So you thought I forgot about religion – no way, everything is really about religion these days so you cannot escape it.
Couple of interesting, lengthy articles in our local paper as well as the New York Times, may indicate a certain trend in the Christian camp, specifically in the so called “evangelical” camp, if there is such a camp.
One was titled “Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock”. That was about the Rev. Gregory Boyd, a charismatic preacher from Minnesota with a huge flock.
His point is that in recent times, conservative Christianity has been tied to Bush and the Republican Party and to American Nationalism – and that is not proper and maybe down right wrong.
He laments the fact that every time you say evangelical Christian, people right away say aha the crazy religious Right. All they care about is bashing gays, reversing Roe vs. Wade, throwing out activist judges and above all supporting THE WAR because that’s what JESUS would do.
He thinks that people have turned politics and patriotism into IDOLATRY.
He is scared America is becoming a THEOCRACY – read Taliban.
Many of his congregants asked “why can’t we be the power, after all Jesus is behind us” – typical theocratic thinking – we are right and therefore we deserve to make the laws. Do you see any danger in this type of thinking?
Rev. Boyd’s message is that all people are inherently good and lead good lives, not only Christians. So if Christians want to reach out to others, they can do it without a gun in their hands.
The other guy is the Rev. Rob Bell that has 11,000 as his congregation in Grandville, Michigan. His message is to get back to Jesus and what he was all about. He says “What got Jesus angry were poverty, institutional racism and religious people who were indifferent to suffering people”. What got Jesus even angrier were “religious people going around proclaiming who was in and who was out of God’s kingdom” – remind you of anyone?
I am heartened by this trend. Jesus has been kidnapped by certain Christians and used and abused for their purposes which had nothing to do with Him and His message. It is always the same no matter what century you live in; people use religion to control other people. America was founded as a country that would NOT allow that behavior.
But unless ministers like the ones I mentioned above, start standing up for their faith and religion, the country will become another theocracy of well meaning but crazy Taliban type people who feel God is only on their side.
Janusz
Saturday, August 05, 2006
SO IT'S CIVIL WAR AFTER ALL
I have predicted a civil war in Iraq a long time ago. All signs pointed to one as inevitable.
President Bush thought he could make a nice democracy out of the country and everyone would live happily ever after and the rest of the Middle East countries would be so impressed that they too would want to be democratic. That is the thinking of a dumb three year old.
No use crying over spilt milk, lets get to the task at hand.
To stop the killing before no one is left alive in Iraq, we need to split the country into three parts; Kurdistan, Sunni and Shiite-stan. The three groups should never have been grouped in the first place. The British just decided to form a country without first doing their homework.
The only thing that needs to be done after splitting them up is to guarantee that the oil revenues are split evenly according to the population. In this way, the whole question of who gets the oil is removed from the table. The United Nations would have to oversee this but now that we know some members of the UN are crooks, maybe a different third party organization would be better.
Split into three, the groups can begin to form a permanent country without slaughtering each other.
So you think they are barbarians for butchering each other's neighbors in this fashion? How about the Serbs. How about the Christians in Northern Ireland. How about the Tutsis in Africa. Are we really that inhumane to each other? Are we really just animals? You tell me - it sure looks like that to me.
Janusz
MEL GIBSON DEFENDED!
I was waiting for the furor to die down over Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade during his DUI arrest because I knew his defenders and like thinkers would soon emerge.To be perfectly clear, I realize that often, anyone criticizing Israel is called an anti-Semite, just like anyone criticizing African-Americans is called a racist. It is a convenient tool used by some to silence their critics. Many critics will withhold their criticism in fear of being labeled an anti-Semite or a racist. It is up to us to differentiate between the two.
For example, you can be totally against Israel's actions in the current Lebanon crisis without being an anti-Semite. But Mel Gibson's tirade and his history, label him a plain ole bigot.
To be specific, no one called Mel an anti-Semite; he issued a number of apologies on his own saying that he is NOT an anti-Semite. He did not defend what he said as anti-Israel criticism, he just said that the devil rum made his say those things that he said were anti-Semitic. The more he apologized, the more it became clear that he was apologizing for the person within. The person raised by his ultra Catholic, anti-Semitic father, who he loves so dearly.
