And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed.
3 And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the consummation of the world?
4 And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you. 5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ. And they will seduce many. 6 And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass: but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And there shall be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in places. 8 Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be scandalized and shall betray one another and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations: and then shall the consummation come.
15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. 16 Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: 17 And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. 19 And woe to them that are with child and that give suck in those days. 20 But pray that your flight be not in the winter or on the sabbath. 21 For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be.
22 And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say to you, Lo here is Christ, or there: do not believe him. 24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25 Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.
26 If therefore they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert: go ye not out. Behold he is in the closets: believe it not. 27 For as lightning cometh out of the east and appeareth even into the west: so shall also the cowling of the Son of man be. 28 Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together.
29 And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light and the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of heaven shall be moved.
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven. And then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. 31 And he shall send his angels with a trumpet and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them.
32 And from the fig tree learn a parable: When the branch thereof is now tender and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh. 33 So you also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh, even at the doors. 34 Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass: but my words shall not pass.
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone. 37 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For, as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark: 39 And they knew not till the flood came and took them all away: so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then two shall be in the field. One shall be taken and one shall be left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill. One shall be taken and one shall be left.
42 Watch ye therefore, because you know not what hour your Lord will come. 43 But this know ye, that, if the goodman of the house knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly watch and would not suffer his house to be broken open. 44 Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come.
45 Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family, to give them meat in season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come he shall find so doing. 47 Amen I say to you: he shall place him over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a coming: 49 And shall begin to strike his fellow servants and shall eat and drink with drunkards: 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not and at an hour that he knoweth not: 51 And shall separate him and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
---
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
My Backyard Blizzard
Two feet of snow and counting, second big storm this week. The drift against my car is up to the windows. We've been snowed in all day, which is a minor annoyance since I had planned on going skiing this afternoon.. Tomorrow morning will be sweet, though.. I can probably ski until noon and then leave for Florida and get a good eight or nine hours driving in before bed.
My neighbors are out there shoveling now, and I can't help them because there's no extra shovel..
Bummer. I'll just have another cup of coffee, instead..
---
Bono: Not Just Another Rock Star
This link came from Caleum et Terra.
I am immeasurably impressed by Bono in this interview. I always knew he was alright, have been a fan since Actung Baby, but I never guessed he was actually this wise:
Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?
Bono: Yes, I think that’s normal. It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.
Assayas: I haven’t heard you talk about that.
Bono: I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.
Assayas: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me.
Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.
Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that.
Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.
Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.
Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.
Assayas: That’s a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it’s close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?
Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me…
That's just the end. Click through to read the rest. It's short, and he's great.
---
I am immeasurably impressed by Bono in this interview. I always knew he was alright, have been a fan since Actung Baby, but I never guessed he was actually this wise:
Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?
Bono: Yes, I think that’s normal. It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.
Assayas: I haven’t heard you talk about that.
Bono: I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.
Assayas: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me.
Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.
Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that.
Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.
Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.
Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.
Assayas: That’s a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it’s close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?
Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me…
That's just the end. Click through to read the rest. It's short, and he's great.
---
Friday, March 4, 2011
Say, Who's the Enemy? [edited]
Not that Bradley Manning isn't a jackass and a twerp who deserves to be dishonorably discharged if proven guilty, and not that virtually all the information he is alleged to have released isn't of little interest and value, from what I've read it's mostly ho-hum we already guessed that that's what they were saying..
It's that the National Security aparatus has become a state within the state, and their penchant for overweening secrecy has no remaining legitimate purpose to continue now that the Cold War is over. None.
Compare Manning's story with that of Daniel Ellsberg, whose revelations of the Pentagon Papers did matter, and went a long way toward ending another cruel useless war in Asia, one that cost the lives of thousands of Americans (58,267 KIA, 1,711 MIA, over 300,000 WIA) and killed hundreds of thousands of locals.
Ellsberg's case went to trial, but was undone by the furor of Watergate and the government's inability to muster proper evidence.
Kissinger, that mass-murderer and assassin, had the gall to call him "the Most Dangerous Man in America:"
Note that the material Ellsberg released is still classified, despite having now been public knowledge for over forty years.
Ellsberg never served a day in prison, and neither should Manning.
