminalization of Christian conviction-
Get back to me when a single atheist holds high office. This seems to be more of a kickback to the old school republican 'persecution complex' which got old in the 90's. C'mon, the leadership of congress hops to your call, and yet somehow your belief is being criminalized?
Chris P:
I don't know where all this talk of "pre-French Revolution" marriage arrangements came from. What I am comparing here is the sexual mores of our culture pre- and post-sexual revolution of the 1960s. And I am judging the latter deficient.
I believe that chastity, being a virtue, is good and just, and desireable for its own sake. I believe that rampant divorce is a markedly unhappier social state than unhappy marriages endured because of social pressure.
There are times when divorce might be necessary, but it is never good.
I don't know how I've managed to smear "every reformer" over the last 200 by simply noting that our beloved progress might not look so pristine to the disinterested historian of another age.
Have you ever read anything about actual dark ages? It's not as if the years before the renaissance were sweatness and light.
I have read some, and I agree that the Dark Age was pretty dark; but the idea, which you seem to advance here, that the Mediaeval Age was without high culture, light and beauty, is preposterous. Did Romanesque architecture simply spring out of the ground?
Much of the learning of the Renaissance was simply an absorbing and distributing of what was achieved in the Middle Ages. Look up Buridan or Oresme.
Get back to me when a single atheist holds high office.
No atheist should hold high office.
Paul C.-
I don't know where all this talk of "pre-French Revolution" marriage arrangements came from. What I am comparing here is the sexual mores of our culture pre- and post-sexual revolution of the 1960s. And I am judging the latter deficient.-
The first modern day divorce laws were put into place by the National Assembly in 1791.
The only real differance is the fact that it's in the open. It was brought out into the open, and some went too far with it. Younger people have seen the damage that it does and are reigning in this tendancy. This isn't due to any feeling that chastity is more moral per se, but due to how they have seen it's effects. Despite how it is depicted in popular culture, teenagers have become more informed and more responsible, and teen sex and pregnancy rates have both declined in recent years.
Paul C.-There are times when divorce might be necessary, but it is never good.-
I believe the institution of divorce to be a necessary evil. As in, the harm from not allowing divorce far outweighs that of it's existance.
I would prefer that the divorce rate were lower, but it's rate is a culmination of several factors. Poverty and abuse are just as important in the calculation as immorality.
Paul C.-
I don't know how I've managed to smear "every reformer" over the last 200 by simply noting that our beloved progress might not look so pristine to the disinterested historian of another age.-
Allright, I will point out where I see it.
-will picture in their books the men who presided over the age of gas chamber and gulag, the slaughter of the innocents in the womb and the gradual criminalization of Christian conviction, the rise, decline and resurrection of eugenics and the liquidation of national sovereignty, all of which things have been (or are today) justified in the name of progress. One need not follow all of my polemical points to see that we will need searching and sympathetic historians indeed if we are to be portrayed as anything other than alien monsters of a dark age.-
You have referred to people that cite progress as a rationale as the people who presided over the holocost and other monstrosities. In fact, the Nazi's were about as regressive as possible in their doctrine. Party leaders were even trying to bring back elements of paganism into mainstream german culture.
When you say "we will need searching and sympathetic historians indeed if we are to be portrayed as anything other than alien monsters of a dark age" that causes me to think that you are assigning responsibility for all of these acts to all mankind. Oh, except for those that fought against them. This interestingly phrased comment also ensures that many of those that did fight against, for example, the nazi's would be tossed into the 'alien monster' column due to other reasons.
Paul C.-
I have read some, and I agree that the Dark Age was pretty dark; but the idea, which you seem to advance here, th
Cont....
that the Mediaeval Age was without high culture, light and beauty, is preposterous. Did Romanesque architecture simply spring out of the ground?-
I agree that art and culture of the age were often very impressive. They were, however, an exception to the prevailing facts of life at the time. As Hobbes said, life then was "nasty, brutish and short."
I would hope that you would agree that it was a darker age than this one. I am happy to see how often our better natures have prevailed over darker impulses over the last hundred years. This is mainly due to improved communications, as an act of genocide like the holocost would never have been dealt with. Whereas the art and culture that came out of the dark ages were the exception instead of the rule, I would argue that in the last century the crimes and mistakes which were then the rule are the exception.
Paul C.-
No atheist should hold high office.-
Then on what basis do you say that christianity is being criminalized?
A cite for my contention on conditions becoming better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/1...lth/
19divo.html?
Look, man: you are missing my point. My point is about our own narrowness in assaying history.
Say to a crowd "Middle Ages," and everyone immediately thinks (because they have been taught to think) Inquistion, evil Crusaders, witch burnings, backwardness; poor, nasty, brutish and short.
If that kind of contempt is directed at us hundreds of years from now, someone will say Modern Age, and people will think Holocaust, concentration camp, gulag, genocide, etc, etc. They will forget (if indeed they ever knew) all your precious crime rates and teen pregnancy rates and mass communitications and so forth.
