www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Purple badge of courage: Iraqi elections

Bless, Father!

Certainly, both sides can work out the conditions for a lasting peace.

When there is an ever-present danger of suffering a suicide bomb attack, pragmatic issues take precedence.

As they do now in the US of A with security measures et al.

I've been to the States since 9/11 and I've been strip-searched a number of times.

On one occasion, I was stopped three times for an "at random" search and had to take off my shoes et al.

I guess I shouldn't have told them I was Canadian, eh?

Alex

Alex, +May HE bless you always! When Fr. James, Fr. Michael and I went to Spain last summer for our annual pilgrimage, we all had to do the same thing...after all, the black suits and clerical attire could have been a kool disguise for a terrorist, eh? I didn't mind it at all, but my teddy bear (who always travels in my carry on) did mind getting frisked very much!

Your brother in the Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Bless, Father Gregory!

I almost lost it when the x-ray scan found my three-bar Cross I had purchased from a monastery in France . . .

They were wondering what kind of weapon it was . . .

I told them it was a spiritual sword only!

Alex

Adminstrator wrote:

I would be tempted to consider Jews a people belonging to a particular faith, but since the Jews determine who is a Jew according to lineage through the mother and not through a test a faith (one can be an atheist and still be a Jew) it is difficult to say that the term �racist� cannot be grammatically acceptable when applied to Jewish antagonism towards non-Jews.


Thank you for the clarification.

Faith is a poor standard by which to define the Jews, for I've read that 51% or so of American Jews do not practice Judaism.

Brian wrote (about terrorism):

Not limited to Muslims. Look at the so-called Republika Srpska or the short-lived Bosnian Serb occupation of Krajina in Croatia.


Why would one mention the Serbs in referring to terrorism but fail to mention the Bosnian Muslims, Albanians & Croats? And what about crimes being committed today against Serbs in Kosovo?

There was a war in the Balkans, with attrocities committed on all sides. Now American politicians & the media chose to tell the public that the Serbs were the bad guys in the conflict, while the other sides were good guys. But it was really much more complicated than that. I'm not apologizing for Serb war crimes. What I am disturbed at is the way Americans are manipulated by the media. America had been saying for 200 years it didn't want to meddle, then it grew more arrogrant, but America still lacks the knowledge to deal with many of the world's complex conflicts, like in the Balkans.

Brian wrote (about Russia):

What were the causes for the development of Zionism??? The pogroms especially in the Russian EMpire of the mid-to-late 19th Century especially with the reaction under Alexander III.


Here's another case of history being manipulated & twisted. Turns out that violence against Jews (pogroms) was much less extensive than is frequently claimed. Solzhenicyn in his new book 200 Years demonstrates that the Russian govt. did not plan or incite the violence as frequently claimed. Solzhenicyn's book is a good source on the topic(quite politically incorrect, however).

Stojgniev

Dear Stoygniev,

The Administrator's ruling here applies only to the rather limited confines of this Forum on this matter.

We abide by it because this is his jurisdiction.

That does not make what was said right or wrong.

The original point was whether calling Israel racist was allowable here.

If it is, then the USA must surely share in that "racism" as it is Israel's great ally (which I'm sure you agree with).

The issue was about language, not about politics or whether a person is right or wrong about what they think of other countries.

I disagree with the Administrator, but that is his ruling.

Period! Amin!

Alex

Actually, if we accept and defend the usage of "racism" as it has appeared on this thread, then our support of Israel is a mere mote in the logpile of our country's racism: the US conduct in taking this land and in realizing its manifest destiny is terrifyingly worse than anything done by Israel.

Dear Stojgniev,

On the above, you are probably right about the pogroms not being incited by the government, although I do recall a story that an elderly Jewish man told my father.

This man said that his father was the tailor to the Czar, and because he was Jewish, he was not allowed to touch him.

As for the American media, you are correct as far as CNN is concerned. I certainly do not see them focusing on the plight of the Serbs today. Not only are the Serbs leaving out of fear for their lives, but all their ancient monasteries and churches have been destroyed. Where is the promise that Clinton made to the Serbs that they would be protected? Do you know that CNN was paying each Muslim $5.00, for every time they exited Kosovo,( if one should ever wonder where Al-Jazeera picked up her propaganda mechanisms).

Also, we were never told that the Muslims were prohibited from leaving Kosovo by Islamic extremists from countries such as Iran. So much for Clinton's war.

If I recall correctly, the only person that became upset when we supported the Albanian terrorists in Kosovo against the Serbs in their civil war, was the Evangelical Pat Robertson on CBN news.

But then again, before 911 we were not even aware of what other nations were going through. It took something like that to wake us up. Actually, we could say we got our just reward, because we were so critical of Israel with the Palestinian terrorists, Russia with the Chechnyan terrorists, and the Serbs with the Albanians terrorists in Kosovo.

The funny thing, is that they are all suffering the same fate at the hands of the Muslim extremists, and yet the Slavs were and are critical of Israel, and the Jews were and probably still are, critical of the Slavs. You figure!

Zenovia

Dear DJS,

Even worse than our manifest destiny, would be the conquest of the Europeans, Asian, and African nations throughout history. Can you imagine that the Arian tribes came into Europe, and conquered the whole continent. Then there were the Greeks. They overtook the Palasgians, and then colonizing everyone...Then again, what about the Romans. Horrors!

And what about Africa, and tribe killing tribe and taking over each others land. And then there's Asia and the Mongolian and Turkish conquests.

But then again, better we didn't come here. That way we wouldn't be here discussing the rediculous. :rolleyes: Instead, the wars in Europe would have been even worse, since the continent wouldn't have been able to support so many people.