All this violence, death and lying, all this secrecy, all this vicious stupidity for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Vietnam was ultimately meaningless, just as is our continued occupation of random valleys in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama, what's the purpose? Why are our troops still in harms way?
The executive branch and its putative subordinate the Pentagon are out of control, all of this militarism and secrecy needs to end. Now.
This from Antiwar.com:
Having held Private First Class Bradley Manning prisoner for nine months, under conditions tantamount to torture and beyond doubt intended to break his will, the US Army recombobulated its allegations against him on Wednesday, adding 22 counts to an already lengthy charge sheet.
As a practical matter, these changes probably don’t make a lot of difference to Manning. He’s faced a likely life sentence for nearly a year now. Since the Army’s prosecutors claim they won’t seek the death penalty provided for in one of the new counts, the consequences for him, if convicted, remain pretty much the same.
That new count – "aiding the enemy" per Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — is really directed not at Manning, but at an assortment of other persons and parties: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, every foreign government and individual on earth … and you. And the act of filing that charge is, oddly enough, tantamount to insurrection against the United States itself.
Let’s unpack this "enemy" thing.
The power to declare war — and thereby to legally categorize a group of persons (historically on, but not necessarily constrained to, the basis of their allegiance to a particular state) as "the enemy" — is exclusively reserved, per the US Constitution, to Congress. Congress hasn’t exercised that power since 1941, and the wars it declared then have long since ended. The United States is not, legally speaking, at war. Thus the US has, legally speaking, no "enemy" to aid.
By charging Manning with "aiding the enemy," the US Army is, in effect, attempting a coup d’etat. It is usurping Congress’s authority and claiming that authority for itself. Since the President of the United States is also Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, the Army is presumably merely the President’s instrument in this matter.
[...]
Who is the "enemy?" Certainly not the (now long-deposed) regime of Saddam’s Iraq, nor the Taliban who ran (and mostly still run) Afghanistan. We can exclude these two as the designated "enemies" for two reasons.
First, not only did Congress (to the extent that the executive branch bothers even formally acknowledging that institution’s authority these days) not declare war on either of them, it specifically declared that it was not declaring war on them. If you don’t believe me, look at the "authorizations for use of force" yourself and read the "war powers reservations" sections. Recall that bills were introduced to declare war on both, and rejected.
Secondly, no one has said, with a straight face at least, that Manning intended his alleged releases of information for the eyes and ears of the Taliban, or of al-Qaeda, or of whatever ragged remnant of the Ba’ath Party persists in Iraq.
On the contrary: The intended recipients seem to have been an Iceland-hosted web site, an Australian transparency activist, and the world (including the American) media and public. They (You! Me!) are the "enemy" to whom Manning allegedly disclosed the state’s embarrassing secrets.
QED, the US government considers you — whoever you are, wherever you may live, and to whatever extent you aren’t its active agent — its enemy and intends to treat you as such. Your freedom, perhaps even your very survival, depends on you recognizing this fact and acting accordingly.
---
Side note: Not that the entire Watergate and Ellsberg story doesn't deserve critical scrutiny in it's own right. I think that Nixon did have powerful enemies within the elite that wanted to destroy him, and that there were things going on behind the scenes within the power elite from the Kennedy assassination to the rise of Reagan that were very fishy. Ellsberg may have gotten off the hook because he was meant to.. That's a conjecture, but I think an utterly obvious one. He certainly had very powerful allies the likes of which Pfc. Manning does not.
===
It's that the National Security aparatus has become a state within the state, and their penchant for overweening secrecy has no remaining legitimate purpose to continue now that the Cold War is over. None.
Compare Manning's story with that of Daniel Ellsberg, whose revelations of the Pentagon Papers did matter, and went a long way toward ending another cruel useless war in Asia, one that cost the lives of thousands of Americans (58,267 KIA, 1,711 MIA, over 300,000 WIA) and killed hundreds of thousands of locals.
Ellsberg's case went to trial, but was undone by the furor of Watergate and the government's inability to muster proper evidence.
Kissinger, that mass-murderer and assassin, had the gall to call him "the Most Dangerous Man in America:"
Note that the material Ellsberg released is still classified, despite having now been public knowledge for over forty years.
Ellsberg never served a day in prison, and neither should Manning.
