In America, the anti-religious people are really getting on my nerves. Its already accepted that the basic symbols of the major religions (and many minor ones) are accepted - the cross, the crescent, and the star of david. But, supposedly, secondary symbols are not accepted - namely, pictures and statues of the nativity. Banning them is stupid, utterly stupid.
I was told there was one person, a few years ago, who claimed religious "persecution" because of an angel at the top of a Christmas Tree. Did they know whether it was a Christian angel, Jewish angel, or Muslim angel - no. They just complained about it - mostly to make noise and so they could hear themselves. I work with several Hindus and several Buddhists - they have angelic symbols as well (glowing people with wings - close enough to angels).
Anyway, my opinions. Happy Christmas.
Jay
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
GW3
Hi,
On the Kuwait Liberation War - I've refused to call it the Iraq War for a long time. Now, on the Iraq Invasion War - it just goes on and on and on. In the December 18-24 issue of the Washington Post - Weekly they had an article (on p.22) entitled "Gulf War 3 May be Inevitable".
The article drew parellels between the Kuwaiti Liberation, the Iraqi Invasion and the Thirty Years War and Hundred Years War. Mostly that, at the time, they didn't refer to it as the Thirty / Hundred Years Wars but they refered to it as King Henry's War or King Edward's War or the English Invasion of France (again). I've even heard WW1 and WW2 being referred to the "The Second Thirty Years War".
Its obvious that whatever discontent the cause the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait weren't resolved but cause, directly or indirectly, the Iraqi Invasion War. Its likewise fairly obvious that after the American and British troops are withdrawn that there will be some "loose ends" that still need to be collected and tied up.
take care,
Jay
On the Kuwait Liberation War - I've refused to call it the Iraq War for a long time. Now, on the Iraq Invasion War - it just goes on and on and on. In the December 18-24 issue of the Washington Post - Weekly they had an article (on p.22) entitled "Gulf War 3 May be Inevitable".
The article drew parellels between the Kuwaiti Liberation, the Iraqi Invasion and the Thirty Years War and Hundred Years War. Mostly that, at the time, they didn't refer to it as the Thirty / Hundred Years Wars but they refered to it as King Henry's War or King Edward's War or the English Invasion of France (again). I've even heard WW1 and WW2 being referred to the "The Second Thirty Years War".
Its obvious that whatever discontent the cause the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait weren't resolved but cause, directly or indirectly, the Iraqi Invasion War. Its likewise fairly obvious that after the American and British troops are withdrawn that there will be some "loose ends" that still need to be collected and tied up.
take care,
Jay
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Immortale Dei and Libertas
Well, I've read Confessions by St.Augustine and I'll be getting City of God either later this week or right after Christmas. I've also read both Immortale Dei and Libertas sevral times. And here is supposed to be a quick summary of the two of them. Not that I can make an extensive summary of them, not that I would try to make an extensive summary of them, not that any of you would read what I had written - well, you might, but it won't be anytime soon.
As a quick summary of Immortale Dei governments are destined to govern because that is there job. Governments should govern justly and fairly. If they don't the people governed have the right of selecting a different government.
It therefore seems likely that if a government wants to government many people that it would be a fair and just government. Because if the government were neither just nor fair, then people would get up and move. This could be as dramatic and changing cities or changing countries and languages.
Summarizing Libertas, people will and should be allowed to do whatever they choose - as long as it doesn't go against the will of God. However, not everyone is Catholic and we therefore get into the arguement of what should people be allowed to do that Catholic cannot, should not, or would not.
This leads to a fairly minimalist and fairly "hands off" of government. It also leads to other stipulations which I think I'll write about later.
take care,
Jay
As a quick summary of Immortale Dei governments are destined to govern because that is there job. Governments should govern justly and fairly. If they don't the people governed have the right of selecting a different government.
It therefore seems likely that if a government wants to government many people that it would be a fair and just government. Because if the government were neither just nor fair, then people would get up and move. This could be as dramatic and changing cities or changing countries and languages.