I would hope that you would agree that it was a darker age than this one.
I do not agree that the Mediaeval Age was darker than ours. In some ways we are superior, in others we are emphatically not. I am quite certain, for example, that our crimes exceed theirs by whole orders of magnitude. Even the Inquistion at its most ferocious still believed in individual guilt, quite unlike the Nazis and Communists, who were content to condemn whole classes and races to death.
It is very easy for you to say now the Nazism was "really" regressive, but the fact is that both Communism and Fascism were greeted by most "enlightened" folks as heralds of progress and advancement. I know this is hard to believe but it is true.
Some quick statistics for you...
In the second world war, 50 million died out of a population of approx. 2.5 billion. Roughly 2 % of the worlds population died including soldiers and civilians.
In the crusades, 5 million were killed, out of a population of roughly 300 million. Rougly 1.6 percent of the human population died.
it's not an exact comparison of course. The crusades were far more geographically restricted.
Other examples of past atrocities include roughly 20 million killed through colonizing the new world. During the 30 years war, roughly seven and a half million died in germany alone. Cite: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/...28/
warstat0.htm
"Not content to condemn whole races or classes to death?"
Well, the Nazi's didn't do that initially either. You might recall that the only reason that they started the Gas chambers was that they realized they were not going to be able to get them out of the country any other way.
Paul C.-the fact is that both Communism and Fascism were greeted by most "enlightened" folks as heralds of progress and advancement. I know this is hard to believe but it is true.-
Like the Catholic bishops and american conservatives who turned to Fascism as support against the communists? I would hardly consider the German American Bund to be 'heralds of progress and advancement' and more importantly they were not seen that way at the time. Perhaps the reason that so many former conservatives turned to these ideologies is because they saw what happened when church's get too much worldly power. Instead of embracing secularism, they decided to make up their own religion. One which required the same level of faith, but embodied in a fanatical leader instead of god.
Paul C.-
If that kind of contempt is directed at us hundreds of years from now, someone will say Modern Age, and people will think Holocaust, concentration camp, gulag, genocide, etc, etc. They will forget (if indeed they ever knew) all your precious crime rates and teen pregnancy rates and mass communitications and so forth.-
Thus goes the story of progress. No matter what, people that look back at the past in general as anything but a dark age are fooling themselves. That is because the story of human history is the story of it's progress. I would hope that our descendants feel that way about the times we live in as that will mean that their lives will be happier, healthier and better than our own. I am rather doubtful that they will blame the crimes of our century on us as a whole however. The holocaust had a very specific set of perpetrators, and it was not 'progressives.'
Excellent post Paul, we all like to think we live in interesting times. Problem is we do and that means good and bad.
Get back to me when a single atheist holds high office.
Five out of nine S.Ct. Justices are functional atheists. 90% of the Democratic party are functional atheists, as are probably a significant minority of the GOP. Just because they pay lip service doesn't mean they actually believe anything - judge them by their actions, not words. Its all for votes.
One problem with comparing crusades to WWII, Crusades span a couple hundred years, WWII only lasted about 10. Not really fair. To make it more fair, you would have to add in WW I, Cold War, all other wars (mid-east, Africa, South Amer.), gulags of all types, Asian wars (Vietnam, Korea, Kmar Rouge, etc.). And that doesn't even exhaust one century, let alone the period spanned by the crusades.
the story of human history is the story of it's progress
Unfortunately, technological and scientific advancement does not necessarily equate with progress in other areas (eg, philosophy, morality). For the most part, while history has "progressed" in the sense that we can now get from A to B a lot faster and safer, we know less why we were going from A to B in the first place. While we now live longer and healthier lives, we know less why we should live at all.
C Matt-
Five out of nine S.Ct. Justices are functional atheists. 90% of the Democratic party are functional atheists, as are probably a significant minority of the GOP. Just because they pay lip service doesn't mean they actually believe anything - judge them by their actions, not words. Its all for votes.-
So, they're not faithful enough for you? Religion has often been used as a cloak for worldly desires and hatreds. I would rather people embrace their faith quietly, than use it as a bludgeon against others.
If we judged people only by their actions, conservative christians would be the least faithful people out there. After all, the divorce rate among conservative christians is far higher than that among either atheists or agnostics. So, who are the actual 'functional atheists'? People who loudly proclaim their faith, and then violate it's tenants? Or those that worship quietly and privatly, without seeking to impose their beliefs on others?
C Matt-
One problem with comparing crusades to WWII, Crusades span a couple hundred years, WWII only lasted about 10. Not really fair. To make it more fair, you would have to add in WW I, Cold War, all other wars (mid-east, Africa, South Amer.), gulags of all types, Asian wars (Vietnam, Korea, Kmar Rouge, etc.). And that doesn't even exhaust one century, let alone the period spanned by the crusades.-
Well, the crusades were certainly not the only conflicts going on at the same time either. WWII also involved nations on every continent. The Crusades only involved a small segment of the worlds population.