All this violence, death and lying, all this secrecy, all this vicious stupidity for nothing. Absolutely nothing. Vietnam was ultimately meaningless, just as is our continued occupation of random valleys in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama, what's the purpose? Why are our troops still in harms way?
The executive branch and its putative subordinate the Pentagon are out of control, all of this militarism and secrecy needs to end. Now.
This from Antiwar.com:
Having held Private First Class Bradley Manning prisoner for nine months, under conditions tantamount to torture and beyond doubt intended to break his will, the US Army recombobulated its allegations against him on Wednesday, adding 22 counts to an already lengthy charge sheet.
As a practical matter, these changes probably don’t make a lot of difference to Manning. He’s faced a likely life sentence for nearly a year now. Since the Army’s prosecutors claim they won’t seek the death penalty provided for in one of the new counts, the consequences for him, if convicted, remain pretty much the same.
That new count – "aiding the enemy" per Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — is really directed not at Manning, but at an assortment of other persons and parties: Wikileaks, Julian Assange, every foreign government and individual on earth … and you. And the act of filing that charge is, oddly enough, tantamount to insurrection against the United States itself.
Let’s unpack this "enemy" thing.
The power to declare war — and thereby to legally categorize a group of persons (historically on, but not necessarily constrained to, the basis of their allegiance to a particular state) as "the enemy" — is exclusively reserved, per the US Constitution, to Congress. Congress hasn’t exercised that power since 1941, and the wars it declared then have long since ended. The United States is not, legally speaking, at war. Thus the US has, legally speaking, no "enemy" to aid.
By charging Manning with "aiding the enemy," the US Army is, in effect, attempting a coup d’etat. It is usurping Congress’s authority and claiming that authority for itself. Since the President of the United States is also Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, the Army is presumably merely the President’s instrument in this matter.
[...]
Who is the "enemy?" Certainly not the (now long-deposed) regime of Saddam’s Iraq, nor the Taliban who ran (and mostly still run) Afghanistan. We can exclude these two as the designated "enemies" for two reasons.
First, not only did Congress (to the extent that the executive branch bothers even formally acknowledging that institution’s authority these days) not declare war on either of them, it specifically declared that it was not declaring war on them. If you don’t believe me, look at the "authorizations for use of force" yourself and read the "war powers reservations" sections. Recall that bills were introduced to declare war on both, and rejected.
Secondly, no one has said, with a straight face at least, that Manning intended his alleged releases of information for the eyes and ears of the Taliban, or of al-Qaeda, or of whatever ragged remnant of the Ba’ath Party persists in Iraq.
On the contrary: The intended recipients seem to have been an Iceland-hosted web site, an Australian transparency activist, and the world (including the American) media and public. They (You! Me!) are the "enemy" to whom Manning allegedly disclosed the state’s embarrassing secrets.
QED, the US government considers you — whoever you are, wherever you may live, and to whatever extent you aren’t its active agent — its enemy and intends to treat you as such. Your freedom, perhaps even your very survival, depends on you recognizing this fact and acting accordingly.
---
Side note: Not that the entire Watergate and Ellsberg story doesn't deserve critical scrutiny in it's own right. I think that Nixon did have powerful enemies within the elite that wanted to destroy him, and that there were things going on behind the scenes within the power elite from the Kennedy assassination to the rise of Reagan that were very fishy. Ellsberg may have gotten off the hook because he was meant to.. That's a conjecture, but I think an utterly obvious one. He certainly had very powerful allies the likes of which Pfc. Manning does not.
===
Ronald Reagan's Erstwhile Campaign Anthem, Denatured:
Lyrics:
Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground.
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
'Til you spend half your life just covering up.
I got in a little hometown jam,
And so they put a rifle in my hands.
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man.
Come back home to the refinery,
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me.."
I went down to see the V.A. man,
He said "Son don't you understand."
I had a brother at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong.
They're still there, he's all gone.
He had a woman in Saigon,
I got a picture of him in her arms.
Down in the shadow of the penitentiary,
Out by the gas fires of the refinery,
I'm ten years burning down the road.
Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go..
---
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Open Letter to Msgr. Charles Pope on Islam (Updated)
There's a blog that the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington maintains, that I really like. There's a priest, Msgr. Charles Pope, who writes what I think is really excellent stuff on Catholic spiritual life there.
