www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Vatican Confronts Islam

Folks,

Want to say that the term is political CORRECTNESS, not incorrectness. So please forgive my typo on my last reply post.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Don't forget the famous/infamous Protestant work ethic. It seems Calvin's elect could see their prosperity and success as a sign they were part of the elect.

Dear Byzantn you said:

I say:

The Protestant work ethic is probably the main cause of their prosperity. Don't you know the saying that the Germans live to work, while the Mediterreans work to live. But aside from that, there were many religious holidays in the RCC world. That ended with the reformation.

Actually, I believe the work ethic preceded Protastantism. It was probably part of the GErmanic culture, and in itself caused the changes in the Protestant denominations.

Zenovia

Dear Mr. Clean you said:

I say:

Oh my gosh! Don't tell me they are like the Greeks? Poor Pope John Paul II had to apologize for the Fourth Crusade.

...And then Arch. Christodoulos jumped for joy, saying, "he apologized, he apologized". When he told the Metropolitan of Russia that he apologized, the Metorpolitan said: "That is not the problem we have with the RCC". :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Dear Michael you said:

I say:

The problem is that they are Palestinians and their sympathy lies with them. Of course they have no choice. If they did otherwise, I doubt they would continue to exist. So in that sense, going against the Israelis is the better of the two evils.

I know one of the problems is that the Palestinian deliberately use Christian homes to shoot at the Israelis. Of course the Israelis shoot back so the house is gone, and so are the Christians.

But lo and behold, Christianity is still alive and well in Israel. Many of the immigrants arriving there from Russia are Orthodox. I also recall visiting a site I believe in Haifa, and passing through a small church holding a service. Well it turned out to be an Orthodox service held for Roumanian workers.

Zenovia

It is very sad and disgusting that the native Christians are being forced out by both of these bullies.

We shouldn't forget the Druze either, who are allied with Israel (many are also Israeli citizens) and hate the Christians with a vengeance...

Zenovia and ByzanTN,

As this discussion is worth its own thread, but is way off the subject of this one, I'll throw in my two cents and drop it

Regarding the ongoing relative poverty of the Catholic colonies in the New World, I believe that the primary cause is that North America was settled by Englishmen who 1)came with their families and 2)with a vision of establishing a new society. They were also 3)only confronted with maybe 2 million Indians to overwhelm in order to preserve their own civilization in the New World.

Central and South America on the other hand was 1) settled largely by Spanish and Portuguese bachelors 2)whose primary goal was plundering the wealth of the new world and sending it back(our blessed Catholic missionaries notwithstanding). These adventurers 3)readily intermarried with the pagans they found, and therefore 4)did not retain their distinct European culture. In addition, they faced 5)about 10 times as many Native Americans as did their northern counterparts.

I suppose the oft-ridiculed "Protestant Work Ethic" is regularly thrown in as an additional reason and almost as a joke because it represents bad theology. But I'm careful on that one: I want to stay far away from judging the motives of anyone whose hard work is part of his/her core ethos. After all, even Proverbs reminds us that "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty." (Prov. 14:23)

I think the economic systems of Spain and England, as well as the Protestant work ethic, explain some of the differences. England was active in manufacturing and trade. Spain's economy seemed more like those of earlier times, in that it expanded by conquest, not shop-keeping and business enterprises. Nothing wrong with the work ethic, bad theology aside. But the differences between the places settled by the two countries seem to be still with us.

Brian,

The legacy of Queen Isabella has been totally trashed in the English speaking world. I picked up a book by Warren Carroll (I know his name is a dirty word to some in this Forum) that really puts what Queen Isabella did in a proper light. The truth is that Queen Isabella was one of the greatest monarchs in history. She made her mistakes but she was in no way as cruel as, say, King Henry VIII - her son in law.

Jan III Sobieski was one of the greatest Polish kings.

While it is true that Poland, at one time, was a motley collections of faiths - Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Muslim, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc., over time, the Catholic Church became one with Polish culture and dreams of nationhood during the Partition, during which almost all people of other faiths left the partitioned country.

Sorry for the thread drift.....

At the time of American Independence - which really was a world war involving Spain and Holland as well as France, Great Britian and the United States - the Spanish colonies of the New World were far more populated and prosperous than the newborn United States of America.