It's a good point however. The Crusades was simply the first thing I saw with comprehensive statistics available. The 30 years war is a far better comparison, though it is also highly geographically concentrated.
C Matt-
Unfortunately, technological and scientific advancement does not necessarily equate with progress in other areas (eg, philosophy, morality). For the most part, while history has "progressed" in the sense that we can now get from A to B a lot faster and safer, we know less why we were going from A to B in the first place. While we now live longer and healthier lives, we know less why we should live at all.-
Slavery is abolished in most of the known world. Mistreatment of minorities is considered to be barbaric in other countries and intolerable in our own.
It's quite a change from social darwinism a hundred years ago and slavery a hundred before that. We are more free today than we ever have been in the past.
People are free to make up their own mind on why they are alive. It is not imposed upon them. Some turn to religion. Some don't think about it at all. All in all, I prefer it when people can make up their own minds.
I do not claim that it is only technology that has caused this progress but it has certainly helped. Medical science contributed to the first successful cities as sanitation and the germ theory of disease was dis
"No atheist should hold high office."
How nice of you to advocate defiance of the Constitution: See Art. VI, Cl. 3.
I am quite sure I saw the preview for the movie under discussion. I spent the whole time garrulously laughing at it. I suspect it may deserve a review on jabootu.com.
We also kill our unborn at a rate of 1.3 million a year in this country alone and call it "good".
Vive le progresse.
There have been other periods of "free thought" as well (ancient Rome and Greece had some pretty free thinkers - and good ones to boot!).
I would consider Rome and Athens pretty successful cities back in the day.
There are currently periods of forced thought NOW - mostly in countries with official atheism (China) or with distorted views of God (Islamic countries).
Funny you should mention slavery as it was a Christian West that eventually brought it down. But luckily, we have progressed from such backwards notions as Christianity.
Anon:
I think you are missing the point. You are looking at modern technological trappings which make us more physically comfortable (not that that is bad in and of itself) but do not seem to recongize the fact that morally, we really are not much further along (maybe better in some ways, but then worse in others). Even worse, we seem to have not picked up on some of the better things from the past, but instead have tossed them aside. In a sense, we seem to keep going in circles from a moral progress point of view, but we don't realize it b/c instead of driving in circles with chariots, we are driving in Beemers, thus we think its better.
So, who are the actual 'functional atheists'? People who loudly proclaim their faith, and then violate it's tenants? Or those that worship quietly and privatly, without seeking to impose their beliefs on others?
Both. In fact, the private ones may be even worse - what good is it to have beliefs (like John Kerry) and loudly proclaim them (when convenient) if you are too chicken to act on them? Doesn't do a rat's --- of good for John Kerry to believe life begins at conception if he says go ahead and kill it anyway. That is a functional atheist.
Why do those who have religious beliefs have to keep quiet and private, while those who don't get to impose their beliefs on others? To borrow a slogan - "Don't like prayer in school? Then don't say one."
Mr. Rowe:
Was the North Carolina state constitution in defiance of the U.S. Constitution? "Article XXXII: That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."
Chris P.:
Yes we have abolished slavery, but we still regard a certain class of human beings as property, he be disposed of at will: abortion law.
I reject totally the history-as-progress theory. It is loaded with so many unproven or indeed erroneous assumptions, and so narrow in its historical vision (where does the Byzantine or Chinese civilization fit in its monomaniac scheme?), as to be quite laughable really.
Now that the "no religious test" clause has been incorporated under the rubric of religious liberty (see Torcaso v. Watkins), yes absolutely.
And BTW, it was properly incorporated. And that's because the North Carolina state constitution violated the free and equal rights of conscience implicit in the Declaration of Independence, as much as slavery violated the unalienable rights of blacks. These rights of conscience are, according to Jefferson and Madison, the most fundamental, unalienable of rights.
No atheist should hold high office
I don't know whether Mr. Cella intended that as a legal qualification for holding office or as an electoral one. Certainly, anyone whether atheist or theist can run for office; whether one should vote for him is a different matter. There is no prohibition, Constitutional or otherwise, for voting along one's religious beliefs. Yet, I constantly hear complaints about "bringing your religion" to the voting booth, etc. So what? If others can bring their irreligion, why can't someone bring their religion?
sorry about the italics.
C Matt- We also kill our unborn at a rate of 1.3 million a year in this country alone and call it "good".-
I don't know anyone that considers that number of abortions to be a good thing per se. I'm personally of the 'safe legal and rare' school myself. When abortion is prohibited it usually has very bad effects overall. See, for example what happened in romania.
C Matt-
I would consider Rome and Athens pretty successful cities back in the day.-
They were successful cities. Many of them also had sanitation technology that was not rediscovered for centuries.
C Matt-There are currently periods of forced thought NOW - mostly in countries with official atheism (China) or with distorted views of God (Islamic countries).-
Distorted views of god? What, just because they're islamic?
