Democracy and Justice Under Siege
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-11-21 08:56
Last week, I attended a colloquium in Hungary on “Morality and expediency in politics.” Our group included political scientists, historians and philosophers. Most of them were Eastern Europeans; the majority were Hungarians. One evening, while having dinner in an expensive Budapest restaurant, the Hungarians at our table noticed that one of the former communist leaders of their country had entered the restaurant.
He was a shallow octogenarian who had reserved a table for his entire family. The Hungarians told me that this man was a former printer, who had made his career in the Communist Party (CP), rising to the position of the country’s senior economist, although he did not know anything about economics. The man had ruined the life of many fellow citizens, but after the fall of communism none of the former dictators had been taken to account, and certainly not this fellow, who the media used to describe as one of the CP’s “moderates.” The previous week the man had been on television, declaring that he regretted nothing.
My Hungarian friends discussed how they could take revenge for the suffering this man had inflicted on others. Perhaps, someone suggested, one of us could go to the buffet, fetch a bowl of soup, pass the table of the old communist, pretend to stumble and pour the soup over him. Everyone laughed wryly at the suggestion, but none of the Hungarians was prepared to be the avenging angel. They looked at me, but I, as a non-Hungarian, argued that this affair was none of my business. Besides, I said, as a Catholic I am convinced that the man, if guilty and unrepentant, will burn in hell anyway.
Again, there were wry laughs, but the feeling of injustice and powerlessness hung over our table while my friends told me how, after the fall of the old regime, the former tyrants had gone scot-free, their wealth and power largely intact.
This incident taught me as much about the topic of morality in politics as the previous two days, when we had been discussing texts by Sophocles, Machiavelli and Montaigne. All too often there is no morality in politics. And yet, the absence of it undermines the legitimacy of a political system and makes people revolt.
When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected communism 18 years ago they were inspired by dissidents who told them that people have a right to “live in the truth” and that democracy equaled liberty and justice. Now, 18 years later, democracy is in crisis in Eastern Europe, where people have come to realize that they have not gained truth, freedom or justice. Eastern Europe is going through the same crisis of political disillusionment as Western Europe.
While in Budapest, I read the German-language Budapester Zeitung. Last week it had a front page article about the adoption of a bill against hate speech. This is the same bill that the European Union is imposing on all its member states. It restricts the freedom of the people, who are no longer allowed to say things which might be deemed offensive by “ethnic, sexual, religious or other minorities.” In Western Europe this legislation is not merely used to prosecute genuine racists, but is increasingly abused to clamp down on those who oppose the Islamization of their countries or on those who disapprove of homosexual behavior. I did not see any Muslims in Budapest, nor did I notice any signs of homosexual activism, but the authorities are already putting in place legislation to silence the defenders of Hungary’s national identity and traditional morality.
Last Sunday, Jeffrey Kuhner wrote in The Washington Times that “the communist habit of deceit and double-speak continues to haunt countries once trapped behind the Iron Curtain.” It is worse. These habits also haunt Western Europe. America’s first amendment, which allows people to say what they want, even if it is deemed offensive to others, is simply anathema to Europeans. The great 20th century American journalist H.L. Mencken once said: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” The Europeans failed to stop the oppression at the beginning.
Upon my return home to Brussels, where one in every 10 women in the streets is wearing a religious headscarf, the papers were bringing the news that Redouan Siti, the Moroccan youth who kicked Guido Demoor to death on an Antwerp city bus last year, has been released by the Court of Appeal. According to the judges, the six months that Siti spent in jail are sufficient punishment for the death of Mr. Demoor, a father of two who had interfered when Siti and his friends bullied other passengers.
Tomorrow, Antwerp bus drivers will hold a silent vigil for Mr. Demoor in protest against the release of his killer. They feel as powerless and frustrated as my friends in Hungary. And they, too, have lost their faith in democracy and justice.
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on November 21, 2007 .
@Rzeczpospolita
Submitted by Armor on Tue, 2007-11-27 23:43.
" No to messianic thinking! "
We know that "democracy" is not an Arab/Kurdish tradition. But even though we must not expect them to embrace "democracy", that doesn't mean Bush was wrong to topple Saddam Hussein. We cannot consider that being murdered by Saddam, as happened to so many people, was part of the Iraqi way of life and that the US army is guilty of having interrupted an old tradition.
As for messianic thinking, there was a lot of it in the Roman Empire, in the french revolution, and in the European colonization of Africa... It isn't specifically American.
Yes, I do say
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-11-27 04:21.
@ Rzecz.....
1) No comment.
2) Please define what you mean by "succesfull". I am sure the cat will then come out of the bag. And I certainly do NOT want to give any "excuses" for Polish politicians who want to keep Poland stuck in socialism. I actually like a lot about Von Mises. At the same time, genuine democracy is much more important than free-market economics, because I prefer to be free to being rich, while striving to be both.
3) If you ask me to choose between an autocrat (like Pinochet) and a totalitarian (like Castro) I would go for the autocrat. Because the autocrat usually does not go for total control and, therefore historically has been shown to be subject to change, and thus is rather temporary. Totalitarians go for total control, and their abominable systems usually last for generations (unless the Americans remove them, e.g, Hitler, Saddam, etc...). But, I don't like the choice you offer,and will always prefer genuine democracy (even if 'the other' party wins more elections than mine).
How do you get rid of "socialist bureaucracy"? Well, by teaching people the moral value of self-responsibility and self-reliance. I know it is an uphill struggle. But it beats taking people's sovereignty away (with autocratic kings) and treating them like children, which by the way is not very different from what "socialist bureaucracies" tend to do.
