www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is Europe Dying.? Is the Pope too late?

Dear Daniel you said:

"You mean like vaporizing an entire city? Or devastating cultures and ecologies for sake of profit? You mean like coddling dictators because they serve our political aims? Or sending captured suspected terrorists to our dictatorial allies so they can be tortured? Or training death squads?
The myth of American Innocence is a central part of the Religion of Americanism, and I am a heretic."

I say:

Actually Daniel you do not know history very well. ..or maybe you read a 'politically correct' version of it. If you did know history correctly, you would realize that we are the most civilized nation that has ever existed. At least in the terms that we consider 'civilized'.

You know it took me many decades to realize why my immigrant father 'worshipped' America. Well I know now. I have seen the social injustices in other societies...and let me tell you this. I will never forget how a black servant from Africa looked at me with tears in her eyes. Why? Because of my American kindness and respect towards her and the desire of her heart, because of it, to come to this land. The land you have been blessed with. You have no idea the inequalities that exist in other places...even in Europe.

Maybe it would be a good idea if you were to leave and learn some other languages so you can really start understanding people and how others think. Maybe then you'll understand what we 'Americans' are trying to protect.

Look, I became quite furious when the French referred to us as the 'Empire', and that we only became upset over 911 because Bin Laden had the affrontery to attack within the Empire.

I realize now though that we are an Empire, so the question becomes, is the world a better place because of the stability the American 'Empire' brings or would it be better if it were less stable.

Then there is the other question. If we were to be destroyed, who would replace us? If it were China would the world be a better place? If it became a Caliphate as the Muslims want, would the world be a better place? If the Ottoman Empire were to be restored as the Turks want, would it be a better place?

I think not. At least not with the values I as an American have been raised with. Do you Daniel as an American truly believe that you would be able to live in any of those societies?

As for Iran, I was given the book 'In The Garden of the Martyrs' by a young member of my family for the sole purpose of noting the similarities between their culture and another culture that I'm quite familiar with...so I understand them quite well. Did you know that the Iranians consider hypocrisy a 'virtue'?

Zenovia

I've spent a few months in Europe both as a grad student and as a traveler. My concern is with their lack of attendance at worship and their apparent vulnerability to Islam. It is magnified by our popes concern for the continent. I lived with a Church of Scotland pastor for about a month while there. It is true that when I was there the people had much respect for me as a pastor. But they did not go to Church. I believe Europe may be tired. Or it may simply be that they express their faith differently. If the latter one wonders why the Pope is concerned.

dan L

To make common cause with Hindu polytheists only reinforces Muslim accusations that Christians are polytheists.
I am much more sympathetic to the Holy See's policy of making common cause with Muslims whenever we can and affirming what we hold in common.
This policy has accomplished much good, as in the Cairo population conference in the 90's, when we took a stand together against the proabortion forces.
Oh, that's right, to you all Muslims are heartless terrorists, who don't even have children except to further their religion...
-Daniel

And Zenovia my friend, it is clear that you and I are of different religious faiths.
You are clearly a member of the Americanist religion, and accept all the doctrines of that cult.
I am an Americanist heretic, and I dare say the Emperor is naked.
America is guilty of the sins I listed in that post; you did not refute them but merely appeal to the sentiments of your Americanist Religion.
I love America, too, by the way. It's just that the finest things in our tradition- the Jeffersonian, populist, localist, and non-interventionist things- have been eclipsed by the Imperialist, Manifest Destiny, arrogant tendencies, which have always lead to disaster.
-Daniel

Iconophile,

I'm not clear to whom your comment about Hindu Polytheists is directed. I'm not sure Polytheism is quite the right word once one understands the nature of the religion but then again you may have addressed your comments to someone else.

Regarding your non interventionist stand: What is your opinion of our late President Kennedy's stand that "We will pay any price..."? Or of the late Senator Daniel Patrick's admonision that we should support liberal democracies around the world and oppose every tyranny? For that matter, would you have supported Lindburgh or Roosevelt during the rise and aggression of the Austrian Corporal?

Dan L

It is true that there are monotheistic schools within Hinduism; they are more philosophical and far from mainstream. Unless you count the ISKON school of Caitanyaist Krishnaism, in which a folk god is declared the Absolute, which would be like the Roman god Mercury being called the One True God.
Run of the mill Hinduism IS polytheistic, some of it satanic [Kaliism, for example].

As for the political stuff, it is one thing to promote democracy [which we in fact have not done, supporting countless tyrants when it served our ends] and it is quite another to do so by military force, and another altogether to promote global corporate empire, which is our modern day foreign policy.
-Daniel

Iconophile,

But who were you addressing your comments to about supporting Hindu Polytheism? Has someone on the forum done this?

Moreover, you did not clarify what kind of foreign policy you would support. I suppose from your comments that you would have let the Jews become extinct from the face of the earth. As much as isolationism is nice in theory it is not a doctrine that can be followed. No matter what one nation or another wishes to do we are all interconnected as peoples. Like it or non intervention doesn't happen anywhere by any nation.

Dan L

Dear Dan- On page 2 of this thread, in the last post Zenovia made a comment that implied that we should ally ourselves with India against the Muslims. It was this I was responding to...forgive me if I misunderstood her.
I don't feel compelled to spell out a foreign policy statement, being like most of you a lowly layman, a dad with barely enough spare time to pontificate here.
That said, of course when a sort of cosmic Antichrist figure like Hitler comes along an international response is required.
I just don't think that every enemy of the USA deserves such a response.
Of course, Hussein was evil. And most Iraqis no doubt welcomed his demise. On the other hand, by all accounts most Iraqis do not like the American occupation, and Americans are notoriously dense to the cultural nuances that are required for this sort of project.
Again, I am increasingly convinced that America is a religion, a false religion that blinds its adherents.
We may even be the Biblical Babylon...
-Daniel

And by the way, Dan- have you rented The Color of Paradise yet?
I have become convinced, in spite of our sometimes acrimonious exchanges, that you are a good, well-meaning, and kindhearted man; this film will tear you up...
-D

Dear Daniel you said:

"As for the political stuff, it is one thing to promote democracy [which we in fact have not done, supporting countless tyrants when it served our ends] and it is quite another to do so by military force, and another altogether to promote global corporate empire, which is our modern day foreign policy."