C Matt-Funny you should mention slavery as it was a Christian West that eventually brought it down. But luckily, we have progressed from such backwards notions as Christianity.-
Yes it was the west. However, it was the most christianized of nations that held onto it the longest. Britain and France both outlawed it and mandated full rights for former slaves at the beginning of the 19th century. The British even used it to free slaves and then recruit them into it's army in the war of 1812.
C Matt-Both. In fact, the private ones may be even worse - what good is it to have beliefs (like John Kerry) and loudly proclaim them (when convenient) if you are too chicken to act on them? Doesn't do a rat's --- of good for John Kerry to believe life begins at conception if he says go ahead and kill it anyway. That is a functional atheist.
No, he says that the decision is not his to make. Most that hold that position feel that their position is based on their faith, and they have no right to impose that belief on others who do not share it. Especially when the issue is certainly not settled. The fact is that any actual attempt to solve this through the legislature would result in legal first term abortions on demand. All the polling supports it. Just like it overwhelmingly opposes allowing third term abortions.
C Matt-Why do those who have religious beliefs have to keep quiet and private, while those who don't get to impose their beliefs on others? To borrow a slogan - "Don't like prayer in school? Then don't say one."-
I think primarily, it's because that we have recognized based on a millenia of church influence in secular society that it's a bad thing. After all, how do you argue with someone on an issue when they refuse to bend. After all, 'god is on their side.'
To see where an example of where too much christian influence at a school can lead just look at what happened at the Air Force Academy.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/art...e.asp?
AID=29383
http://
pressherald.mainetoday.co...1airforce.shtml
However, it was the most christianized of nations that held onto it the longest.
You mean the Sudan is a Christian nation? I didn't realize China and other communist nations, with their labor camps, were Christian nations. Perhaps you better examine your sources a little more carefully.
After all, how do you argue with someone on an issue when they refuse to bend.
Why should they bend if they are correct? It seems if you are arguing with them, and they refuse to bend, you must also be refusing to bend, because you are still arguing. If they bend to you, they are being reasonable and enlightened; if you bend to them they are "forcing their views on you."
If 1000 years of Church influence on society gave us Universities and modern science, and 100 years of atheistic/secular influence gave us gulags and abortions, I'll take Church Influence for $500 Alex.
What is the name of the movie you gentlemen make references to? It is extremely seldom that I dare to go to see a new film and I don’t want to miss it when it finally arrives in Copenhagen. Not after reading Paul Cella’s commentary and reactions it has triggered.
C Matt-You mean the Sudan is a Christian nation? I didn't realize China and other communist nations, with their labor camps, were Christian nations. Perhaps you better examine your sources a little more carefully.-
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the west. Out of the western nations, it was the US that held onto the 'peculiar institution' the longest. The fact that by that time, we were also the most overtly religious was certainly used by both sides of the debate.
C Matt-Why should they bend if they are correct? It seems if you are arguing with them, and they refuse to bend, you must also be refusing to bend, because you are still arguing. If they bend to you, they are being reasonable and enlightened; if you bend to them they are "forcing their views on you."-
However, when the person arguing bases his arguments on faith they are unfalsifiable. They cannot be convinced otherwise, no matter what. Their position could be nearly anything, and the rationale would be the same.
After all, my views regarding abortion used to be more doctrinarian Pro-choice. However, the more I learn the more I lean toward severe restrictions at least on third trimester abortions.
I'm sorry to bring this up again, but a perfect example of this was the Terri Schiavo case. There were stacks and stacks of evidence in that case. All of it was ignored in an attempt to 'save Terri.' Damn the facts, full speed ahead was apparently the call.
Also, arguments of the sort also tend to quickly degenerate into two armed camps with no possible compromise. I think both sides should take a look at how abortion is handled in europe and their methods of overall care. After all, France's abortion rate is 1/3rd ours and the Netherlands is 1/8th. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org...sheet/
fsest.htm
C Matt-
If 1000 years of Church influence on society gave us Universities and modern science, and 100 years of atheistic/secular influence gave us gulags and abortions, I'll take Church Influence for $500 Alex.-
You're right, that 800 years ago the church was the only organization rich enough to build universities and the like. The fact that they then meddled in politics for the next 600 has an impact in most Europeans views of religion. Conflicts such as the 30 years war devastated Europe, and were the direct result of religious meddling.
”You're right, that 800 years ago the church was the only organization rich enough to build universities and the like”
Sure. It was only a matter of money! Try to imagine how many more gulags, death camps, torture chamber, how many millions starved, shot, tortured to death would there be if only the progressive forces had the money the Church had! And we must not forget how many extra millions of murdered unborn babies we could count by now had these forces were wealthy like the Church was and could offer us earlier their menu of monstrosities. Oh boy, we could have one great global Cambodia by now if the Progressive Forces were not as poor as they were when they started their business.
I think both sides should take a look at how abortion is handled in europe and their methods of overall care. After all, France's abortion rate is 1/3rd ours and the Netherlands is 1/8th.