4) I can assure you that I have studied "catholic social teaching" more than you care to know, and that it generally tends to take a 'middle' position in contemporary ideological battles. It stresses both individual duties and 'social values'. The reference that you cite is but 1 opinion and does not equate with "catholic social teaching" as captured by a succession of papal encyclicals. You should also be aware that the same ideological struggles that are going on in secular society are also present within the catholic church's hierarchy. I fear that your "king" might get confused!
5) I just told you before that you are NOT guided by empirical (and historical) observation, but rather by wishful thinking. And now you immediately seem to want to 'prove' that I was right about that, by presenting your very 'French-centric' view of the origins of democracy. How on earth is it possible that modern young Europeans today can think that the French revolution led to "democracy"? Don't they know anything anymore about European history? The French Revolution led to "la terreur" and ended in....Napoleon. Later it was followed by numerous republics, none of which withstood any significant historical test of time. The French change their political systems like they change their maitresses.
But, what is the point of further discussion. You have already clearly said that you are NOT a democrat. In short, you are very dangerous for other people, i.e. for people other than yourself.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Tue, 2007-11-27 22:16.
1. At this point by successful I mean mainly quickly raising economy stimulated by reduced bureaucracy and lack of goverment interventionism. Also rise of the standard of living in Estonia.
The mix of Christianity and free market economy is very important, crucial and democracy cause only troubles. Pinochet crushed Chilean democrats and by free market reforms he made this country the only serious one in South America to this day. The rest are still poor like hell BUT democracies.
2. A problem of many Americans (they unfortunately also infected Europe to some extend) is horrible political messianic thinking. With all due respect like a Marxists wanted to spread communism all over the world, many Americans want to spread their democracy all over the world and universe. This is so leftist, absolutely not conservative policy concentrated on domestic issues. If you invading Muslim countries and want to establish democracy over there you must be really blind. No to messianic thinking!
Another naive statement... Teaching people? Do you control public education? Perhaps this is you who control mass media? Somehow I doubt, this is this damn socialist bureaucracy that control everything.
3. Catholic church never gives detailed solutions. Beside of that state is separated from the church so there is no issue.
4. You deny obvious historical facts, democracy was invented by the left and designed for their purpose of domination of power. To win democratic election a conservative must lower himself to the level represented by leftists. If he doing so he is not a conservative anymore. This is exactly what we may observe in every democratic country. The difference between right and left is very slim because they are all leftists.
I have read somewhere such interesting saying "Every organization (or NGO) which was not planned from the beginning to be rightist will become leftist someday" It is also true about political systems, fits democracy like hell.
Democracy # 5
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2007-11-27 00:12.
@ Rzecz....
1) You have obviously no idea what and who I am. I believe that I am better acquainted with "the values of Latin civilisation" than you (as a Pole harking back to the distant past) will ever be. But I do not care to pursue this particular point any further on a public forum.
2) I do understand that you do not want to discuss the "size" of Liechtenstein, precisely because you are not interested in the degree of 'realism' and viability (in the real world) of the kind of political system that you are pining for. You live on a phantasy planet, not ours.
3) Another question that you are not interested in is: HOW you are going to "force" your "king" to "respect the general line" (whatever that means!), and how are you going to "replace" him (after he controls the levers of power) if he does not come up to your expectations?
4) I am happy to learn that you like Von Mises and the 'Austrian school of Economics'. But, it is clear that you do not realise that a strict interpretation of Ludwig Von Mises is not exactly in line with the current social teachings of the Catholic Church and not in line with 'dominant' contemporary economic thinking within that church. Just another indication why I believe that your knowledge of "the values of Latin civilisation" does not match mine.
5) I am surprised to observe that you do not seem to realise that, historically, it was mainly forces on the political 'right' that promoted 'free thinking' and the separation of church and state. The fact that in recent times it has been mainly leftist forces that have been undermining democracy (and leading to "socialist bureaucracy") is a totally different matter. It is the ruling left (broadly defined) that is today undermining freedom of speech and thus democracy, but you confirm that there are still forces on the 'impotent right' today that want to destroy the values of the European Enlightenment as well. You can be assured that the left will use that as an argument to justify further its destruction of western democray.
My conclusion is that you are guided too much by wishful thinking, and too little by empirical (including historical) observation. But that has become a common 'European' fault in recent decades.
P.S. For your information, I am not a "Protestant" (in your meaning) and I do NOT have a "big problem" with the pope, not the current one, nor any recent one.
1. Well, you don't say
Submitted by Monarchist on Tue, 2007-11-27 01:36.
1. Well, you don't say yourself who you are and for what you stand then I need to guess. For sure you don't understand for what Latin values stand.
2. This is cheap shot, because you cannot proof that in bigger countries such system would be less successful. This remind me all these excuses of Polish politician why Poland must be stuck in socialism and cannot adopt some liberal minded reform basing on successful Estonian experience. Their answer in the same, Estonia is small.
3. By army, nation which share common values will always find its defenders in army. To mention Pinochet or Franco, however I do realize that they crushed democratic socialist agents of Moscow. The army could play similar role is such thing would happen what is unlikely because why king would risk everything by breaking some general values of Latin civilization. Very unlikely.
At this place, I think that you should explain how do you want get rid of this socialist bureaucracy so characteristic to supposed democratic countries?
4. Catholic social teaching don't advocate for goverment interventionism. I don't talk about some biased priests who have some basic lacks in education, especially in South America. If you are really interested in this topic I recommend "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy" Thomas Woods. Beside of that according to the rule of separation of the state and church , monarch could reject detailed objections if appears.