In today's Detroit Free Press, a letter writer said that Mel apologized but who will apologized for the movie "Last Temptation of Christ", the photo of the crucifix in urine submitted as an object d'art, the Virgin Mary picture smeared with cow dung displayed at a NYC museum, the movie "DaVinci Code" and all the other terrible things done against the Catholics and their beliefs.
The letter writer obviously feels Mel's bigotry is justified in light of the anti-Christian / catholic attitude of our society?
Another letter writer blames Hollywood (obviously, famously controlled by the Jews) as getting back at Mel for his movie "The Passion of Christ". How is Hollywood getting back at Mel - by arresting him for driving drunk?
As you can see, this whole matter is very confusing but revealing. It reveals that people still hold their deep prejudices and are really bigots even though on the outside, they act oh so politically correct.
I will have more to say about the Jewish question. The bigotry has existed for hundreds of years and is alive and well today and the reasons are exactly the same - nothing has changed.
Janusz
Thursday, August 03, 2006
WILL CASTRO FINALLY CROAK?
Fidel Castro took over Cuba from the Spanish dictator Baptista in 1959.
He has ruled Cuba with an iron, Communist hand since then. His people are impoverished and drive 1950's era autos - they still run.
He is nearly 80 and in ill health. He recently named his brother Raul as interim el presidente. Fidel expects to be back but I kind of doubt it.
The fact that we as the most powerful country in the world, have not been able to get rid of Castro and his regime is sad and very pitiful. I cannot blame Bush because many, many presidents failed to depose him; hell, they couldn't even assassinate him.
I have always maintained that we could have saved the Cubans through smart economics and NOT the totally stupid and ineffective EMBARGO.
Allow the people to get rich and they will overthrow any dictator. Look at Eastern Europe. Look at China. Once people smell money and success, there is no going back BUT the brains in Washington could not and cannot see that simple logic.
An embargo hurt only the common Cuban people, Castro and his pals do OK.
It is a shame that Cubans have had to suffer for so long because we were too stupid to do anything - we had our egos stuck firmly up our asses.
Hope they have a revolution and string those Commies up by their balls - have to have some revenge for all those years of suffering and then watch the fun begin. CUBA LIBRE!!!
Janusz
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
WHAT TO DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Guess I should say something about the situation in the Middle East. The situation has caused some pretty heated discussions in my household.
The images of innocent civilians, especially children, being blown to bits is not pleasant to view. Also, remembering that Lebanon in general and Beirut in particular were totally destroyed some years ago and then totally rebuilt into a new and thriving community and now TOTALLY DESTROYED AGAIN is a little hard to take.
To understand the situation you really have to know the history of this conflict but that would take volumes to bring everyone here up to date and we know how Americans hate to read about history. So we have to talk about the here and now BUT you still NEED to know WHY!
Lebanon is divided into Muslim, Christians and Druze. After Israel became a nation, they kicked out the Palestinians and about 300,000 of them headed for Southern Lebanon, where many still remain including Hezbollah. The country went through a devastating CIVIL WAR from 1975-1990 which left it in total ruin.
Syria brought its troops into Lebanon in 1976 and basically ruled the country until just recently, when they were kicked out – things were starting to finally look good for Lebanon until now.
Hezbollah, just like Hamas, have only one mission in life; to destroy Israel and take the land back. They are not interested in stabilizing the lives of their citizens and creating a new national and political entity.
For this reason, Hezbollah invaded Israel and kidnapped some of its soldiers. The last time they did this, Israel agreed to release many Hezbollah prisoners to get the bodies of their soldiers back – NOT THIS TIME – they blew the living shit out of the country and are continuing to do so as we speak.
Why? Israel realizes that Hezbollah is not going away and will not stop attacking Israel – so, the only thing to do is to wipe them out. Why destroy Lebanon? - Because Lebanon allows Hezbollah to live and grow in Lebanon and allows them to continue to attack Israel. Why does Lebanon do that? Lebanon is divided itself and is not strong enough to kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon PLUS Hezbollah is supported by SYRIA and IRAN.
You notice Hezbollah was VERY prepared for this conflict.
Totally confused? – So is everybody else!
We need to get a couple of things straight before we can formulate ways of fixing this thing.
Are you starting to get some kind of picture here – yes? – It’s hopeless?
