www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Storm over Italy crucifix ruling - Pray Europe wakes up

By that argument, we should not accept any right-wing or even slightly conservative historians based on their politics. An Historical work should be judged on it's scholorship and not whether an author is "liberal" or "conservative"
Actually, it was the traditionalist Catholic writer George Bernanos who was so shocked by what he had seen of Franco's forces on Malaga that he wrote "le grands cimitieres de la lune" In addition, Simone Weil who fought with the Anarchists denounced the shooting of priests and other atrocities on the Republican side not to be speak of George Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia" which denounced the intrigues of Stalinists.
There are independent figures on left, right, and centre who will speak the truth. Thank God for them!

Dear Brian,

Do you believe there IS scholarship that is value-neutral?

IF you do, then you are a classic liberal!

Alex

Alex,

I was reacting against the broad brush use of the words (used in denigration) "communist and liberal" authors as if one's historical research can somehow be discounted because of one's politics/ That should not happen and it is a rotten tactic as is the discounting of historians who might take a more conservative stance.

Personally, I stand with Orwell against the falsification of history by both fascist and communist regimes (and to his credit, he was a brilliant ethical socialist to the END!)

Dear Brian,

That's O.K. then . . .

But I would still maintain you don't have separation of church and state in the U.S. - there is no document asserting that, only the denial of special status to any one Church (historically, the Anglican as the established Church of the former colonies).

But your liberal judges assert separation of church and state - and they haven't a leg to stand on.

As our own liberal judges don't up here in the Peaceable Northern Kingdom

Alex

Alex,

Methinks you have been listening to Andrew R. too long!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Alex,

Thanks for your comments.
Posted by Orthodox Catholic:

"I think that if I were a non-Christian, I would see Christian symbols and prayers as part of the original heritage of North America and also part of the living heritage of the majority here, and therefore things to be respected and not to be intimidated by."

"I would say that it is because of the Christian heritage of North America that we have a multi-faith, multicultural society where diversity is respected."

"So I disagree with your premise as being neo-modern American."

"And everyone knows you Americans don't know what you are doing at home - or abroad."

"You just think that the world thinks like you do."

Dear Alex,

I do appreciate you when you speak globally. Lord knows that we Americans need to be put into our place regularly. Thanks for doing your share!

I will take you at your word about what you would see if you were a non-Christian confronted by Christian religious symbols and prayers in the public forum.

But, that is not a global sentiment among non-Christians in our societies. It would make life easier for those of us who are believers in Christianity if it were.

But it is not. That is apparent from the fact that we're having this discussion. Because of those non-Christians and even dissenting Christians, we have to deal with the issues raised by those who are not like us.

I think that you are at the core of the issue when you say that, "It is because of the Christian heritage of North America that we have a multi-faith, multicultural society where diversity is respected." That results in our understanding that each individual is a Child of God with inalienable rights. It also seems that the multi-faith and multi cultural society requires that there be equal recognition and equal treatment in the public forum.

The non-believers are forcing us to live out our beliefs, the ones which resulted in that multi-faith and multicultural society of which you eloquently write.

Our political institutions are responding to that gift that we have given to our society. Against what are sometimes insurmountable odds, the courst do insist that the rights of the individual must be respected. Their decisions come when the balance between individual rights and the desires of the majority is out of kilter, it seems to me.

Alex, I'm me. I am not even sure what exactly you mean by a neo modernist American. That's a classification; I am a thinking Christian.

I don't know about you, but I don't like labels. It makes it easier for us to be dismissed and for our ideas to be ignored and belittled by those who disagree with us. It makes it easy to shunt those who disagree with us out of the way. We just use the code word, be it conservative or liberal or neo modern American and the ideas don't matter any more, or so it seems to me.

Contrary to popular opinion,the opinions of those who are not Americans about what we do or think are valuable to many of us.

Important are the opinions of those who tell us what they think by immigrating from places where religious freedom is not what we have here. Especially important are the opinions of those who literally die trying to get here. They have especially loud voices, I think.