5. Historically democracy was produced by the French revolution and masonry that caused it. Democracy was born on the ground of Vendee on the blood of people, those who stand up to defend Latin civilization. The main goal of revolutionists was also to destroy the church and all traditional values of Latin civilization. Democracy was always the first stage of demands of the left. They needed this only to fully obtain the power using of course populist slogans to fool politically illiterate masses and run delusional project of totalitarian socialism based on bureaucracy. The utopian idea of democracy (never realized) is just a Troian horse for all kind of naive conservatives or libertarians. They stand to democratic fight with extremely populist liars from the left and they have no chance to succeed. To win elections they need to be like the left and this is exactly what all these Christian Democratic parties around Europe represent, pathetic, useless , no willing to defend Latin civilization, buying more and more ideas pushed by the left. American neocons are not better at all, a complete disaster. Honest people like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan have nothing to search among Republican party.
the values of the European Enlightenment
Democracy # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-11-26 16:54.
@ Rzecz...
Oh, I think I understand your point pretty well. You want some kind of secular 'pope', a "king" who would do the difficult job of governing the people by listening to and executing the 'orders' of the real (religious) pope.
I do not want to belittle the gravity and seriousness of an issue like abortion, nor do I want to deny the moral duty of 'the church', any church, to try to inculcate people with 'values'. But, you live on a phantasy planet, and you seem to be devoid of historical knowledge about what civic life was really like before the European Enlightenment. In other words, you want to force 'your' (i.e. the pope's) morality down people's throats, via an earthly "king", and think that that would be 'good'. In short, you do not grasp that morality by its very nature must be voluntary. If the church could impose its morality on the people (via your 'king') that would NOT make the people good or moral. It would merely make them 'slaves', like in islamic theocracies. And, if the church cannot convince the people to voluntarily - i.e. through their selfchosen elected representatives - to do the 'right' thing (i.e. morally 'correct' legislation), then the people would NOT be moral either. In short, sir, as you said yourself, you are not a democrat, which means that you do not believe in the moral imperative of respecting human freedom.
Now, to return to our earthly planet, your example of Liechtenstein illustrates that (besides your historical phantasy about what pre-Enlightenment Europe was like) that you do not understand human nature. A country like Liechtenstein is an 'oddity', an abnormal phenomenon, a phenomenon that would not have a chance of surviving over time, UNLESS there were strong external powers that would (for whatever convenient reasons) want it to remain an oddity. In practice for such an oddity to survive you would need the presence of strong real democratic countries in the neighborhood, or at least it would need an external strong (dictatorial) 'protector'. I can only hope, that even you will realise that Liechtenstein's 'independence' meant abolutely 'nothing' when Hitler (another 'king', but a king who did not listen to the pope) was in power in Germany.
Why are you so sure that kings, and even less their sons, once in power, will keep listening to the pope? Remember Henry the 8th for instance? No, what we need is genuine democracy. And in order to have genuine democracy we need a democratic culture, which means people who stick to their basic constitutional rules, and who keep faith with their values.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2007-11-26 18:18.
I think that you are simply some progressive Protestant that has a big problem with the Pope, thus you hardly try to not catch my point. What orders from the Pope?? As a American you don't understand that values of Latin civilization cannot be changed by Pope! And the religion is separated from the church! This is not democracy when black can become white, a Jew become animal or homosexual become parents some day because somebody voted so.
Also we don't discuss size of Liechtenstein but a political system. If people would organize strong monarchist parties all over Europe nobody could ignore them and some day they would succeed one after another. This pathetic democracy, the great success of the left (socialist bureaucracy) also was not established quickly.
What is more I have no intention to bring back feudalism of the old times. Once again you don't read carefully what I write here. Feudalism is economically backward thus should be replaced by Austrian school of economics of Ludwig von Mises. This is completely different system so about what idealization you are writing about?
Democracy # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-11-26 00:17.
@ Rzecz....
If I understand you correctly, you want a political system and government that is 'run' by the Catholic Church, which in the end means run by one man, the Pope. That is, to put it bluntly, very 'UnAmerican, and would also be - in any modern western culture - a recipe for endless strife and regime crises. That is exactly what the European 'Enlightenment' fought against (including within the Catholic Church).
No, according to the American ethos, 'sovereignty' resides in the people (not in some ruler, be it a king, pope, kaiser, sultan, politbureau, or whatever). This means, among other things, that 'rights' and 'duties' are established by the people, and that powers are granted by the 'sovereign' people to their rulers (government) and can be taken back by the same people from their rulers (through constitutional amendments). As an aside, the American founders stressed that the people's 'inalienable' rights really come from 'God', and not from their rulers, so as to emphasize that it is the people who should ultimately 'control' the rulers, and not vice versa. In Europe one gets the impression that is indeed 'vice versa', which may be in part a reflection of God being 'dead' there (to quote Nietsche).
The purpose of a constitution, then, is to DESCRIBE how (public) power is organized in society, i.e. how government should function (with separation of the 3 powers etc...) and to LIST certain fundamental INDIVIDUAL rights to protect the individual from 'government'. It is impossible for a constitution to list all possible human goals, problems and dilemmas, be they moral or otherwise. No, but the constitution should describe HOW the public authorities should go about dealing with them, i.e. it sets out procedures to be followed and respective powers.
So, it is unrealistic for you to expect that a constitution could "guarantee" anything (including the protection of "innocents"). You cannot make a (constitutional) 'democracy' with nondemocrats. If people are dishonest, do not care about what government does, or whether the 'rules' are being followed or not, etc...then they will not be followed, and the people will lose their 'democracy'. So, it is NOT the constitution (a piece of paper) that effectively can "guarantee" anything. Rather, it is only living people (and especially powerful people in government) who can do that by sticking to the rules and their roles outlined in the constitution.
I repeat, if the American people wanted abortion fully outlawed, they could (fairly easily) do so via constitutional means. If they have not done so, it is because not enough of them are convinced of the necessity or the desirability to do so. So if you want to put blame somewhere, it properly should be placed on the people and not on the constitution.