Summarizing Libertas, people will and should be allowed to do whatever they choose - as long as it doesn't go against the will of God. However, not everyone is Catholic and we therefore get into the arguement of what should people be allowed to do that Catholic cannot, should not, or would not.
This leads to a fairly minimalist and fairly "hands off" of government. It also leads to other stipulations which I think I'll write about later.
take care,
Jay
Ilegal Immigration
Last night on the News Hour (PBS) they had an article about illegal immigration. A few months ago ICE (Immigration Customs and Enforcement) had raids and arrested and potentially deported many people.
The article display several problems with current American law. The parents would be arrested and the children left behind because the parents were illegal but the children were natural born citizens. Likewise there were cases where the father was arrested but the mother not because she was viewed as "necessary" for the native born children's survival.
There was one case where a person came here, legally, who wanted the illegal immigrants deported. I really think that this is going to force the passing of a Constitutional Ammendment. Should the parents stay because their children are native born citizens or the native born children be deported because the parents are illegal and undocumented?
This can have effect even with who is elgible to become elected president - in spite of the fact that every American President, except three, have had either and English last name or an Irish last name. (Those three are Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.)
The main problem that I can see is the families are being broken up and families are being broken apart. They are being broken up and broken apart because the parents are illegal and they choose to have children who become citizens by their birth.
They will have to ammend the Constitution to redefine who is a native born citizen or, more specifically, to redefine who can and who cannot be regarded as native born citizens. Namely, if your parents are illegal immigrats, then you cannot be regarded as an American Citizen.
take care,
Jay
The article display several problems with current American law. The parents would be arrested and the children left behind because the parents were illegal but the children were natural born citizens. Likewise there were cases where the father was arrested but the mother not because she was viewed as "necessary" for the native born children's survival.
There was one case where a person came here, legally, who wanted the illegal immigrants deported. I really think that this is going to force the passing of a Constitutional Ammendment. Should the parents stay because their children are native born citizens or the native born children be deported because the parents are illegal and undocumented?
This can have effect even with who is elgible to become elected president - in spite of the fact that every American President, except three, have had either and English last name or an Irish last name. (Those three are Roosevelt, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.)
The main problem that I can see is the families are being broken up and families are being broken apart. They are being broken up and broken apart because the parents are illegal and they choose to have children who become citizens by their birth.
They will have to ammend the Constitution to redefine who is a native born citizen or, more specifically, to redefine who can and who cannot be regarded as native born citizens. Namely, if your parents are illegal immigrats, then you cannot be regarded as an American Citizen.
take care,
Jay
Monday, December 18, 2006
Rumsfeld
Well, this the first day without Rumsfeld and this the first first day with Robert Gates - hopefully we didn't go out of the frying pan and into the fire. I also saw the article last week on Hannity and Colmes on Rumsfeld's last visit into Iraq.
I remember in Driver's Ed in High School that we were taught that a person had a better chance of dying in Vietnam than they had of dying on the roads in America. Me, I was Navy ROTC after I was rejected from Annapolis. Then when I changed schools (Viginia Tech to Temple U) I dropped ROTC as well - no scholoarship (that was in 1986 and 1987). Then when I tried to enlist in 1992 (Air Force enlisted) I was medically rejected. Maybe its better that I didn't get a scholoarship; the whole thing is kind of fuzzy and blurry.
So in ten or thirty years teens will be getting taught that they had a better chance of dying on American roads versus being in Iraq. But Hannity and Colmes had interviews in Rumsfeld on his last visit in Iraq as the Secretary of Defense. During part of the time they also interviewed soldiers and marines. Listening to the people, mostly soldiers and marines, over there was very much like listening to my Dad - both of my parents are fairly militant Bushians. And except for mindless political rhetoric they didn't say much that was enlightening.
Considering that almost three-thousand people died in Iraq versus some six-hundred-odd thousand that have been sent there (I don't know any real numbers, I'm just typing speculatives), that's a 0.5% of dying in Iraq. I don't know highway fatality number either.