Today, however, Msgr. Pope posted a piece on secularism and European population implosion and decline that uses Islam as a bogeyman and recycles most of the tired tropes that reduce the entire religion down to a caricature in which the views and actions of the extremist fringe are imputed to "all Muslims."
Worse, he links to a "news report" by Pat's Robertson's claque CBN that is pure racist and quasi fascist propaganda.
This is the clip, notice how many times the word "white" is used:
The ironic thing is that the likes of Pat Robertson act like they are horrified by the polarization of people along religious and ethnic lines (which of course is a real problem) but in actuality they need that polarization to fulfill their violent fantasies, in which the eroticized venal other - in this case the Muslims, who are to be the catalyst for the apocalypse and rapture in their cosmology - is used to radicalize people politically.
Note also that the French people interviewed are all people who confirm CBN's feedback loop. CBN has absolutely no compunction in interviewing outright racists and crypto facsists like that fellow from the Bloc Identitaire - click here to visit their website, where they rail against the gypsies and beat other old fascist hobbyhorses with vigor.
Disgusting, pure and simple.
Here is my open letter to Father Pope, that I posted without proofreading on the post at the Archdiocese's site. It's still awaiting moderation at the site, we'll see if he let's it through, and if he reacts to it.
I am posting it here because this sort of thing is too important to let pass in silence. Muslims are not a monolithic block. They are not all out to get us. We must seek peace and understanding, and admit complexity as well as recognize that most Muslims - though admittedly quite often difficult to deal with - are still human beings like any other group, and need to be treated with respect, and listened to, at the very least.
The letter, with minor corrections:
Charles Curtis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Father,
I admire your blog very much – when it comes to teaching Catholicism, you are incredible.
But when it comes to Islam, with all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. The crap you’ve posted here is sheer right wing propaganda.
I’ve lived in Switzerland, Egypt and Turkey, have studied Islam and Arab studies in graduate school, and can tell you the reality of Islam and Muslim people is vastly different than the lurid imaginings of Pat Robertson and cretins like him.
The video clip you’ve posted from CBN has an interview of a member of Bloc Identitaire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_identitaire
They are crypto fascists and racists. I suggest that you ought not be associating the arch-diocese with such politically charged material. It is, to say the very least, inappropriate.
Further, all Muslims do not “believe that Shariah is God’s law.” My sister in law, for example, is a Turk and a Muslim – as well as an American citizen, now – and she and her entire Turkish family all believe in secular political values. They are vociferous supporters of Ataturk’s republic, as incidentally are even most of the Turks that support the AK, PM Erdogan’s party which is characterized as “Islamicist” by idiots here who have no idea what they are talking about – see for example, how the Turkish constitution explicitly rejects use of Islamic law in governing the country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
While it is true that the Turkish Republic often engages in actions detrimental to Christians, as in the suppression of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch, that has far more to do with nationalism than religion, religion having become an artefact of tribal identity in that case.
I could go on, Egypt and most other Muslim societies are just as complex and have little resemblance to the stupid rancid imaginings of the Western Right. What they are doing is making a caricature of a world religious tradition of vast complexity and richness. It would be like saying Catholicism is synonymous with the Christian Identity movement, and that all Christians (as opposed to just a minuscule percentage – millions out of the 2 Billion Christians in the world) share the beliefs of the likes of Pat Robertson.
Again, this post is both wrong, and benighted. It should not be associated with the archdiocese.
---
Update: Msgr. Pope replied, I respond.
This, again, is the link to the archdiocesan page.
Msgr. Charles Pope says:
March 1, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I wonder if you even read this post since I make important distinctions that you seem to have missed and also lay the blame at the feet of Christians.
I Reply:
Charles Curtis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2011 at 8:42 pm
No, Father. I’m simply pointing out that you have linked to a “news report” which contains a sympathetic interview of a member of a right-wing French political party that is openly opposed to miscegenation, and which rails against gypsies and foreigners on its websites.
They are also, incidentally, openly opposed to American imperialism, an ironic detail that probably escaped Pat Robertson’s “journalists.”
Now, you are free to adhere to that sort of thing if you like, in which case I will lose all respect for you. But I say as a Catholic that I do not want my Church officially associated with such racist bigotry.