P.S. If you truly want to live in a theocray, perhaps you should consider moving to Teheran? But, over there, do not expect any 'constitution' to protect you from 'arbitrary' power. In the USA the constitution in a way protects you from arbitrary power, but it can not guarantee that all your fellow citizens will agree with you on every single issue.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2007-11-26 09:12.
Sorry but you did not understand my point at all. If I precisely mentioned the Duty of Liechtenstein as the example of the country that went slightly in this direction then I don't understand how you can raise the issue of theocracy. Do you claim that Liechtenstein is theocratic?
On general Latin values
Submitted by Jari on Mon, 2007-11-26 14:04.
The asserted separation of catholic church and state, as a means for the church to prevent involvement with 'worldly affairs', needs to be taken with a certain alertness.
First of all, ethics and morality are considered by the church as an indirect means to contribute to 'the world of God'. And although ethics and morality belong to the worldly affairs 'they have their foundations in the very essence of man and therefore in the final analysis, can be traced back to the Creator'.
In other words: the church finds enough reason to interfere with just about anything worldly, such as abortion.
Secondly, the state does not equal politics. Politics facilitate the diverse range of public (also religious) opinions with regard to the functioning of the state. The formalization of these opinions by legislation is another.
Jari:
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2007-11-26 20:22.
Re your comment:
"And although ethics and morality belong to the worldly affairs 'they have their foundations in the very essence of man and therefore in the final analysis, can be traced back to the Creator'.
In other words: the church finds enough reason to interfere with just about anything worldly, such as abortion."
is quite false. Believe it or not, there are "worldly" issues that do not concern the Church, such as government regulation of organic food production, or whether or not the eggs of American bald eagles should be protected as an endangered species, etc...
The Church, like many other religious institutions, has a right to express its doctrines regarding faith and morals which do interphase with "worldly" affairs, whether you like it or not. To limit or destroy that right is in violation of the First Amendment. Secularists and nihilists are working feverishly to circumvent that right in the US as it has already been done in Europe.
Secondly, by removing the foundation of our laws (see the Ten Commandments), you destroy the basis of fundamental human rights. The Church seeks to preserve those rights - even for the unborn.
Hunt for secular extremist...aborted?
Submitted by Jari on Tue, 2007-11-27 09:20.
Atheling, if the influence of the church on ethics and morality is motivated because of their foundations in the very essence of man (and therefore can be traced back to the Creator),
the church has even motivated influence on many non - ethical and non - moral aspects that contribute to the very essence of man.
You are of course free to wonder why the church has chosen not to interfere with the eggs of bold eagles: I was after the reasoning behind the influence of the church, whatever their actual influence may be.
Personally I do not see any reason why the influence of the church should be limited as long as people are not forced to live by it's doctrine, whether catholic or protestant. I guess the word 'abortion' made you believe otherwise.
@Jari
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2007-11-27 17:04.
I don't see any point in debating this with you because you make these general statements and give no support for them.
Secondly, your illogical statement at the end... in which you presume that I want to FORCE people to believe in church doctrine is ridiculous.
Go back to school and learn some logic and rhetorical analysis, please.
Atheling, you commented:
Submitted by Jari on Thu, 2007-11-29 14:52.
'The Church, like many other religious institutions, has a right to express its doctrines regarding faith and morals which do inter-phase with "worldly" affairs, whether you like it or not.'
What made me believe that you think I am not supporting that right. My statement at the end tried to refute your assumption, which you in turn took as personal attack. Again: I did not intend to.
If you hold the opinion that my deductive reasoning in this particular case fails, I am all ears.
In other words: the church
Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2007-11-26 14:49.
In other words: the church finds enough reason to interfere with just about anything worldly, such as abortion.
1. I don't need a ruler to
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-11-25 11:15.
1. I don't need a ruler to take care of me but to protect some crucial values based on the teaching of the Catholic Church. (which doesn't deeply interfere to many aspects of life like Judaism or Islam) This is democracy the system which pathologically taking care of all of us, where all roads come to Rome (socialist bureaucracy). This model of monarchy gives more freedom to people than any bureaucracy. The duty of Liechtenstein went slightly in this direction with very good effect.
Wade abolished virtually all abortion restrictions previously imposed
at the state level in states across the country. That decision marked
the beginning of an ongoing national debate on a woman's right to
choose to have an abortion. Some Americans think that abortion should
be permitted at some stages of fetal development and in certain
circumstances, while others strongly oppose abortion under any
circumstances. Americans enjoy certain fundamental liberties which are
protected by the US Constitution. The right to abortion is not one of
these freedoms. The Bill of Rights balances individual rights and
majority rule by allowing the majority to pass legislation through its
elected representatives. The decision in Roe v. Wade is an example of
such legislation passed by pro-choice Supreme Court judges. As such,
the author stresses that a conservative Supreme Court could one day
enact legislation denying women in the US the right to abortion on
demand. It is clear that many states will pass legislation regulating
abortion if the Roe v. Wade decision is ever overturned. Pro-choice
supporters therefore want US President Bill Clinton to select
pro-choice judges for the Supreme Court.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12346849&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
@Rzeczpospolita:
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2007-11-25 20:06.
"So in the end US constitution failed even to protect the life of innocent. Democracy allow such subjects to be voted, that is why is useless."
It was not the Constitution which failed to protect the life of the innocent; it was the Supreme Court's failure to properly deliberate the matter. Blackmun's opinion is based on right to privacy issues when it should have been on right to life, which surely supercedes the former.
In his opinion he sought only pagan sources: practices of pre-Christian Greek, Roman and Persian societies and patently ignored Judeo-Christian ones. Blackmun also fixated on the "quickening" stage of human gestation based on archaic science, i.e. Aristotle.