Too complicated? Well, you have to start somewhere and if you have the big picture in mind, it may happen.
The problem with the current US strategy of doing nothing and hoping Israel will wipe out Hezbollah is that it will NOT happen – it has not in thousands of years – remember?
The US should take some decisive steps into herding everyone in the right direction and realizing that they will not go quietly or without a fight. I am not sure the current administration is capable of handling this situation but something must be done or this shit will keep happening and more and more innocent people will suffer and die and BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE UNITED STATES and we will have millions of these people willing to die blowing us up!
More later…
Janusz
The images of innocent civilians, especially children, being blown to bits is not pleasant to view. Also, remembering that Lebanon in general and Beirut in particular were totally destroyed some years ago and then totally rebuilt into a new and thriving community and now TOTALLY DESTROYED AGAIN is a little hard to take.
To understand the situation you really have to know the history of this conflict but that would take volumes to bring everyone here up to date and we know how Americans hate to read about history. So we have to talk about the here and now BUT you still NEED to know WHY!
Lebanon is divided into Muslim, Christians and Druze. After Israel became a nation, they kicked out the Palestinians and about 300,000 of them headed for Southern Lebanon, where many still remain including Hezbollah. The country went through a devastating CIVIL WAR from 1975-1990 which left it in total ruin.
Syria brought its troops into Lebanon in 1976 and basically ruled the country until just recently, when they were kicked out – things were starting to finally look good for Lebanon until now.
Hezbollah, just like Hamas, have only one mission in life; to destroy Israel and take the land back. They are not interested in stabilizing the lives of their citizens and creating a new national and political entity.
For this reason, Hezbollah invaded Israel and kidnapped some of its soldiers. The last time they did this, Israel agreed to release many Hezbollah prisoners to get the bodies of their soldiers back – NOT THIS TIME – they blew the living shit out of the country and are continuing to do so as we speak.
Why? Israel realizes that Hezbollah is not going away and will not stop attacking Israel – so, the only thing to do is to wipe them out. Why destroy Lebanon? - Because Lebanon allows Hezbollah to live and grow in Lebanon and allows them to continue to attack Israel. Why does Lebanon do that? Lebanon is divided itself and is not strong enough to kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon PLUS Hezbollah is supported by SYRIA and IRAN.
You notice Hezbollah was VERY prepared for this conflict.
Totally confused? – So is everybody else!
We need to get a couple of things straight before we can formulate ways of fixing this thing.
- This conflict has been going on for thousands of years ever since Abraham came on down from the land of UR (Mesopotamia).
- The Jews have only one goal; survive against all odds – they are a small country.
- The Palestinians (Hezbollah and Hamas) have only one goal: wipe out Israel and reclaim their ancestral land.
- Hezbollah is Shiite and Hamas is Sunni; both groups are Muslims but REALLY hate each other.
- Syria is Sunni, Iran is Shiite.
- The insurgency in Iraq is led by the Sunnis against the majority Shiites.
Are you starting to get some kind of picture here – yes? – It’s hopeless?
- Get U.N. or NATO peace keeping forces into Southern Lebanon with permission to shoot?
- Disarm Hezbollah by force.
- Strengthen the Lebanese army so they can be a force to be reckoned with.
- Offer Sunni Syria so much economic aid (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) that they will quit being such aggressive assholes.
- Isolate IRAN.
- Divide IRAQ into Kurdistan, Sunni and Shiite parts. Let them be independent. Put NATO there to guarantee peace. Disarm all religious militias.
- Force Hamas to disarm and form an independent Palestine out of the West Bank and Gaza. Have the U.N. be the internal police force until they are capable of showing they can handle things.
- Iran, at this point, would have to acquiesce to the demands of the rest of the world and quit building an atom bomb.
- Use the peaceful ARAB nations to make this thing happen – it is in their best interest!
Too complicated? Well, you have to start somewhere and if you have the big picture in mind, it may happen.
The problem with the current US strategy of doing nothing and hoping Israel will wipe out Hezbollah is that it will NOT happen – it has not in thousands of years – remember?
The US should take some decisive steps into herding everyone in the right direction and realizing that they will not go quietly or without a fight. I am not sure the current administration is capable of handling this situation but something must be done or this shit will keep happening and more and more innocent people will suffer and die and BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE UNITED STATES and we will have millions of these people willing to die blowing us up!