I’ll also repeat that the Islamicist caricature that you’ve propagated here is an unhelpful and distorted view of a religion that in practice is much more variegated and complex than your “expert” source understands. Most Muslims do not dream of imposing “shariah” on the West. I speak Arabic in rudimentary fashion (trained by our military) and can tell you that word means law. Not Islamic law, but just law. “The Shariah” (with the definite article) is analogous to “the Law” in Judaism. Islamic law is a very complex study, just as is study of Torah. There are many different local traditions, and four major Sunni schools of interpretation, as well as differing Shiite traditions, some more “liberal” (to use a reductive and problematic term) than others. There is, in other words, no one “Shariah.” Again, it’s like Judaism in that there are differing stream of thought in the Tulmud, and now many different traditions in Judaism, from varieties of Reform to manifold Orthodox perspectives.
A brief search online – google Sunni madhabs for example – will prove what I am saying.
This is not meant as an attack against you personally, Father, I am telling you – as someone who has studied all this formally – that what you have posted here is not accurate.
Period.
We need to be careful and fair, Father. That’s all I’m saying.
Is that to protest too much?
---
Today, however, Msgr. Pope posted a piece on secularism and European population implosion and decline that uses Islam as a bogeyman and recycles most of the tired tropes that reduce the entire religion down to a caricature in which the views and actions of the extremist fringe are imputed to "all Muslims."
Worse, he links to a "news report" by Pat's Robertson's claque CBN that is pure racist and quasi fascist propaganda.
This is the clip, notice how many times the word "white" is used:
The ironic thing is that the likes of Pat Robertson act like they are horrified by the polarization of people along religious and ethnic lines (which of course is a real problem) but in actuality they need that polarization to fulfill their violent fantasies, in which the eroticized venal other - in this case the Muslims, who are to be the catalyst for the apocalypse and rapture in their cosmology - is used to radicalize people politically.
Note also that the French people interviewed are all people who confirm CBN's feedback loop. CBN has absolutely no compunction in interviewing outright racists and crypto facsists like that fellow from the Bloc Identitaire - click here to visit their website, where they rail against the gypsies and beat other old fascist hobbyhorses with vigor.
Disgusting, pure and simple.
Here is my open letter to Father Pope, that I posted without proofreading on the post at the Archdiocese's site. It's still awaiting moderation at the site, we'll see if he let's it through, and if he reacts to it.
I am posting it here because this sort of thing is too important to let pass in silence. Muslims are not a monolithic block. They are not all out to get us. We must seek peace and understanding, and admit complexity as well as recognize that most Muslims - though admittedly quite often difficult to deal with - are still human beings like any other group, and need to be treated with respect, and listened to, at the very least.
The letter, with minor corrections:
Charles Curtis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Father,
I admire your blog very much – when it comes to teaching Catholicism, you are incredible.
But when it comes to Islam, with all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. The crap you’ve posted here is sheer right wing propaganda.
I’ve lived in Switzerland, Egypt and Turkey, have studied Islam and Arab studies in graduate school, and can tell you the reality of Islam and Muslim people is vastly different than the lurid imaginings of Pat Robertson and cretins like him.
The video clip you’ve posted from CBN has an interview of a member of Bloc Identitaire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_identitaire
They are crypto fascists and racists. I suggest that you ought not be associating the arch-diocese with such politically charged material. It is, to say the very least, inappropriate.
Further, all Muslims do not “believe that Shariah is God’s law.” My sister in law, for example, is a Turk and a Muslim – as well as an American citizen, now – and she and her entire Turkish family all believe in secular political values. They are vociferous supporters of Ataturk’s republic, as incidentally are even most of the Turks that support the AK, PM Erdogan’s party which is characterized as “Islamicist” by idiots here who have no idea what they are talking about – see for example, how the Turkish constitution explicitly rejects use of Islamic law in governing the country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion
While it is true that the Turkish Republic often engages in actions detrimental to Christians, as in the suppression of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch, that has far more to do with nationalism than religion, religion having become an artefact of tribal identity in that case.