We even listen to our neighbors to the north when they are unhappy with us, too! :rolleyes:

Some of us even hear what's being said and when we agree we say so.

Of course when we disagree, we say so, too.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Dear Brian,

Who is Andrew R. . . . Andrew Ruby? The fellow with those liberal ideas on the Dormition?

You think I listen to HIM?

As Bugs Bunny would say, "You don't know me vewy well, do you?"

And that is another liberal tactic, Big Guy. Rather than addressing what I said, you won't even consider it and say I'm mindlessly repeating someone else's thought.

Yes, your constitutional documents protect the rights of minorities.

Yes, they affirm that no religion is to be the state religion (ie. established).

But, let me repeat it, and, believe me, I'm not even thinking of Cantor Andrew here, they do NOT assert separation of church and state.

Your new liberal judges are giving the documents that interpretation.

And I think that most Americans, from what I gather, have had enough of having secularism not only maintained in the public sector, with its concomitant moral relativism, but also have had enough of secularism being pushed down their throats, preventing prayers to be said before ball games etc.

Americans are a very religious people, I would hasten to say.

I think time - and history - is on their side in this respect.

The liberals' days are numbered, on the other hand . . .

Alex

Dear Steve,

I overdid the labelling thing - sorry, Big Guy, you know I love and respect you greatly!

The debate is taking on a different shape on this side of the border - I'll admit I'm no American (THANK YOU, LORD!!) and so I've limited understanding of the debate on your side.

Here we've always had crosses and even the Crown has crosses and is shaped in the form of a Constantinian Cross (if you look at it from the top down).

Our Lieutenant Governor Simcoe (who saved George Washington's life by ordering his troops not to shoot retreating men in the back in Virginia) was, as he called himself, an "Anglo-Catholic" but treated both "Anglo-Catholic" and "Roman-Catholic" clergy equally (as they were both clergy of the Catholic Church, as he said).

We have had Protestants and Jews who came here as Loyalists, escaping post-Revolution American triumphalism and tyrannical persecution of them.

The Quebec legislature has, not a cross, but a Crucifix, above the Speaker's Chair - there is no debate there about removing it.

What I object to is not you or Brian, but to the notion, whoever happens to hold it, that to display a Cross because of our society's Christian roots (and who can deny that) is to somehow affirm Christianity as the State Religion, favoured above all others.

That does not obtain in our constitutional documents - nor in yours, but Brian doesn't believe me and so he should take a short-course in American constitutionality or something .

Christianity is the religious culture of North America, even though North AMerica is a multi-faith society today.

The fact is that freedom of religion in North America derives not from atheistic secularism (tell that to the people in communist countries) but from Christianity.

Truly secular societies openly repress religion in the world. Islamic states . . . you know about Islamic states. India and Asian Buddhist countries - not exactly best friends with Christians either.

So if you wanted to be a truly secular society, the way your modern liberal judges intend for you to be, then get rid of Christmas holidays, the Christmas tree, New Year's Day, Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving Day (Christian tradition from England) Hallowe'en etc.

Working for the legislature for 18 years, I've organized Muslim celebrations, Hindu and Buddhist celebrations here, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. Day and others.

I spoke with all the people who were not Christian, told them I am a Christian believer and we shared our traditions and beliefs in respect and love.

And we did it while standing underneath our provincial flag that bears four Crosses and the Trinitarian symbol of the three maple leaves.

No one was offended, no one was upset.

Again, that Muslim activist in Italy has even got Christians on this forum squabbling.

God bless America!

Alex

Posted by Orthodox Catholic:

"Americans are a very religious people, I would hasten to say."

"I think time - and history - is on their side in this respect."

"The liberals' days are numbered, on the other hand . . ."


Dear Alex,

I agree that Americans are a religious people, at least in general. I pray that time is on our side and that God will prod us till we do what He wants us to do.

I have a question or two, though. From the last statement above, I understood you to be saying that "liberals" ( however that word is defined) are not religious people. Are you saying that all liberals are not religious people?