Roe v. Wade is the perfect example of Supreme Court tyranny. Activist judges have no business creating laws. Hence the need for strict constitutionalists appointed to the Court.
Secondly, the Catholic Church in the USA has done a DISMAL job in catechesis. There are too many liberal priests and bishops who dither and equivocate about the abortion issue for fear of being politically incorrect. If every American Catholic voted pro life ABORTION WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN AMERICA. Unfortunately, they prefer to vote for largesse to the already born rather than to the unborn.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-11-25 20:47.
All in all life of the innocent is not protected. Supreme Court (or Constitutional Tribunals in other countries) are part of the democratic system. Anyway US constitution is way superior to these in European countries that I heard about. While the new project of the EU constitution could be replaced by Communist Manifesto and politically illiterate crowd would not even notice. Indeed, difference isn't that big. Such subject shouldn't be voted, ever.
@Rzeczpospolita: For Your Edification
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2007-11-26 03:35.
Pope Benedict XVI described the separation of the Church and state as "great progress for humanity." At the same time, the Pope clarified that when the Church expounds moral principles publicly, it is not violating laicism; rather, it offers its contribution to the common good within its own realm of action. The Holy Father explained this in his address to the general assembly of the Italian bishops' conference, which has been in session since May 15. The Church is aware of the fundamental "distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, in other words, the distinction between Church and state, or the autonomy of the temporal sphere," the Pontiff said. "The Church not only recognizes and respects this distinction and autonomy, but welcomes it, considering it great progress for humanity and a fundamental condition for her very freedom and for the fulfillment of its universal mission of salvation among all peoples," Benedict XVI continued. "At the same time and precisely by virtue of its mission of salvation," he added, "the Church cannot rescind its task of purifying reason by the proposal of its own social doctrine based upon 'what is in accord with the nature of every human being,' and reawakening moral and spiritual forces by opening people's will to the authentic needs of what is good."
Moreover, the Pontiff explained that "without doubt, a healthy laicism of the state ensures that temporal matters are dealt with according to their own norms; to this, however, are associated ethical concerns that have their foundations in the very essence of man and that therefore, in the final analysis, can be traced back to the Creator." "In current circumstances, by recalling the value for public and private life of certain ethical principles rooted in the great Christian heritage of Europe, and in particular of Italy, we commit no violation of the laicism of the state," the Holy Father said. "Rather, we contribute to guaranteeing and promoting the dignity of the person and the common good of society." The Pope took leave of the Italian bishops, inviting them, to offer "a clear testimony to all our brothers and sisters in humanity. By doing so we do not burden them with useless weight, but help them to progress along the road of life and of true freedom."
Also, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote of the separation of Church and State:
I speak in favor of the separation of church and state, and therefore against the resolution that religion and politics should always be kept separate. Permit me to explain. To enforce the exclusion of religion from politics, or from public life more generally, violates the First Amendment guarantee of the “free exercise of religion.” The free exercise of religion is the reason for the separation of church and state—a principle that aims not at protecting the state from religion but at protecting religion from the state...
You can continue to read the article here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=901
Democracy # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2007-11-25 04:39.
@ Rzec......
1) At least you are honest enough to admit openly that you do not like democracy and prefer some kind of autocracy. Presumably you will prefer that until the authocrat comes after you and there is no democratic polity to protect you from 'monarchical' (or any other) abuse. We are back to the 'old European' preference for monarchs and ruling 'elites', similar to what 'Conservative Swede' advocated here not so long ago. Remarkable. It is as if the European Enlightenment did not happen, and all this based on some phantasy about what pre-Enlightenment (monarchical and aristocratic) Europe looked like. This idea that the problem is not our 'culture' which needs changing, but that we need a strong 'ruler' to take care of us, is utterly foolish. In short, I see it as a failure of comtemporary history teaching in public school systems.
2) The US constitution does NOT "allow unborn children to be killed". Where do you get such a silly idea? The US constitution has nothing to do with abortion. It does not say anything about abortion, neither pro nor against. If abortions take place today in the USA it is because parliament (Congress) has not seen fit to pass a specific law banning abortions (following a particular Supreme Court decision from several decades ago). If the American people wanted a total ban on abortion they could fairly easily do so via democratic means, i.e. a variety of elections. The issue of abortion figures prominently and constantly both in contemporary legal and political battles. The recent legislative trend is that abortion is increasingly being 'restricted'. If the American people in overwhelming numbers wanted to ban abortion totally, they could even take it out of the realm of 'regular' legislation and pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. However, not enough Americans are in favor of that, at least not at this point. Among American 'conservatives' there are 3 different main groups on this issue: (a) those who want to pass a constitutional amendement banning it, (b) those who want to take the issue away from the federal level and pass it to the 50 states (where different state legislatures will presumably take different positions 'regulating' or prohibiting it), and (c) most libertarians who claim that this is not an issue for 'government'.
3) I agree with you that today many of the "so-called liberal democracies are not really democratic" and resemble more "socialist bureaucracies". But, that is an odd charge coming from someone (like you) who states up front of not being a "democrat" either. Moreover, my reasons for declaring these countries "not really democratic" are probably very different than yours. In my opinion, freedom of political speech is the bedrock of 'genuine democracy', i.e. government OF the people, BY the people and for the people" . All the rest is secondary.
P.S. You could benefit from reading Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. Those ideas are worth fighting for, and perhaps dying for, not some monarch and his dressed-up sycophants. People who need a monarch are like children who cannot make it without Daddy and Mommy in adulthood. Actually, an unconstitutional monarch is very much like a 'Politbureau'. I naively thought that you Poles had had enough of that.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-11-25 00:31.