I say:

Can you give us an alternative? By that I mean an alternative that will not have millions upon millions of people starving in third world countries. Look I admit that our economic system stinks, but it will take a great deal of sacrifice to change it.

With our government and certain politicians and their policy of 'personal destruction', do you really think that anything could be done. As an example: In the 1970's a law was passed that cars engines had to use less fuel. Pres. Clinton repealed that in 1997 in order to please certain corporations that supported him.

As for tyrants, remember we supported the greatest one of all 'Stalin' in order to fight Hitler. From what I've gathered recently, all the thousands upon thousands of Russian tanks; the ones that shocked Germany when they attacked Russia, were a gift from us. Now do you believe we shouldn't have entered that war? By doing so didn't we support the greatest tyrant of all?

Also this might come as a shock to you, but the Japanese in the 1930's were not torturing us because we were Europeans and therefore not 'inferior' races. Find out though the attrocities that were committed on the Phillipinos, Manchurians, Koreans, etc., The movie pictures our troops saw showing these attrocities undoubtably still exist.

Had we not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and believe me it was a difficult decision by Pres. Truman), our government approximated that 60,000 of our men would have died had we invaded Japan.

Now Japan wanted to sign a peace agreement, yet had she done so wouldn't she have kept the racist mentality that she had when killing and maiming all those people in the Far East?

As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it any worse than the fire bombing of Dresden? Remember we bombed Germany into the stone age. The people were starving for two years, and I don't believe that there were any men left over seven or under eighty.

Now mind you I'm not saying that there was not a certain amount of racism in this nation. We know there was, even forgetting the blacks. People from the Mediterrean were barred from immigrating here during the 1920's. My father had to 'jump ship'. Yet compared to England and most of Europe it was minimal; so Germany and Japan were not unique...but their attrocities on those 'inferior' people 'were' unique.

What I'm trying to say is that even if we are a very 'provincial' people, and we have a narrow view of the world, we are still in comparison to the rest of the world just a little bit better...at least in our hearts.

Zenovia

Dear Daniel you said:

"To make common cause with Hindu polytheists only reinforces Muslim accusations that Christians are polytheists."

I say:

Do I really care what Muslims say? They say whatever they feel is political expedient to them at the time. I'm not that naive. I'm fully aware of the differences between cultures.

You said:

I am much more sympathetic to the Holy See's policy of making common cause with Muslims whenever we can and affirming what we hold in common.

I say:

No one says we shouldn't.

You said:


"This policy has accomplished much good, as in the Cairo population conference in the 90's, when we took a stand together against the proabortion forces.
Oh, that's right, to you all Muslims are heartless terrorists, who don't even have children except to further their religion..."

I say:

If you had read my posts, you would have noticed that I did not say they were heartless terrorists, so stop putting words into my mouth. I said that the propagation of their faith is above and beyond everything else.

As for the Hindu's, I dislike what the Muslims are doing in Kashmir because I see that they are following the same policy in Bali, Kosovo, Israel, and all the other 'bloody' borders of Islam. It is a pattern, and if you can't see it then you simply don't 'want' to see it.

Zenovia

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the same sort of atrocity that the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, etc. were. It was the logical conclusion to a tactic we adopted of targeting civilian populations. This is always wrong, and no situation justifies it. To say otherwise is to embrace situation ethics, condemned by the Church always and everywhere.
To paraphrase Dosteovsky's example, if you could save the whole world by torturing one innocent two year old would it be justified?
Worldlings would say yes, but I expect more from those who claim to be Christ's.
As for your other challenge, let me get this right: we make common cause with the Soviet Union because of a supposedly greater evil [though Stalin apparently killed more innocents than Hitler], then when Hitler is gone we ally ourselves with the Shahs, Saddams, Montts, Noriegas and Saudi royals of the world, again to fight a greater evil. Then when that threat fades we turn against some of our erstwhile allies and attack them, while keeping our alliance with other of the thugs who are "on our side" [even when some of them are funding anti-western religious schools and sponsoring terrorists].
Makes me dizzy; hard to keep track of who the Good Dictators are and who the Bad Dictators are.
Note that we do this while mouthing platitudes about our benevolent mission to spread Democracy, Freedom and Always Low Prices, with Liberty and Justice for all, world without end amen.
Forgive me if I follow the money and note that our enemies are a select few, and that our policies favor lining the pockets of our rulers and their cronies. Forgive me if I think the real motive is global corporate empire, that all this talk of promoting freedom is a smokescreen, an appeal to the sentiments of well-meaning Americans, who wouldn't stand it if the truth were told: we want to rule the world and make a lot of money doing so.
-Daniel

Honestly, I agree with Daniel...but being the malevolent little mischief-maker that I am, I have to admit to kind of getting sort of proud and excited over American's abuse/misuse of power.

In a nutshell: I didn't and don't agree with the war in Iraq, but sometimes it sure is fun to see the country get blown to bits (not people, just places and buildings and holdouts that oppose our domination)!

Isn't that so typically American? I suspect others feel the same.

Logos Teen

You, you . . . Atlanta Hawks!

Amado