It is true that Great Britian's economy was based more upon manufacturing and trade while Spain was still stuck on collecting silver and gold during the 18th century. Napoleon's invasion of Spain crippled the country and that, along with the successful American Revolution, led to the independence of Spanish America.

Spain's colonies were not well suited to become independent states. In each country existed a very small few who had power and wealth and a huge mass of poor and unskilled indigenous and mestizo people.

It was the United States that made the Industrial Revolution really happen.

Latin American poverty is not because of the success of the United States economy. Much of Latin America has vast, fertile farmland and abundant natural resources. Latin America lacked the skill and the knowhow to latch onto the Industiral Revolution.
In many ways it still does. There is a long history of contention by so called scholars that blames Latin American poverty squarely on the Catholic Church - something I reject. Add to that the infatuation of the Latin American intellectual class with the "Left" and it becomes that much more difficult to devleop a poor country in a post-industrial world.

Back to the point - Queen Isabella's determination, drive and faith led to the unification of Spain and completion of La Reconquista - and the total defeat of the Muslim invaders. The Moors were not immediately ejected from Spain in 1492, but when some who stayed behind caused trouble, she kicked them out. Queen Isabella financed Columbus' voyages and that led to the conversion of the New World.

I think you are right. The Church often was the only real defender and protector of the poor against the upper class. Queen Isabella was a saint, I believe. The politically correct would never acknowledge such. She was too Catholic, and had too much of a spine in defending Catholicism for their tastes.

Dear Mr. Clean you said:

I say:

I read Warren Carrolls book, and I found that he bases all his views on the progress of the Catholic Church and the Papacy. Nothing wrong with that, after all it is his viewpoint....and to be honest, it is refreshing. One gets a little tired of reading everything from an English and Protestant perspective.

As for the legacy of Queen Isabella, the English speaking world should take a good look at their own Queen Elizabeth I. But then again, after watching some English comedies, I think they have taken a good look at her.

You said: I say:

If one was to base their opinion on the success of the Catholic Church in retaking Spain, and it's progress in South and Central America, then surely Queen Isabella would be one of the greatest monarchs in history. I don't think though that the Muslims, Jews or Protestants would agree with that. :rolleyes:

Zenovia

So how does this connect with the Vatican ie. Catholic Church, confronting Islam topic theme? I don't think armed confrontation is what anyone has in mind here.

Certainly Zenovia, you are quiet right that Isabella has scored poor press from the English but the same is the case the other way round. It's a legacy of past conflicts and the accompanying propaganda both sides used in their struggle over territory and wealth between the 2 realms. I suppose the link here with the current topic is the problem of past propaganda between Christians and Moslems over the centuries. How to sort out fact from fiction.

my point is this, aside from radical muslims(whom we all know are lunatics), there are moderate muslims who truly will fight for control of the land, as they always have. the history of islam has always shown that muslims long for control over what was traditionally christian europe. moderate muslims living in europe may not be violent as their radical brethren but sure want to achieve the same objective of control. Christianity is not totally dead yet in western europe, but faces huge challenges from the state, and growing islamic population which both could equally care less abt christianity. there is no more christian europe to defend anymore, there is only a matter of keeping the faith alive. the biggest problem hurting the value of christianity is not the state or secular culture, but the failure of the "ecumenism" movement that was going on in Pope John Paul II's era. having peace is one thing, but being quiet abt the truth in the name of peace is another. islam is no friend to christianity, and or christians for that matter. infact the qur'an even forbids muslims to take christians as friends

The problem with saying the Qur'an says this or that is that there isn't really a uniform opinion on the matter within Islam and it really isn't up to non-Muslims to decide what Islam is really about - any more that it is the business of Muslims, Hindus, or others to tell us what we "really believe".

As far as I'm concerned a Muslim is just as capable of being ethical as anyone else, and just as capable of not as anyone else. I have friends who are Muslims and they don't treat me as any less.
This leads me to believe that it isn't Islam per s� that is "at fault", but certain fundamentalist interpreters with similar mentalities to Pat Robertson types, etc who make us Christians look insensitive and outrageous. It seems to me that these fundamentalist elements eminate from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, parts of Pakistan and others. As a general thought Muslims in India, Qatar, etc do NOT seem to have this kind of mentality.