But we're at a critical point right now. Nearly as many people died in Iraq versus people who died on 9/11/01 in New York. That doesn't include Afghanistan, Washington, or Pennsylvania. but the "about" numbers are good enough right now. Only two more years of W.
The whole mindset of wanting to fight and kill and die just because someone else says so is a foreign concept to me. Maybe that's why I'm not military.
Anyway, take care,
Jay
I remember in Driver's Ed in High School that we were taught that a person had a better chance of dying in Vietnam than they had of dying on the roads in America. Me, I was Navy ROTC after I was rejected from Annapolis. Then when I changed schools (Viginia Tech to Temple U) I dropped ROTC as well - no scholoarship (that was in 1986 and 1987). Then when I tried to enlist in 1992 (Air Force enlisted) I was medically rejected. Maybe its better that I didn't get a scholoarship; the whole thing is kind of fuzzy and blurry.
So in ten or thirty years teens will be getting taught that they had a better chance of dying on American roads versus being in Iraq. But Hannity and Colmes had interviews in Rumsfeld on his last visit in Iraq as the Secretary of Defense. During part of the time they also interviewed soldiers and marines. Listening to the people, mostly soldiers and marines, over there was very much like listening to my Dad - both of my parents are fairly militant Bushians. And except for mindless political rhetoric they didn't say much that was enlightening.
Considering that almost three-thousand people died in Iraq versus some six-hundred-odd thousand that have been sent there (I don't know any real numbers, I'm just typing speculatives), that's a 0.5% of dying in Iraq. I don't know highway fatality number either.
But we're at a critical point right now. Nearly as many people died in Iraq versus people who died on 9/11/01 in New York. That doesn't include Afghanistan, Washington, or Pennsylvania. but the "about" numbers are good enough right now. Only two more years of W.
The whole mindset of wanting to fight and kill and die just because someone else says so is a foreign concept to me. Maybe that's why I'm not military.
Anyway, take care,
Jay
Friday, December 15, 2006
Liberalism is a Sin
Few things get me off (angry) as much as hearing this. In fact, recently, I saw this on a t-shirt - as a quote, supposedly, from Leo-13. First, doing a Google search does not reveal Leo and probably does not reveal any Catholic clergy. I haven't done more than just a cursory search. But I wanted to read the writings of Leo-13 long before I saw this "quote".
Now when reading Immortalie Dei and Libertas there is obviously an encyclical or some writing or understanding between these two. I think it may be St.Augustine's _City_of_God_. And while I still have to read them both several times, as well as City of God, I've come to some understanding.
First, many of those espousing that "Liberalism is a Sin" are either conservative or arch-conservative. And for them, including supporting anti-abortion, including being harsh upon the poor and needy - they all view it as "being Godly" or "being godly".
What they don't realize (and what they probably choose to remain ignorant of) is that Leo wrote during the late nineteenth century. People who claim to be as high and lofty as these should consider that what "Liberal" meant one- or two-hundred years ago is not what we mean by "Liberal" today.
In Libertas, Leo is very clear. It is in the same voice that Satan, through Liberalism, tells God "I will not serve". That is not what modern Liberals mean at all by "Liberalism".
Unfortunately those arch-conservative do not recognize Modertism as being a legitiamate way. Perhaps they consider it "Liberal Lite".
But what they fail to realize is that what Leo meant by "Liberal" is not what they mean by "Liberal". So the quote from Leo or whoever is entirely out of context and *wrong*.
take care,
Jay
Now when reading Immortalie Dei and Libertas there is obviously an encyclical or some writing or understanding between these two. I think it may be St.Augustine's _City_of_God_. And while I still have to read them both several times, as well as City of God, I've come to some understanding.
First, many of those espousing that "Liberalism is a Sin" are either conservative or arch-conservative. And for them, including supporting anti-abortion, including being harsh upon the poor and needy - they all view it as "being Godly" or "being godly".
What they don't realize (and what they probably choose to remain ignorant of) is that Leo wrote during the late nineteenth century. People who claim to be as high and lofty as these should consider that what "Liberal" meant one- or two-hundred years ago is not what we mean by "Liberal" today.