I could go on, Egypt and most other Muslim societies are just as complex and have little resemblance to the stupid rancid imaginings of the Western Right. What they are doing is making a caricature of a world religious tradition of vast complexity and richness. It would be like saying Catholicism is synonymous with the Christian Identity movement, and that all Christians (as opposed to just a minuscule percentage – millions out of the 2 Billion Christians in the world) share the beliefs of the likes of Pat Robertson.
Again, this post is both wrong, and benighted. It should not be associated with the archdiocese.
---
Update: Msgr. Pope replied, I respond.
This, again, is the link to the archdiocesan page.
Msgr. Charles Pope says:
March 1, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I wonder if you even read this post since I make important distinctions that you seem to have missed and also lay the blame at the feet of Christians.
I Reply:
Charles Curtis says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2011 at 8:42 pm
No, Father. I’m simply pointing out that you have linked to a “news report” which contains a sympathetic interview of a member of a right-wing French political party that is openly opposed to miscegenation, and which rails against gypsies and foreigners on its websites.
They are also, incidentally, openly opposed to American imperialism, an ironic detail that probably escaped Pat Robertson’s “journalists.”
Now, you are free to adhere to that sort of thing if you like, in which case I will lose all respect for you. But I say as a Catholic that I do not want my Church officially associated with such racist bigotry.
I’ll also repeat that the Islamicist caricature that you’ve propagated here is an unhelpful and distorted view of a religion that in practice is much more variegated and complex than your “expert” source understands. Most Muslims do not dream of imposing “shariah” on the West. I speak Arabic in rudimentary fashion (trained by our military) and can tell you that word means law. Not Islamic law, but just law. “The Shariah” (with the definite article) is analogous to “the Law” in Judaism. Islamic law is a very complex study, just as is study of Torah. There are many different local traditions, and four major Sunni schools of interpretation, as well as differing Shiite traditions, some more “liberal” (to use a reductive and problematic term) than others. There is, in other words, no one “Shariah.” Again, it’s like Judaism in that there are differing stream of thought in the Tulmud, and now many different traditions in Judaism, from varieties of Reform to manifold Orthodox perspectives.
A brief search online – google Sunni madhabs for example – will prove what I am saying.
This is not meant as an attack against you personally, Father, I am telling you – as someone who has studied all this formally – that what you have posted here is not accurate.
Period.
We need to be careful and fair, Father. That’s all I’m saying.
Is that to protest too much?
---
Alice's Restaurant Massacree
---
A somewhat tired rendition of the song. Poor Arlo's done it too many times before. When my dad took us to see Arlo Guthrie in concert at University of Maine Orono in maybe 1988, he didn't even perform this song, despite the audience repeatedly calling for it..
Read the lyrics here.
---
A somewhat tired rendition of the song. Poor Arlo's done it too many times before. When my dad took us to see Arlo Guthrie in concert at University of Maine Orono in maybe 1988, he didn't even perform this song, despite the audience repeatedly calling for it..
Read the lyrics here.
---
Monday, February 28, 2011
I'd lose my a** it weren't crammed with my head
So I go skiing this afternoon. I've been skiing quite a lot this winter, and it's been really good for me - sliding down a hill is actually great exercise.
Anyway, It's snowing mixed snow and sleet, and I have no goggles, so I buy a cheap 40$ pair (40$ is cheap for goggles, most are twice or three times that) which worked out really well..
Around three, I decide to check the time so I can milk the last hour before the lifts close for all it's worth, and still end up by my car on the last run.
My pocket is unzipped, and my phone is gone.
Annoying, but not a huge deal.. After I got back from Europe, I decided to only buy cheap cellphones, and to never sign another wireless contract again, and only pay as I go.. It's super frugal, and I still have a phone that does everything I need it to do, which is just make and receive calls, you know..
So my damn 30$ phone with 700 ($70 worth of) minutes on it is apparently stuck in some snowdrift on the mountain somewhere.
Not that this is a huge problem, since there are only a half dozen people I ever talk to on the phone anyway, and I only do that once or twice a week..
But it does mean that until I either find it, or buy a new one, I have no phone.
Just so the 12 or so people who might care, know..
I'll get one before I leave for Florida next week, because I'll need it on the trip.
Last run of the afternoon, I get off the lift, ski about 100 yards and go to put my new goggles on.. And guess what?