Well "methods of overall care" is a pretty broad phrase. If you mean that the United States ought to jump on the long, lonely road of self-sterilization as Europe has, then the conversation might head in other directions.
For now, I'll simply note that your source only addresses girls from 15 to 19. Moreover, the abortion statistic is per 1,000 women of that age, not per 1,000 impregnated women of that age. You'll note that, according to your numbers, the pregnancy rate in the U.S. is four times that of France and nearly ten times that of the Netherlands. That's not necessarily something of which to be proud, but it does change the context of the abortions.
In sum, per 1,000 15-19 women:
In the U.S.: 79.8 will become pregnant, of whom 48.7 (61%) will have the baby and 27.5 (34%) will abort.
In France: 20.2 will become pregnant, of whom 10 (50%) will have the baby and 10.2 (51%) will abort.
In the Netherlands: 8.7 will become pregnant, of whom 4.5 (52%) will have the baby and 4.2 (48%) will abort.
When discussing culture, what "rate" should we consider as indicative as a healthier (if still ill) approach? (Given, further differences in demographics.) To broaden the point beyond late-teenagers, looking at some numbers that I compiled last year, a conceived child in the U.S. has about a 25% chance of being aborted; in France about a 20% chance; and in the Netherlands about an 11% chance. (And again, don't forget demographics, including the very low number of conceptions/births in Europe and the skew that high Muslim populations give to those low numbers.)
”Yes it was the west. However, it was the most christianized of nations that held onto it the longest. Britain and France both outlawed it and mandated full rights for former slaves at the beginning of the 19th century.”
If indeed there is such a direct relationship between degree of Christianization and approval of slavery then one must wonder why it is the most Christianized nation that was ready to pay the price in countless thousands of lives and limbs of her Christian soldiers to free the slaves. Would the French go to that extreme? Very doubtful, considering French savage butchering hundreds of thousands of blacks of San Domingo years after “abolishing” slavery. And the British had their chance to abolish slavery in their colonies in North America before they lost them. They had no problem tolerating it despite being, (at least according to some novel and highly original opinions), “less christianized”.
At let us not forget that slavery was reintroduced a century and half later in Europe under the LEAST Christian, but most murderous regimes the West have ever know – Communism and its Nazi twin.
If not for the Crusade led by the MOST Christianized nation that slavery would have continued until now.
T.Hanski - Ive grubbing away and I think Ive worked out the movie in question. It is, I believe Mona Lisa Smile.
Lurker,
Thank you. I don't recall hearing about it. But maybe it was shown here under a different title. I'll find out. Thanks again.
It's really not much of a film, gentlemen. It functioned well as my point of departure only.
Thank you for the caveat. Knowing what the movie represents I am not terribly interested seeing it – it is the reviews of the local media that I could, sort of, consider reading (not that I don’t know what to expect).
As of now I haven’t been able to find out if the movie has ever been viewed here. If it had then it didn’t make enough impression to be noticed in the immense mass of garbage flooding the Danish cinemas.
If we are talking about Christianity and slavery we might as well throw a few facts onto the fire.
There were stacks and stacks of evidence in that case.
I thought the "stacks and stacks" of evidence amounted to her adulterous husband claiming (seven years into the injury) she told him fifteen years earlier that she would want to die. Was there other evidence you are referring to?
"I think both sides should take a look at how abortion is handled in europe"
It is illegal in Poland and, I think, Slovakia. Both firmly in Europe for the past thousand years.
As for the rest of Europe it is "handled" pretty much the same way as it is in the US. Moreover, as our (Danish) media insists, it is viewed much less neutrally (meaning more negatively)by the public today than about five years ago. And the trend continues.
Alright, seems like I shouldn't have taken quite as much of a break, as the conversation moved on without me. I will take the responses in reverse order, as that seems to be the easiest.
T. Hanski: You are correct that it is illegal in Poland. In Slovakia it is highly regulated, but it is still freely available in the first trimester upon written request. That country is trending toward more restrictive measures however. I mentioned earlier how prohibiting abortion in Romania had many unintended effects, as this article shows.http://www.globalgagrule.org/
caseStudy_romania.htm
C Matt-I thought the "stacks and stacks" of evidence amounted to her adulterous husband claiming (seven years into the injury) she told him fifteen years earlier that she would want to die. Was there other evidence you are referring to?-
I was referring more towards the court case, Mrs. Schiavo's condition, and the actual timeline of the case. Things which I provided links to multiple times, and was ignored repeatedly. Also, as I have said repeatedly before, the case did not rest upon M. Schiavo's testimony. There were two other witnesses to other statements that T. Schiavo made regarding end of life decisions.
Zippy: Interesting article. Thanks for the link.
T. Hanski-If indeed there is such a direct relationship between degree of Christianization and approval of slavery then one must wonder why it is the most Christianized nation that was ready to pay the price in countless thousands of lives and limbs of her Christian soldiers to free the slaves. -
I assume you are speaking about the civil war?