I ask this because I've heard persons who have been called liberal say that they are liberal because of their religious faith. They have adopted their positions because of the emphasis that Christainity puts on taking care of the least among us.

That seems to be different from what you seem to be suggesting.

It seems that you're associating "conservatism" ( however it's defined) with being religious.

Have I misunderstood or reached an inappropriate conclusion?

Thanks,

Steve

Steve:

Forgive my butting into a question that was posed to Alex. (Sorry to you, too, pane Doktor).

I agree that all too often people slap the "liberal" and "conservative" on a certain view and assume that simply becasue you think "A" on issue "B," you must alow believe that you think "X" on issue "Y."

In the 'States, we have what is known as the "religious right" and it is assumed that all who are upstanding, churchgoing and moral people are "conservatives" who want, for example, smaller government (just big enough to fit into our bedrooms ).

Let me tell y'all - not so! My latest theme around here is "give people some credit." Well...

Yours,

hal

Dear Steve the Wonder,

Bear with me as I bring forward yet another quote from the "Man for all Seasons:"

More: Do I have your word that what I may tell you (about the King's divorce) will remain between us?

Norfolk: Aye!

More: And what if the King should ask you my opinions on the matter?

Norfolk: I should keep my word to you . . .

More: Then what has become of your oath of obedience to the King?

Norfolk: You lay traps for me . . .

More: No, I show you the times.



I'm happy to answer your question on the liberalism/religious issue as it is evidence, for me, that you feel you are losing ground in your argument . . . (You do begin your post by agreeing with me - tsk, tsk, a tell-tale sign! ) I'll tell you later why I'm in such a mood . . .

My "liberals" refer mainly to the secular judges that have become, in your country as in mine, the new democratic sages who impose, in dictatorial fashion, their views regarding what is truth on us limited folk who adhere to absolute values.

There are different shades of meaning to that term, of course.

But here, in slowly winning over you and Brian, I only use it to refer to our judicial dictatorship.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your kind sentiments regard to me in your earlier posting. You know that I hold you in high esteem and in the greatest affection and respect.

Thank you also for clarifying your use of the term liberal.

I laid no trap! I asked a question explained its basis.

It's those darned political labels again! :rolleyes:

You don't have to win Brian and I over slowly; we see you slipping closer and closer all the time! You're already a thinking Christian!


Thanks again,

Steve

Posted by Halychanyn:

"Forgive my butting into a question that was posed to Alex. (Sorry to you, too, pane Doktor)."

"I agree that all too often people slap the "liberal" and "conservative" on a certain view and assume that simply becasue you think "A" on issue "B," you must alow believe that you think "X" on issue "Y.""

"In the 'States, we have what is known as the "religious right" and it is assumed that all who are upstanding, churchgoing and moral people are "conservatives" who want, for example, smaller government (just big enough to fit into our bedrooms )."

"Let me tell y'all - not so! My latest theme around here is "give people some credit." Well..."


Dear Hal,

Welcome to the discussion. Feel free to butt in whenever you have the urge! Free discussion done in love is at the heart of the Forum. You exemplify that.

What you say is quite true.

Sometimes it seems from what is being said in a lot of places, there are those who would enjoy crowding into our bedrooms to be sure that we are doing things correctly! I always wondered what was happening in theirs that gave them the urge to peek into those of others. :rolleyes:

Is there a label for that?

To get serious, though, the notion that we should give others credit for having good reason for what they believe is a good one. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about the beliefs or even disagree. But we should talk with respect.

That's what I hear you saying and I agree.

Thanks for your comments.

Steve

Dear Steve,

But that isn't what we're really talking about here.

"Liberalism" is a form of tangentialism in which controversialists like me temporarily engage in momentarily to induce some levity to the overall, formal corporate seriousness of intellectualized discourse on profound topics so as to obtain a mental interlude.

The issue is that you have no separation of church and state in your country.

It was concocted recently by liberal judges who are just as eager to get the state involved in teaching us relativism, as conservatives are eager to get the state into our bedroom.

My bedroom will only just fit a few more government bureaucrats . . .

So long!

Alex