I'm mature enough to know that basically every constitution is democratically approved and can be over-voted and misinterpreted in all possible ways everyday. How does happened that US constitution allow to kill unborn children? Soon we will have another heresy called EU constitution (alternatively The Reform Treaty). All these so called liberal democracies are not really democratic, this is always the rule of socialist bureaucracy. This is not a theory, this is what we do witness all over the world. Democracy is evil by its nature and stupid by construction. This is why I propose below mentioned model of monarchy. The role of university professors would be to advice to Catholic monarch not to rule.
Democracy
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2007-11-24 23:39.
@ Rzeczposolita
It would seem that you are still very 'new' to "democracy", at least to constitutional democracy, where the (alternating) rulers have to follow the rules that are laid out in the Constitution and also 'respect' certain individual rights stated in the constitution. Subject to those rules being followed, all the rest gets settled via elections and 'regular' (as opposed to Constitutional) law.
Your veneration for "university professors" also seems odd in Western eyes. After all, these professors do not have a good historical record. Indeed, quite a number of them turned out to have been advisors, or at least 'sympathisers', to some of the worst regimes in recent history ( I am thinking Pol Pot, Saddam, Castro, etc...). We could start with J-P Sartre (why not?).... but the list gets rather long.
It is a basic tenet of 'American' conservatism - based on a statement from William F. Buckley, half a century ago - that it is preferable to be governed by the first 50 names in the Boston telephone book, than by the (social science) faculty of Harvard and MIT. Admittedly, he assumed that those first 50 names were not all "drunkards", and I am sure he did not want to limit this to the Boston telephone book. I trust that his theory holds just as well for any Polish telephone book. You Poles beter take Buckley's advice to heart!
Paul Bielen, welcome in
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2007-11-24 23:08.
Paul Bielen, welcome in post-communist reality of Eastern-Central Europe. Former communists which switched Moscow to Brussels are OK because of that.
The West since the Fall
Submitted by Taurus689 on Fri, 2007-11-23 19:43.
There was a lot of celebrating and rejoicing at the quick dissolution and the almost overnight fall (in historical terms) of the USSR. Unfortunately too many loose ends were not tied off before the collapse; those ends being various Central Asian Islamic republics who found themselves independent and holding on to arsenals of nuclear warheads with their delivery systems.
Both the US and Western Europe and the Soviet Union had their spheres of influence and we tweaked each others' spheres occasionally but the reality of Mutually Assured Destruction kept each side exercising prudence with their deadly arsenals.
The Soviets may have been dedicated to their cause but were not anxious to die for it. Maybe the atheistic Communist doctrine with its denial of an after life tempered their judgement.
Consider our present enemy who is argueably the most fearsome one we've faced since the Third Reich. Driven by religious zealotry, there is nothing that they fear and no lengths to which they will not go in order to do Allah's work. They build up credit points based on how many of the Infidel that they destroy for the glory of God.
Recalling the song by Sting, "The Russians love their children too", the sentiments ring more true today than they did back in the 80s. When I hear Muslim mothers expressing their pride over the death of their pre-teen sons who blew themseves up in an Israeli market or restaurant killing scores of innocents and then following up by declaring the hope that other sons will answer the same calling, I am even more convinced that no negotiation is possible nor even advisable with these people and that maybe we should look back with fondness at the halcyon days of the Cold War.
@Armor
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 19:41.
Bravo,Armor.I genuinely enjoyed and appreciated that last post.Especially your use of my full pseudonym for a change.Call it a character defect on my part but I like you.A Sphinx who only links,eh.(You might also have added dodgy syntax and deplorable punctuation to boot) Oh,Armor,if you only knew...
@ Armor
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 19:08.
There you go again putting words in my mouth...Wrong conclusion,try again.
@Atlanticist911
Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-11-23 19:18.
You are like the Sphinx.
He spoke only in riddles.
You speak only in links.
@Armor
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 18:06.
Marcfrans' creatures? Your paranoia is only equalled by your vivid imagination.Armor,take the test,then get back to me.
http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/
Atlantistic theories about DNA
Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-11-23 18:29.
The link provided by Atlantist :
- DNA Ancestry Project -
- Trace Your Ancestry with DNA -
Presumably, what you are trying to say is that immigration doesn't matter because DNA analysis shows that all people share the same ancestors and are consequently the same.
But in the real world, we can observe that not all people look or behave the same.
So, we are not completely interchangeable.
@Armor
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 17:04.
I just think it might be interesting if Jari put the same line of question to you then see where it takes us.It might prove to be an interesting ride for all parties concerned.Do you have a problem with that?
@Euroskeptic Atlantist
Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-11-23 17:47.
"I just think it might be interesting if Jari put the same line of question to you then see where it takes us.It might prove to be an interesting ride for all parties concerned.Do you have a problem with that?"
I'm not interested in your ride. I have never mentioned "racial superiority, based upon intelligence", to use your words. I was mainly interested in hearing Marcfrans explain how low intelligence can not have an impact on culture and society. Marcfrans believes that, in his secret laboratory, he can magically transplant a European identity (together with its history, I suppose) into any third-world body. He says it is morally wrong and racist to say that an African who has been transplanted with a "European culture" (found where?) into his brain is any less European than members of my family. I think he talks rubbish. My own opinion is that we have a right to exist as Europeans, whether we are dumber or brighter than other peoples. I don't care whether my family or my people are superior to other people. I am against their replacement by Marfrans' creatures.
Narrow window for democracy and justice under siege
Submitted by Miriam on Fri, 2007-11-23 15:33.
Mr Belien, Chill winds of islamic extremism is sweeping the whole world..the draft is particularly felt in the Indian sub-continent which I visited for the last several weeks... pakki fascists are exporting anarchy across both the western and eastern borders....their islamic cousins left dumped on Indians back in 1947 are indulging in serial blasts - three serial blasts occurred today in the north..