More later…
Janusz
Sunday, July 30, 2006
MEL GIBSON - JEW HATER!
Back from a week in Chicago and getting right to it.
Mel Gibson, the super catholic that denied he is an anti-Semite even though his father denied the holocaust ever happened. He also denied that his movie "The Passion of Christ" had any anti-Semitic intentions - bullshit.
Mel was arrested for drunk driving recently in California and proceeded to spew Jew hating language at his arresting officer who he obviously thought was a Jew. He went on to scream that the Jews are responsible for all wars, etc........................................................................
He issued an immediate apology saying he said things that he did not really believe. Those of us who are known to take a drink or two know that alcohol relaxes the tongue and allows the real brain to speak.
Mel cannot hide his true feelings any longer. He hates Jews because he believes, as Christians have for centuries, that the Jews killed Jesus. People that still believe that are just plain naive about Christianity and the history of Christianity which obviously, Mel is.
His movie about the last days of Jesus had absolutely no historical basis - it even was not faithful to the existing Gospels which are not historical at all. He plainly picked what he liked out of scripture and fashioned what he believed was what really happened. In his twisted mind the Jews killed Jesus because he was God?
The Romans killed Jesus because he was a trouble maker and the Romans did not allow trouble makers to ferment trouble - it is as simple as that. And if Jesus was God, he should have killed all the Romans and made himself king of all the land!
The problem with Gibson is that he has money and can spout off his bullshit and people listen. Now maybe people will realize what an asshole he is but I still like him as an actor - go figure.
Janusz
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
MERCY KILLING DURING KATRINA
Two nurses and a doctor have been charged with euthanasia during Hurricane Katrina. It appears that patients who were "not to be resuscitated" or in plain words, allowed to die under normal circumstances, were found during autopsy, to have abnormal levels of morphine and another drug. This indicated to the pathologist conducting the autopsy that they were deliberately injected with this lethal combination dose for the purpose of hastening death.
The local prosecutor, as, in my opinion, all local prosecutors, saw a chance to get his name in the paper and has decided to charge these medical personnel with homicide.
I was not there but I have worked in hospitals and I have worked with patients just waiting to die. I cannot imagine taking care of patients in a hospital without power, without air conditioning, without lights, without running water, without supplies, etc............................................................
If normal, healthy people were having trouble coping what do you think the patients that needed constant care and constant medical attention doing.
Logic tells us that these medical people had no other reason to do what they did except to show mercy for a fellow human being. They could have just left them there to die a miserable death, but they took pity on them and allowed them to die in peace.
Yes, they played God as the prosecutor charged, someone had to, God was not paying attention.
The prosecutor wants to put them, two nurses and a doctor, away for life. If God was really listening or if there was real justice in the world, that young prosecutor would not be allowed to do what he is doing.
Janusz
STEM CELL BUSH
One Senator said that the teacher that taught President Bush science should be ashamed of the job they did.
Bush has used his only veto to veto stem cell research because it was murder? I am not going to even try to explain the science behind stem cell research but sufice it to say that the cells in question were heading for the garbage heap so how is using them for research murder? This is beyond stupid - it makes the whole country look really stupid.
The people that hoped stem cell research could cure some diseases like Nancy Reagan for Alzheimers and Michael J. Fox for Parkinsons should not be dismayed. Stem cell cures will be eventually developed but probably not here. Probably in India who will then sell the cures to desperate Americans for zillions!
I hope Republicans will now realize that to be a Republican and a conservative you don't have to be backward. I hope that they realize Bush is not a Republican, he is in a class all by himself, the dark age class.
Janusz
ARE IRAQIS BETTER OFF?
When you read the headline recently that 6,000 Iraqis died in just the last two months alone and countless thousands before that, did you think they are grateful ole' Bush came to rescue them from Saddam?
The smart people at the Bush administration did not know that Iraq is an artificially created country just like Yugoslavia was and was made up of people that would not coexist with each other, other than by being forced to by a dictator? Dumb shits - they could have asked any one with a simple knowledge of history. A little research may have saved countless lives, American and Iraqi and oh so much suffering.