Zenovia

So Zenovia, what is your point?

The charge of racism against a nation is not to made lightly IMO. It carries a lot of inflammatory connotations and should be used with solicitude. You, on this thread, endorsed its use against Israel in the context of its harrying of indigenous people and its restrictions on citizenship. I pointed out, amplyfying Alex's remark, that this charge can be made in spades against the US. You point out that this is true for many, if not every nation.

Excellent. Now the usage of "racism" has been broadened to the point of universality and thus near meaninglessness. When we see invidious discrimination whose only rationale is race hatred, do we have a word left for that?

We've had many discussions here on this basic point: if highly charges words are used without solicitude, then we compromise vocabulary for dealing with grave, highly charged actions.

If having pews is called "heresy", then does it assume the gravity of Arianism? If simply the sense that one political party's ideas are worse for the nation than another's, is glibly termed "treason", then what is the word for legally actionable activities against the nation?

I agree with Alex, that words should be used with some care. Not doing so has consequences. You endorsed calling Israel "racist". Your usage also inevitably makes the US liable to the same charge. Unlike you, I would reserve this explosive term for race-hatred motivated acts of invidious discrimination.

Dear DJS,

By stating the above, you are implying that what Israel has done and is doing, is 'racism'. Actually, I corrected myself and stated that it was more akin to apartheid. But I might have been wrong on both accounts, and just going along with the Arab propaganda.

When I stated that Arnold Toynbee said the Northern or Western Europeans and the Jews were the only racist people, (or so I recall reading that, I might be wrong), he was not writing about the state of Israel. Toynbee wrote long before the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War.

Also, It was only yesterday that I heard an American Indian professor state that what happened in this nation, was 'war'. It was basically, European tribes, (that were not too far removed from their past), fighting Indian tribes.

In truth, it became the domination of one culture over another. Now that is what has been happening throughout history...although many times, the winning tribes did not become the dominating culture. In our case it did.

That's my point! The Arians came into Europe, dominated and we are all speaking an Arian language. The Romans dominated so much of Europe, and now France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Roumania, speak a Romance language. The Europeans came here, and became the dominant culture and we are now speaking English...although at the beginning of the 19th century, it wasn't just English, it was French, German, and Dutch.

I can understand having sympathy for others, but I can't understand some people, (and I guess I assumed you were one of them), that dislike what they themselves are. After all, you are a product of this culture, and it was this culture that defeated the Indians...So everything about you, is a product of those Europeans that immigrated here.

As for Toynbee having said the Jews were 'racist', I do recall an Orthodox Jewish girl telling me that they are taught that some people are inferior. Now this is probably what the Arab propagandists have picked up on, and are using so well to the detriment of Israel in the present conflict.

Have I explained myself? Also, it is unfair to believe that only the German Nazi's were racist. I do recall hearing an Englishman speaking about the First World War, and how a mere English private was taking shots at a Russian General. He felt as an Englishman, he was way superior to any Russian and could do as he pleased.

Then again, I do recall an old gentleman telling me in my youth, that he was taught that the Irish were 'orientals'...and I could go on and on.

I apologize if I offended you in my past post. I do hope this one explains my point.

Zenovia

Dear Alex,

I have some family members that returned from Europe last summer. One is a beautiful pale blond, two have medium skin and light eyes, and one looks like a gorgeous (one hundred percent), dark eyed Arab.

So who do you think was searched? The blond of course. :rolleyes:

So Alex, I guess you're a gorgeous blond.

Zenovia

It must do, in my view. If Israel is at fault in its treatment of non-Jews within its lawful territory, and within the territories it unlawfully occupies, then the USA is also at fault, since it is seen quickly and publicly to defend Israel's every action and shield Israel from criticism in the UN and elsewhere. When Israel acts militarily against the Palestinian people it the territories it occupies, it is using weapons, technology and hardware, supplied by the Americans, paid for by the Americans, and annually updated by the American taxpayers.

Nick

Dear Zenovia:

Not the Toynbee but this:

Alex wrote to Stojgniev :
You wrote back to Alex:
So let's be clear that it was in fact you who was "...implying that what Israel has done and is doing, is 'racism'". My point is precisely the opposite. I disagree with the so broad a usage of "racism" - with its very strong connotations - to include the conflict between nations.

Your assumption was exactly backwards, though. First my point was that IF you use the word "racism" so broadly, then it inevitably must be used to describe us and our settling of this continent. I assumed that some supporting this broad usage would cringe at this connection.

So I hope that you understand my point, because it is largely the opposite of what you were suggesting. I think that one needs to be very careful in the use of such explosive fighting words, with clear meaning and support. (Like heresy, evil, treason, ... ) This is not really directed at you btw, but in support of the criticism first made by Alex.

One last point: I disgree with your perspective on the idea of self-dislike. Everyone except the narcissist is presumably more acutely aware of, bad actions done by them, or in their name, or on their behalf. They also have a direct responsibility for those actions. So it is only appropriate that people are more concerned with their own motes than otheres logs. And the idea that our conduct rises to the standards of "The Great Nations of Europe" (thinking of Randy Newman) will hardly make for a defense before the judgement seat of Christ. "Everybody else does it", didn't even cut it as a child. Please don't conflate introspection and examination of conscience with self-loathing or "hate America first".

djs

As a religion Islam is not racist. They don't have to be. Their goal is not to create a superior race. Their goal is to dominate all other views of the world. They are willing to allow Christians and Jews to exist but they must exist as practical slaves in their own countries.

I still see little evidence that many have read Bat Ye'or or Schwartz. I would that all would. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to at lest go to a search engine and type in "Dhimmi". Read it and weep.

Dan L