The idea of the Civil war as a war fought by the North to free the slaves is a modern day conceit. While Slavery was one of the driving forces behind the war, it was simply one element of the situation. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategem of war, and quite a good one. Real widespread abolitionist movements did not truly take hold until reconstruction.
-Would the French go to that extreme? Very doubtful, considering French savage butchering hundreds of thousands of blacks of San Domingo years after “abolishing” slavery.-
There is a reason behind the fact that many emigre's from the US to France were black, and I doubt it is because of the wonderful tourism opportunities.
-And the British had their chance to abolish slavery in their colonies in North America before they lost them. They had no problem tolerating it despite being, (at least according to some novel and highly original opinions), “less christianized”.-
Slavery was struck down in Canada in 1803. It was abolished throughout the empire in 1830. This abolition was used to great effect by the british in 1812, when the Brits would free any slaves they came across in their invasion of the northeast.
-At let us not forget that slavery was reintroduced a century and half later in Europe under the LEAST Christian, but most murderous regimes the West have ever know
grr...word count limits....
alright, continued:
Slavery has existed for millenia in many forms. The form we were discussing earlier was of people being treated like property. This was not the case in the soviet gulags or the nazi concentration camps.
Justin Katz: Thanks for the statistics. I have been examining the differances between health care in the US and most European nations with increasing concern. It's a sad fact that the US stacks up very badly against nearly all such socialized medicine systems.
I would speculate that the greater amount of healthcare available for less money results in far fewer abortions. The reasoning i put forward is that many of these systems allow for paid maternity leave, and free medical care for the baby. Several of them, including France, also have simple things like free day cares. All these things provide a far better environment for prospective mothers, and make them less likely to opt to have an abortion imo.
The US' demographics would look very similar to that of western europe, if it weren't for the massive amount of immagration that has been boosting our nation for the last few decades.
I'm wondering if you could expand on your comment about 'self-sterilization ' in europe? I'm not sure what you are speaking about specifically.
T Hanski-Sure. It was only a matter of money! Try to imagine how many more gulags, death camps, torture chamber, how many millions starved, shot, tortured to death would there be if only te Progressive Forces were not as poor as they were when they started their business.-
I have provided a great deal of statistical information from differant times. You have chosen to ignore them in favor of arguments based on emotion. The universities the the Church founded performed a very important service to humanity. It's the political machinations of the Churchs' later incarnations that discredited it in the eyes of many.
Honestly, this post seems more like a characture of wingnuttery than anything else. Please tell me you are joking with this rhetoric.
I have provided a great deal of statistical information from differant times. You have chosen to ignore them in favor of arguments based on emotion.
You have provided absolutely nothing except the monotonous mantra of “providing statistical information”. Statistics, both confirming, and contradicting one’s claim, are available to everyone regardless of his ethical code. It is the nature of one’s truth and values that produces “emotion”, as you call it, that makes one pick up a particular “statistics”, or brush off other. I explained why I am not impressed with the “statistics” and “facts” you select in support of your agenda in an earlier thread – (the one where you eagerly demand murdering an innocent, disabled woman) - and there is no point for me to repeat the explanation. You would ignore it anyway, as you always ignore what is inconvenient, or you would dash like a scared, hysterical chicken taking cover behind some carefully selected “statistics” or “fact”. You pretend intellectual sparring, but you never leave your ring corner.
But if you want statistics; is the figure of some 130 million human corpses supplied by the most anti-Christian Progressive Ideology of Leninism-Hitlerism PLUS the steady supply of millions of babies murdered in the womb statistical enough for you to stop and reflect on the possible relation between your “progressive” and truly satanic?
Obviously not enough if you can brush off the monstrosity with such an inhuman, cynical and profoundly obtuse:
“Slavery has existed for millenia in many forms. The form we were discussing earlier was of people being treated like property. This was not the case in the soviet gulags or the nazi concentration camps.”
“This was not the case”!? Tell it to the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles under Nazism, or Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodians under Marxism-Leninism. Tell them although they may have been gassed, shot, hanged and starved at least they were not treated as property. They will spit at you until you drown and no statistics will make you float.
continued...
cont.
”Honestly, this post seems more like a characture of wingnuttery than anything else. Please tell me you are joking with this rhetoric.
Without trying to guess what “characture of wingnuttery” could possibly mean, let me tell you that I am not joking at all.
Really, what exactly is comical about the fact that Poland and Slovakia are still in Europe, that there is growing debate here about the morality of killing babies, that it were Christian soldiers animated by Christian values who died for freedom of man, that the French slaughtered a few hundred thousand mostly civilian blacks, (not speaking of French atrocities in Indochina and Algiers), that Commu-Nazi cataclysm is the direct result of the anti-Christian idiocy, that it was the Christian Crusade led by the US that, delivered people like myself from death or slavery. Does this make you laugh? Go ahead.
On the other hand, yes - I definitely am joking, or rather mocking your sham “arguments” because they are never straight, square and very seldom apposite. What else can one do with them?