For anyone watching the daily slaughter in Iraq, Sunnis versus Shiite and visa versa can sense that they will NEVER live in peace. Divide the country right now or leave and let them divide it themselves - and they will.
If we leave them to their own devices other countries will step in. Iran and Syria behind the Shiites and Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the rest in favor of the Sunnis. The Kurds have no one to help them. Could start a general Muslim war. They could wipe each other out. MAYBE THAT WAS BUSH'S PLAN ALL ALONG - naw, he is not that smart.
Janusz
IRAQ HEADLINE
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Nearly 6,000 Iraqis died in 2 months”, July 19.
The headline “Nearly 6,000 Iraqis died in 2 months”, July 19, begs the question; are the Iraqis better off after President Bush so graciously decided to rescue them from their misery under a ruthless tyrant or are they not.
Janusz M. Szyszko
THE MASSES ARE SOMETIMES ASSES!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “Poll: More education spending can help economy”, July 19.
Just because eight out of 10 Michiganders want to compel the state to spend more on education, “Poll: More education spending can help economy”, July 19, does not make it a good idea. Most Michiganders wanted and voted for legislative term-limits and look what a bloody mess that turned out to be. I say let the elected officials do their jobs and don’t let the masses make asses out of themselves again.
Janusz M. Szyszko
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON?
Well, I guess I cannot keep talking about religion when the world is going to hell in a hand basket. Fundamentalist Christians may be right about Armageddon being just around the corner.
Make no mistake about it, the latest Middle East flare-up is pretty serious business. I scared my wife when I said that I had strong feelings that this time nuclear weapons may actually be used. Think that is far-fetched?
Iran and Syria are the main movers behind Hezbollah. Both countries are Shiite Muslims as is Hezbollah. For reference purposes, Hamas, the group running Palestine is Sunni.
Iran has told Syria that if Israel attacks, we will back you up – OK?
Do you now see why Iran REALLY wants an atom bomb? I have a feeling that Hezbollah started this war a little too soon for Iran – they probably don’t have a bomb ready yet – so why should Israel wait till they have one?
Now I am not talking about Nagasaki or Hiroshima type nuclear devices. I am talking about small, clean (no radioactive clouds) nuclear bombs that would be aimed at specific targets and would guarantee utmost shock and awe. The targets may be Iran’s nuclear factories and Syria’s capital and army barracks. I am sure the targets have been selected long time ago.
Rationale; Israel is a small country, with a small population. Their duty is to protect the citizens of Israel. Why should they wait till they can no longer protect their people – strike now and secure the future?
I must admit that I have tried to be objective but after seeing Israel give land back in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and still get shit on; I see no way out using the tried and failed methods of the past. We need major new and dramatic thinking and action.
Let me throw something else into the fray. The Sunni countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others have CONDEMNED Hezbollah for creating this unnecessary situation which is killing Muslims and destroying a country that has just finished rebuilding itself after the last conflict. This is a first. Arabs have not criticized other Arabs, at least when it comes to the Jews, ever before.
Believe me; the Sunnis are scared of IRAN, the Shiite powerhouse. Look at Iraq and the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis by Shiites and visa versa – they REALLY hate each other and do not want to live in peace (I guess I am back to the subject of religion).
THE SUNNIS MAY ACTUALLY WANT ISRAEL TO DROP A NUCLEAR BOMB ON SHIITE IRAN. After centuries, the Sunnis finally destroy their real enemies, their Muslim brothers.
Hey, I am not kidding, I feel like atom bombs are going to fall if this escalates any further.
I cannot help but take a swipe at the Bush Administration and their evacuation plans for American citizens. It appears that the French and the Italians are evacuating U.S. citizens out of Beirut to Cypress; we just can’t seem to get our shit together fast enough – great superpower that we are!
Janusz
Make no mistake about it, the latest Middle East flare-up is pretty serious business. I scared my wife when I said that I had strong feelings that this time nuclear weapons may actually be used. Think that is far-fetched?
Iran and Syria are the main movers behind Hezbollah. Both countries are Shiite Muslims as is Hezbollah. For reference purposes, Hamas, the group running Palestine is Sunni.
Iran has told Syria that if Israel attacks, we will back you up – OK?