Now is the time to embrace the non-muslim Indians and take their help and expertise in controlling islamic violent extremism. OUR HELPING HAND MIGHT HELP THWART SPREAD OF ISLAMOFASCISM SWEEPING THE WHOLE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
BOYCOTT ANYTHING ISLAMIC BY AVOIDING THEIR BUSINESS INCLUDING GIVING OF YOUR TOURIST DOLLARS/EUROS TO DUBAI, MALAYSIA [WHICH ALONG WITH THE PAKKIS DEMONIZES JEWS ALL THE TIME]..ETC!
STOP FUNDING ISLAMIC HATE!! THEY ARE RICH ANYWAY WITH PETRO-DOLLARS - OUR MONEY !!! YES, USE RENEWABLE ENERGY TO END FILLING OF ARAB POCKETS...MINIMIZING GLOBAL WARMING!
re: The European media's attitude toward communists
Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-11-23 14:51.
Rob the Ugly : "It seems, though, that so many journalists in Western Europe supported the Soviets that they're unable to be honest about what actually happened and about themselves."
In the past, western European journalists used to support the Soviets against the USA. Since the fall of the Soviet Bloc, they have become hostile to Eastern European countries who would like to protect their ethnic identities. I think the French media now like the USA better than Eastern Europe.
Now, for example, the great ambition of the EU is to promote the gay lifestyle in Poland and the Baltic states, with support from the West European media.
--
@Atlantist:
" a short electronic missive to someone like Armor or surRealCanadian might be worth a shot. "
What do you mean?
@ Jari
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-11-23 13:49.
To be fair, I don't believe the theory of racial superiority, based upon intelligence,is a modern American innovation.Perhaps a short electronic missive to someone like Armor or surRealCanadian might be worth a shot.
Seeing that Patrick
Submitted by Aisling on Fri, 2007-11-23 09:40.
Seeing that Patrick Janssens has been in the mood for apologies recently, Guido De Moor's family and the Antwerp bus drivers should demand that he apologise to them too, for encouraging "new Belgians" like Siti to come in en masse, simply in order to act as electoral cannon fodder for the Flemish Socialist party.
Europe is doomed.
Submitted by darrinh on Fri, 2007-11-23 06:29.
Hundreds of German frontier policemen staged an extraordinary protest march yesterday against the opening up of European Union borders.
The noisy rally in the east German border town of Frankfurt an der Oder, which is within hailing distance of Poland, exposed some of the tensions in Europe before December 21 when many of the new entrants to the EU join the Schengen free travel area.
Countries joinging the agreement include the Baltic republics, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia, meaning that passport checks will be abolished along much of what used to be the Iron Curtain that divided communism from the West.
That should be an epochal event, but the price of uncontrolled travel from the Ukranian border to Calais is the tightening of the eastern EU frontiers, in case new waves of immigrants move westwards. And that is already causing friction across the continent.
“These countries are not yet capable of defending the EU borders,” Knut Paul, chairman of the federal police trade union, said. “We are exposing ourselves to the threat of being swamped by criminals and illegal immigrants.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2925903.ece
see also: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-22-voa18.cfm
A recent European Commission report says limits on free speech are undermining Turkey's chances of becoming a full member of the European Union. The report says that Turkey also needs to reform its judiciary, fight corruption and strip the military of its political powers. EU officials say that if Turkey does more to meet Europe's standards then it can expect to gain full membership, despite some European leaders who favor more limited ties for Turkey. Nina-Maria Potts has more for VOA.
@ amsterdamsky
Submitted by USAntigoon on Fri, 2007-11-23 02:15.
Excuse me... the death of Detroit has NOTHING to do with what happened in Antwerpen..
I have to assume you know something about Detroit's history.. But you don't know diddly swat about Antwerpen and its history..
Antwerpen got invaded by another "culture" ... Detroit just wanted to be itself...
Detroit vs. Antwerp
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Fri, 2007-11-23 11:54.
Detroit was invaded by poor blacks from the south. Crime increased geometrically. As soon as they got to about 30% of the population they rioted and drove all the whites out. The comparison is accurate. You are correct that I don't know Antwerp but I suspect what is happening is very close to what is happening here in Amsterdam.
@ Jari
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-11-22 22:04.
Taking your question at face value,I'd have to say that I would agree with that statement.Now,what's your follow up question/sting in the tail,if any?
the flaw in racism is it' s generalization
Submitted by Jari on Fri, 2007-11-23 13:20.
Thanks Atlanticist. Because if you agree, it may have become clear that 'racism' in Europe, can be taken only as a secundary aspect to the primary criterium of 'duration'.
White racists in America on the other hand, are more likely to defend their idea's by using arguments they consider universally (!) valid, such as intelligence.
Europe is doomed
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Thu, 2007-11-22 14:19.
"Redouan Siti, the Moroccan youth who kicked Guido Demoor to death on an Antwerp city bus last year, has been released by the Court of Appeal. According to the judges, the six months that Siti spent in jail are sufficient punishment for the death of Mr. Demoor, a father of two who had interfered when Siti and his friends bullied other passengers."
This is the insanity that led to the death of great US cities like Detroit. It is a damn shame to see it happening here. Soon all the taxpaying white citizens (i.e. targets) will be gone.
Doomed .. to be lucky !
Submitted by Jari on Thu, 2007-11-22 21:47.
Atlanticist, do you agree with the following statement: a person obtains certain rights, according to the amount of years that he or she (and it's ancesters) dwelt on that particular stretch of land.