Do I try to ridicule you? Well, it is so tempting that occasionally I can’t resist it. I know it is not nice, but it is so much fun. If you are upset by that then engage me in an honest fight with honest arguments, instead of dashing into your “statistics sanctuary” each time you are confronted with inadequacy of your argumentation. Get into the ring and fight instead of squatting in your corner hiding behind your lame sophistry.
And it is “difference” not “differance” as you so consistently write. Even if one can locate some statistics, or “facts” proving the correctness of the latter.
T. Hanski-And it is “difference” not “differance” as you so consistently write. Even if one can locate some statistics, or “facts” proving the correctness of the latter.-
My mistake.
-Do I try to ridicule you? Well, it is so tempting that occasionally I can’t resist it. I know it is not nice, but it is so much fun. If you are upset by that then engage me in an honest fight with honest arguments, instead of dashing into your “statistics sanctuary” each time you are confronted with inadequacy of your argumentation. Get into the ring and fight instead of squatting in your corner hiding behind your lame sophistry.-
Personally, I don't care what you think of me or my arguments. Go ahead and ridicule me all you like. It won't make your comments any more valid. The fact that you accuse me of sophistry is rather amusing.
T. Hanski-
You have provided absolutely nothing except the monotonous mantra of “providing statistical information”. Statistics, both confirming, and contradicting one’s claim, are available to everyone regardless of his ethical code.-
Have you read this thread all the way through? If you could possibly bother yourself to actually cite anything I might take you more seriously. I'm afraid I tend to want people to back up their bs, which you have definitly not done. You continually bring up the crimes of the Nazi's and USSR while ignoring the fact that I compared these crimes to earlier ones already in this thread. I guess I should expect this considering your comments on earlier threads.
T. Hanski-I explained why I am not impressed with the “statistics” and “facts” you select in support of your agenda in an earlier thread – (the one where you eagerly demand murdering an innocent, disabled woman) - and there is no point for me to repeat the explanation.-
Oh, I clearly understand why you refuse to accept any of my cites. They tend to punch massive holes in misconceptions that are held dearly by so many. I fail to see how the court record, and record of numerous medical examinations that I offered in that earlier thread. You certainly offered no 'facts' to buttress your case. As in this argument, you are reduced to repeating the same old appeal to emotion.
If facts are so malleable to any political position, then put some of your own forward. I have yet to see so much as a link from you. If you can't find any, simply challenge those I have cited. It would be far more convincing than simply disregarding them because they don't support your view.
T. Hanski-But if you want statistics; is the figure of some 130 million human corpses supplied by the most anti-Christian Progressive Ideology of Leninism-Hitlerism PLUS the steady supply of millions of babies murdered in the womb statistical enough for you to stop and reflect on the possible relation between your “progressive” and truly satanic?-
Where are you getting this statistic? According to the cite I provided earlier, Hitler was responsible for between 20 and 30 million deaths. Stalin's regime was responsible for roughly 20 million more in the 30 years in which he controlled russia. Estimates for the remaining 40 years of the Soviet Union come no where near 80 million.
The accusation that I am, in effect, a satanist is downright hilarious.
T. Hanski-Obviously not enough if you can brush off the monstrosity with such an inhuman, cynical and profoundly obtuse:-
I never 'brushed off' these acts. However your argument that these acts are so much worse than anything that came before because the numbers are big is a bit of sophistry. You fail to provide context of the acts in question, as I did in my earlier comment. Apparently you failed to read it.
T. Hanski-“This was not the case”!? Tell it to the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles under Nazism, or Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodians under Marxism-Leninism. Tell them although they may have been gassed, shot, hanged and starved at least they were not treated as property. They will spit at you until you drown and no statistics will make you float.-
I must have missed all the jews that were sold and traded between people. Maybe you could enlighten me on when that occured? The slavery practiced around the world in the 19th century and before differed from that practiced by the USSR and Nazi Germany in both method and motivation. If you don't recognize the differance between the two, that's your own problem.
T. Hanski-Without trying to guess what “characture of wingnuttery” could possibly mean, let me tell you that I am not joking at all.-
I was referring to your little 'progressivism is the root of all evil' rant.
Also the spelling is actually caricature. My mistake once again.
T. Hanski-Does this make you laugh? Go ahead.
On the other hand, yes - I definitely am joking, or rather mocking your sham “arguments” because they are never straight, square and very seldom apposite. What else can one do with them?-
Well, for one thing your mockery would be more apropos if it were directed at my argument rather than inadvertant self-mockery. This is why I laugh.
Where are you getting this statistic? According to the cite I provided earlier, Hitler was responsible for between 20 and 30 million deaths. Stalin's regime was responsible for roughly 20 million more in the 30 years in which he controlled russia. Estimates for the remaining 40 years of the Soviet Union come no where near 80 million.
I am certain that Mr. Hanski is including the murders by Communists in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and Eastern Europe as well. The Black Book of Communism, as I recall, puts the number at 100 million for the Commies. Add to that Hitler's own version of socialism and you have 130 million.