Yep, they were gone, too. I'd dropped them on the lift or something. I usually clip my gloves and poles with a carabiner when I'm on the lift, it's a habit I've formed to prevent just such losses.. But since the goggles were new, I'd not habituated myself to doing that with them.
Nice. The girl at the client services lost and found is going to think I'm a retard.
At least I'm a happy retard.
---
Anyway, It's snowing mixed snow and sleet, and I have no goggles, so I buy a cheap 40$ pair (40$ is cheap for goggles, most are twice or three times that) which worked out really well..
Around three, I decide to check the time so I can milk the last hour before the lifts close for all it's worth, and still end up by my car on the last run.
My pocket is unzipped, and my phone is gone.
Annoying, but not a huge deal.. After I got back from Europe, I decided to only buy cheap cellphones, and to never sign another wireless contract again, and only pay as I go.. It's super frugal, and I still have a phone that does everything I need it to do, which is just make and receive calls, you know..
So my damn 30$ phone with 700 ($70 worth of) minutes on it is apparently stuck in some snowdrift on the mountain somewhere.
Not that this is a huge problem, since there are only a half dozen people I ever talk to on the phone anyway, and I only do that once or twice a week..
But it does mean that until I either find it, or buy a new one, I have no phone.
Just so the 12 or so people who might care, know..
I'll get one before I leave for Florida next week, because I'll need it on the trip.
Last run of the afternoon, I get off the lift, ski about 100 yards and go to put my new goggles on.. And guess what?
Yep, they were gone, too. I'd dropped them on the lift or something. I usually clip my gloves and poles with a carabiner when I'm on the lift, it's a habit I've formed to prevent just such losses.. But since the goggles were new, I'd not habituated myself to doing that with them.
Nice. The girl at the client services lost and found is going to think I'm a retard.
At least I'm a happy retard.
---
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thoughts on Freedom and Conscience
I style myself the "anarcho-traditionalist" - which probably seems absurd to most people (the three or four of you) who have thought about it..
Here's what I mean by it:
Anarchism is not, in my usage, about desiring anarchy as defined as utter freedom or chaos. It's about asserting and accepting the authority and weight of conscience.
In our culture too many people seem to think that conscience is somehow completely malleable, something that each of us creates for ourselves.
But that's not at all what conscience is. Conscience is moral knowledge. It is that knowledge by which we act, that informs our choices in the moral sense.
There is, in other words, nothing "relativistic" in the absolute and eternal sense about it.
In other words, conscience is what gives each of us individual moral authority.
And because conscience is shared, not merely arbitrary or individual, it is of profound political and social importance.
It is the hallmark and proof of our freedom. It is, in other words, a gift from God. It is that knowledge that we receive as a birthright, as descendants of Adam and Eve, who in their fall also received moral agency, "the knowledge of good and evil."
Their wills, and so our wills, have been separated from the divine will. "We are become like gods" in this very sense: free to choose between good and evil, heaven and hell, love and sin, the worship of God or self.
I was going to keep this pithy and short.. I could go on and on about this, making elaboration upon elaboration.
I'll merely leave it at this:
Being a Catholic and a traditionalist is all about living in accordance with authority, in obedience.
But it is never about authoritarianism, which is to say the worship of power for its own sake, or undue deference to those who possess it.
When I call myself an anarchist, I am asserting the primacy of conscience in the political realm. It's a two edged sword though: it is not an assertion of absolute freedom. It's closer to the opposite: it means that I believe (my conscience asserts) that we each have the responsibility, the cross, to act according to what we know is right.
We must act according to what we know is true.
No matter what. No matter what any intermediate authority says, each of us will be finally judged and so is ultimately answerable only to God.
Usually - almost always - this means obeying human authority. Occasionally, however, when human authority clearly errs on a matter of importance, we must dissent.
Even if the consequence is suffering or (in extremis) martyrdom.
I give you the witness of all the Jewish prophets up to and including John the Baptist, as well as all Christian martyrs, as well as modern examples such as the abolitionist and civil rights movements, and groups like the Mennonites..
To include Christ himself. When he said "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's" he wasn't letting us off any hooks. He proved it by himself accepting Herod and Pilate's judgments.
The series of readings read today at mass are very interesting in this regard (for February 27, 2011: Sunday of the Eighth Week in Ordinary Time, you can read them here)..