In Europe we just happen to be in the situation that at one very short glance, it is clear who most likely, has the most of these. In the US though the situation for 'whites' is somewhat different
Very constructive talk, Amsterdamsky!
Hmm now i come to think of it. Was this certain third, euh, thingy of this certain infamous Austrian not already achieved by .. well, who's language are we talking ?
Freedom of speech
Submitted by BollekeBoy on Wed, 2007-11-21 18:28.
Freedom of speech is under attack in America. Universities have speech codes which they attempt to enforce on campus. Somewhere, somebody should file a lawsuit against these university speech codes on the grounds that they are unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment. When I was a university student, I can remember a female student who defended these speech codes under the logic that she had 'the right not to be offended', and that inoffensive speech was protected. I told her that 'the right no to be offended' was not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution, and that inoffensive speech does not need to be protected. The scary thing is that her line of thinking is shared by people in power in the EU.
In Reply to Paul Belien
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2007-11-21 17:50.
Paul Belien: While in Budapest, I read the German-language Budapester Zeitung. Last week it had a front page article about the adoption of a bill against hate speech. This is the same bill that the European Union is imposing on all its member states. It restricts the freedom of the people, who are no longer allowed to say things which might be deemed offensive by “ethnic, sexual, religious or other minorities.” In Western Europe this legislation is not merely used to prosecute genuine racists, but is increasingly abused to clamp down on those who oppose the Islamization of their countries or on those who disapprove of homosexual behavior. I did not see any Muslims in Budapest, nor did I notice any signs of homosexual activism, but the authorities are already putting in place legislation to silence the defenders of Hungary’s national identity and traditional morality.
Although I share Mr. Belien's concerns, I would caution that the problem lies more with the EU accession process rather than the Hungarian legislature. Those East-Central European states that have recently joined the EU were forced to implement a large amount of EU 'common law' before full admission, and due to their economic problems, did not have the ability to negotiate in this area, unlike the UK, France or Germany.
Paul Belien: Upon my return home to Brussels, where one in every 10 women in the streets is wearing a religious headscarf, the papers were bringing the news that Redouan Siti, the Moroccan youth who kicked Guido Demoor to death on an Antwerp city bus last year, has been released by the Court of Appeal. According to the judges, the six months that Siti spent in jail are sufficient punishment for the death of Mr. Demoor, a father of two who had interfered when Siti and his friends bullied other passengers. Tomorrow, Antwerp bus drivers will hold a silent vigil for Mr. Demoor in protest against the release of his killer. They feel as powerless and frustrated as my friends in Hungary. And they, too, have lost their faith in democracy and justice.
I empathise with the Demoor family and all those protesting Siti's release from prison. Unfortunately, your "friends in Hungary" need to learn that short of major revolutionary violence, they will not be able to bring to justice even a majority of former communist party members, bureaucrats, officials, soldiers, officers, police, etc. It is the same in every post-communist state. Even the West German government was completely infiltrated by former national socialists, and the British aristocracy clung to power long after the end of the feudal era.
why they rejected communism
Submitted by dimitrik on Wed, 2007-11-21 16:39.
People of Eastern Europe rejected communism for several reasons:
1. Most of them hated Russians, some since WW2 when they were Garmany's allies
2. All of them wanted to get better goods from the West
3. Many were missing homosexual rights, prostitution, feminism or did not want to serve in the army.
4. Few may have wanted independence and religious freedom, which they did not get anyway
@ Rob
Submitted by Mark Bogaers on Wed, 2007-11-21 13:45.
Couldn't agree more. It is a fact that many Europeans never fully appreciated the meaning of national socialism; they have always seen it as a right-wing movement, while it was in fact just another brand of socialism (as its name clearly indicates). Had they read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, they would have understood why and how it emerged in Germany. In addition, Western Europeans noticed the fierce communist underground resistance against the Nazi occupation in their countries, which they understandably endorsed, and which led them to vote for communist parties in huge numbers after the war.
Both nazism and marxism have, in Europe's public opinion, never been accorded the appreciation they deserved based on their quite similar rejection of individual liberties. While both are in truth merely two sides of the same coin, the former was deemed evil on the grounds of being "racist", and the latter was deemed "social". As a result, entire post-WWII generations came to embrace Marx as the new messiah, with some even openly propagating Maoist collectivism in our newspapers and magazines; you wouldn't believe what's been written in the Dutch so-called "China debate" during the 1970s...
This lack of historical understanding now leads to the rejection of what is perceived to be a rise of racism similar to that in the 1930s in Germany. So while unfairly equating today's intellectual battle against the Islamization of Europe with their faulty perception of what is the essence of nazism, the proposed solution to this "fascist Islamophobia" is a further infringement on our freedom. In other words, by unfairly deeming those who oppose multiculturalism and favor liberty totalitarians, our liberal elites attempt to impose upon us the first steps toward totalitarianism themselves. In the process, they open our borders for immigrants with an outright racist and totalitarian worldview. Surely totalitarianism plus more totalitarianism leads to increasing freedom, they must argue.
Yet no one seems to grasp the foolishness of this contradictory line of argument. It is truly amazing to see how little we have learned from history.
The European media's attitude toward communists is odd
Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Wed, 2007-11-21 10:44.
It seems to take the approach that communists were well-meaning fools or something, not the fact that they enslaved dozens of countries. Just look at the fact that the US poured billions into Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, while the Soviets stole billions from Eastern Europe. You'd think that communists, who killed far more of their own citizens than even the Nazis, would be reviled. It seems, though, that so many journalists in Western Europe supported the Soviets that they're unable to be honest about what actually happened and about themselves. Even to this day, left-wing publications like the Guardian still publish pieces by ex-KGB agents, and decline to mention the fact that the 'journalist' once was employed by the KGB. It seems really shameless from this side of the Atlantic.