Gotcha.
Chris P.
For comments to your last entry I refer you to my previous posting.
OK, there, perhaps is one new element that merits a separate mention.
you said: I was referring to your little 'progressivism is the root of all evil' rant.
Please note that I was careful to put the word “progressive” between quotation marks. Does it ring a bell? No?
And as bad as “progressive” is, it is not a root to ALL evil. There are some other things to count in and one of them is the abundance of useful idiots that would rally behind “progressive” slogans, however monstrous.
Does THAT ring a bell?
No? Well, I never thought it will.
Mr. Cella,
My first impulse was to refer Mr. P. to exactly that book, but I gave up lest he should send me to his “statistical” springs where the numbers were “mere” 80 million or even a laughable 50 million. I have little time and even less patience to engage in that sort of pin pong.
BTW, there is plenty of other material compiled by dependable and responsible people like Victor Malia and Richard Pipes confirming the 130Mill. And, of course, that great Christian, and therefore a true, humanist; Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
T. Hanski-Please note that I was careful to put the word “progressive” between quotation marks. Does it ring a bell? No?
And as bad as “progressive” is, it is not a root to ALL evil.-
Yes, your use of scare quotes is truly revolutionary.
T. Hanski-There are some other things to count in and one of them is the abundance of useful idiots that would rally behind “progressive” slogans, however monstrous.
Does THAT ring a bell?
No? Well, I never thought it will.-
I must have missed all the monstrous slogans that I backed in this thread, or any other.
I would hardly call Richard Pipes 'dependable' considering how utterly wrong he was in his threat assesments of the USSR. In what book did Solzhenitsyn confirm this number? I was under the impression that most of his historical work concentrated on the revolutionary period.
T. Hanski-For comments to your last entry I refer you to my previous posting.-
In case you are having difficulty, here's a link to somewhere to get you started digging up those cites; http://www.google.com . It will surely be easy to find your 'facts' since they are so malleable and all.
Have fun.
T. Hanski-Please note that I was careful to put the word “progressive” between quotation marks. Does it ring a bell? No?
And as bad as “progressive” is, it is not a root to ALL evil.-
Yes, your use of scare quotes is truly revolutionary.
“Scare quotes”?” “truly revolutionary”? I think your being scared by quotes is truly eccentric.
Otherwise, in the context of our exchange I put the word “progressive” in quotation marks for the same reason Mr. Cella does it in his recent essay on Edmund Burke.
If you still can’t understand it please contact someone you trust (preferably, but not necessarily, grammar school graduate) so he may explain to you the use of quotation marks.
T. Hanski-There are some other things to count in and one of them is the abundance of useful idiots that would rally behind “progressive” slogans, however monstrous.
Does THAT ring a bell?
”I must have missed all the monstrous slogans that I backed in this thread, or any other.”
How satisfying to see you admitting being a useful idiot! That bell did ring after all. Congratulations!
”I would hardly call Richard Pipes 'dependable' considering how utterly wrong he was in his threat assesments of the USSR. In what book did Solzhenitsyn confirm this number? I was under the impression that most of his historical work concentrated on the revolutionary period.”
Who cares what YOU think of R. Pipes! Thank God R. Reagan found him more dependable than you do. That’s why today the almost only thing left of the Soviet Union is the crowd of sullen useful idiots bemoaning its demise.
And Solzhenitsyn mentioned the figure on quite a few occasions while interviewed on international TV channels f. ex. German one which I saw myself. The number is also mentioned in his preface to the second (or third) edition of “The Gulag Archipelago”. I am quite sure he was vocal about it in the US media as well. I wonder why you missed it. Did you wait for N. Chomski’s Imprimatur?
T. Hanski-For comments to your last entry I refer you to my previous posting.-
In case you are having difficulty, here's a link to somewhere to get you started digging up those cites; http://www.google.com . It will surely be easy to find your 'facts' since they are so malleable and all.
What in the world are you taking about? It seems my remark was a wee bit too subtle for you.
OK, let me try to explain what I meant:
I MEANT THAT YOUR LAST ENTRY WAS IDENTICAL WITH THE ONE YOU POSTED BEFORE THAT. THEREFORE MY ANSWER TO THE FIRST ONE ALSO TAKES CARE OF THE SECOND ONE. Did you get that?
Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you should have problems understanding the explanation. Not that I intend to, once again, explain things to you, but because it will cause some merriment around here. Promise?
Have fun.
With you available to have a joke on it is not a problem at all.
I missed your response to this thread until now.
I was responding to the fact that you seem completely unable to run a simple search and cite anything. I was providing the google link as a common courtesy. While I have a great deal of respect for Solzhenitsyn, I'm afraid I have not read every edition of his works, or seen many interviews of him. Excuse me for asking for a cite.
As for R. Pipes, the fact that you ignore his own overblown estimates of another evil empire, when referincing those of another, just shows your own blindness.
Commenting by HaloScan