In Libertas, Leo is very clear. It is in the same voice that Satan, through Liberalism, tells God "I will not serve". That is not what modern Liberals mean at all by "Liberalism".
Unfortunately those arch-conservative do not recognize Modertism as being a legitiamate way. Perhaps they consider it "Liberal Lite".
But what they fail to realize is that what Leo meant by "Liberal" is not what they mean by "Liberal". So the quote from Leo or whoever is entirely out of context and *wrong*.
take care,
Jay
Division of Iraq
Before Bush-43 invaded Iraq I knew of the potential religious differences there - because I knew that Iran was Shia, Arabia was Sunni, and Iraq was mixed. At the time I related the Sunni Shia split to the Catholic Protestant split (but didn't realize how wrong I was or how different it was). Shortly after the invasion I realized Iraq could split into three parts .
When Ayatollah Sistani was "making peace" I related him to a thirteenth century cardinal. This isn't far from accurate because Islam did most of its growth in the 700's. It's not terribly surprising that the thirty years war, between Catholics and Protestants, occured during the 1300's. Or that the hundred years war (Joan of Arc) occured shortly after.
Now the U.S. is casually threatening to pull out of Iraq. On this I take W almost entirely at his word. He'll start pulling after the 2008 presidential election and not one day before. At the same time, while Iran is back Iraqi Shiites, Arabia has voiced support for Iraqi Sunnis.
And it was shortly after W invaded that I saw Iraq could split into three countries. I likewise said that Basra / East Iraq will be allied with Iran and the Anbar / West Iraq will be allied with Arabia. But that the allian between Anbar and Arabia was more of self-defense rather than out of friendship.
I half-way view the situation as to what happened to Judea and Samaria durings their last centuries - where Egypt was south of Judea and Assyria and Babylon were north and east of Samaria.
The big trouble in Iraq is Baghdad. Baghdad is divided between a Shites and Sunnis. And a person from western Baghdad cannnot go into eastern Baghdad without needing fairly high security.
I've already spoken in favor of breaking Iraq apart. And if, with the downfall of Iraq, if Baghdad falls as well, so be it. I'm neither in favor of the dissolution of Baghdad nor opposed to it. But Baghdad is central to the troubles in Iraq right now. I think and I hope that there will be two cities - East Baghdad and West Baghdad - or whatever names the Arabs choose to give the cities.
take care,
Jay
When Ayatollah Sistani was "making peace" I related him to a thirteenth century cardinal. This isn't far from accurate because Islam did most of its growth in the 700's. It's not terribly surprising that the thirty years war, between Catholics and Protestants, occured during the 1300's. Or that the hundred years war (Joan of Arc) occured shortly after.
Now the U.S. is casually threatening to pull out of Iraq. On this I take W almost entirely at his word. He'll start pulling after the 2008 presidential election and not one day before. At the same time, while Iran is back Iraqi Shiites, Arabia has voiced support for Iraqi Sunnis.
And it was shortly after W invaded that I saw Iraq could split into three countries. I likewise said that Basra / East Iraq will be allied with Iran and the Anbar / West Iraq will be allied with Arabia. But that the allian between Anbar and Arabia was more of self-defense rather than out of friendship.
I half-way view the situation as to what happened to Judea and Samaria durings their last centuries - where Egypt was south of Judea and Assyria and Babylon were north and east of Samaria.
The big trouble in Iraq is Baghdad. Baghdad is divided between a Shites and Sunnis. And a person from western Baghdad cannnot go into eastern Baghdad without needing fairly high security.
I've already spoken in favor of breaking Iraq apart. And if, with the downfall of Iraq, if Baghdad falls as well, so be it. I'm neither in favor of the dissolution of Baghdad nor opposed to it. But Baghdad is central to the troubles in Iraq right now. I think and I hope that there will be two cities - East Baghdad and West Baghdad - or whatever names the Arabs choose to give the cities.
take care,
Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)