The second reading (the epistle) was one of Paul's very interesting statements on conscience. He writes this (cf. 1 Cor 4):
"It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord."
He expands on this in his letter to the Church in Rome, the very place Paul was later decapitated by order of the court of the Emperor Nero:
You are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment.
For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.. There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.
Romans 2, redacted
Like Tupac said. That's not a cop out, and it's no joke.
In the end, the knowledge on our heart, our conscience, will be the only thing we have left to defend or condemn us.
---
Here's what I mean by it:
Anarchism is not, in my usage, about desiring anarchy as defined as utter freedom or chaos. It's about asserting and accepting the authority and weight of conscience.
In our culture too many people seem to think that conscience is somehow completely malleable, something that each of us creates for ourselves.
But that's not at all what conscience is. Conscience is moral knowledge. It is that knowledge by which we act, that informs our choices in the moral sense.
There is, in other words, nothing "relativistic" in the absolute and eternal sense about it.
In other words, conscience is what gives each of us individual moral authority.
And because conscience is shared, not merely arbitrary or individual, it is of profound political and social importance.
It is the hallmark and proof of our freedom. It is, in other words, a gift from God. It is that knowledge that we receive as a birthright, as descendants of Adam and Eve, who in their fall also received moral agency, "the knowledge of good and evil."
Their wills, and so our wills, have been separated from the divine will. "We are become like gods" in this very sense: free to choose between good and evil, heaven and hell, love and sin, the worship of God or self.
I was going to keep this pithy and short.. I could go on and on about this, making elaboration upon elaboration.
I'll merely leave it at this:
Being a Catholic and a traditionalist is all about living in accordance with authority, in obedience.
But it is never about authoritarianism, which is to say the worship of power for its own sake, or undue deference to those who possess it.
When I call myself an anarchist, I am asserting the primacy of conscience in the political realm. It's a two edged sword though: it is not an assertion of absolute freedom. It's closer to the opposite: it means that I believe (my conscience asserts) that we each have the responsibility, the cross, to act according to what we know is right.
We must act according to what we know is true.
No matter what. No matter what any intermediate authority says, each of us will be finally judged and so is ultimately answerable only to God.
Usually - almost always - this means obeying human authority. Occasionally, however, when human authority clearly errs on a matter of importance, we must dissent.
Even if the consequence is suffering or (in extremis) martyrdom.
I give you the witness of all the Jewish prophets up to and including John the Baptist, as well as all Christian martyrs, as well as modern examples such as the abolitionist and civil rights movements, and groups like the Mennonites..
To include Christ himself. When he said "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is God's" he wasn't letting us off any hooks. He proved it by himself accepting Herod and Pilate's judgments.
The series of readings read today at mass are very interesting in this regard (for February 27, 2011: Sunday of the Eighth Week in Ordinary Time, you can read them here)..
The second reading (the epistle) was one of Paul's very interesting statements on conscience. He writes this (cf. 1 Cor 4):
"It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord."
He expands on this in his letter to the Church in Rome, the very place Paul was later decapitated by order of the court of the Emperor Nero:
You are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment.
For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.. There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.
Romans 2, redacted
Like Tupac said. That's not a cop out, and it's no joke.
In the end, the knowledge on our heart, our conscience, will be the only thing we have left to defend or condemn us.
---
Saturday, February 26, 2011
je resterai ici.. enfin.
je resterai ici je ne partirai pas
même si je sais par coeur
qu'il fait toujours meilleur ailleurs
mais je resterai là
pour la couleur du ciel
de ces jours de grand vent
qui n'en finissent pas
tu peux partir en guerre contre n'importe quoi
et suivre la musique qui marche au pas
dis-moi ce que tu veux moi je ne t'écoute pas
j'ai d'autres rêves à faire que celui-là
j'écoute en souriant toutes ces fausses nouvelles
qui vont et qui s'en viennent comme un océan
comme la fausse monnaie qui passe de poche en poche
me laissant ni plus riche ni plus malin qu'avant
à l'autre bout du monde tu vas brûler ta vie
tu défais tes amours et tes amis
et on connait ton nom jusqu'à jérusalem
on ne vieillit jamais près de ceux qu'on aime
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)