Do you now see why Iran REALLY wants an atom bomb? I have a feeling that Hezbollah started this war a little too soon for Iran – they probably don’t have a bomb ready yet – so why should Israel wait till they have one?
Now I am not talking about Nagasaki or Hiroshima type nuclear devices. I am talking about small, clean (no radioactive clouds) nuclear bombs that would be aimed at specific targets and would guarantee utmost shock and awe. The targets may be Iran’s nuclear factories and Syria’s capital and army barracks. I am sure the targets have been selected long time ago.
Rationale; Israel is a small country, with a small population. Their duty is to protect the citizens of Israel. Why should they wait till they can no longer protect their people – strike now and secure the future?
I must admit that I have tried to be objective but after seeing Israel give land back in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and still get shit on; I see no way out using the tried and failed methods of the past. We need major new and dramatic thinking and action.
Let me throw something else into the fray. The Sunni countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others have CONDEMNED Hezbollah for creating this unnecessary situation which is killing Muslims and destroying a country that has just finished rebuilding itself after the last conflict. This is a first. Arabs have not criticized other Arabs, at least when it comes to the Jews, ever before.
Believe me; the Sunnis are scared of IRAN, the Shiite powerhouse. Look at Iraq and the wholesale slaughter of Sunnis by Shiites and visa versa – they REALLY hate each other and do not want to live in peace (I guess I am back to the subject of religion).
THE SUNNIS MAY ACTUALLY WANT ISRAEL TO DROP A NUCLEAR BOMB ON SHIITE IRAN. After centuries, the Sunnis finally destroy their real enemies, their Muslim brothers.
Hey, I am not kidding, I feel like atom bombs are going to fall if this escalates any further.
I cannot help but take a swipe at the Bush Administration and their evacuation plans for American citizens. It appears that the French and the Italians are evacuating U.S. citizens out of Beirut to Cypress; we just can’t seem to get our shit together fast enough – great superpower that we are!
Janusz
Sunday, July 09, 2006
SECULARIZATION ON THE RISE?
A couple of headlines drew my attention recently. One was “In Europe, Islam rises, Christianity falls” in the Detroit Free Press and “Pope Visits Spain, Flash Point for Church-State Tensions” in the New York Times.
I have been reading more and more about how secular Europe has become. We have to specify Western Europe because on my many visits to Poland, I saw that the country was actually Catholic to an extreme where the Church WAS the government.
Anyway, what intrigues me is that Europeans are becoming more secular and the Americans are becoming more religious – what gives?
In Spain, the secular premier declined to attend a papal mass during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit; even Castro attended a mass during the late Pope’s visit to Cuba.
Spain has always been VERY Catholic. Today 80% of Spaniards call themselves Catholic yet only 18% attend mass regularly – probably old ladies.
Spain just passed a gay marriage law and has loosened laws governing divorce.
In France the statistics are even worst. Eighty eight (88%) percent of the French call themselves Catholic but only 5% attend mass on a regular basis – those darn old ladies I presume.
In the United States, religion seems on the rise, or does it only seem that way to me because the fundamentalists are always in the news.
Polls show that the U.S. is also heading more to the secular side but a lot more slowly. 14% claim no religious affiliation, up from 8% in 1990. 23% of men and 18% of women under the age of 35 claim they do not follow any organized religion. 43% of the unaffiliated were former Catholics.
The survey also found that 19% of baptized Catholics leave the church compared to 16% of Americans of other faiths. 28% of Catholics who leave the church do not join another religion.
Pope Benedict XVI is concerned about his religion. It appears Catholicism is doing OK in the poorer regions of Latin America and Africa but is losing big time in Europe where it used to be on top. Is that the problem; the Church was too dominant in the past and people rebelled and are rebelling? Why are we going in the opposite direction; have we not learned from history or our Founding Fathers?
What about the prediction that Europe will be mostly Muslim by the end of the century – more on this later.
Janusz
I have been reading more and more about how secular Europe has become. We have to specify Western Europe because on my many visits to Poland, I saw that the country was actually Catholic to an extreme where the Church WAS the government.
Anyway, what intrigues me is that Europeans are becoming more secular and the Americans are becoming more religious – what gives?
In Spain, the secular premier declined to attend a papal mass during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit; even Castro attended a mass during the late Pope’s visit to Cuba.
Spain has always been VERY Catholic. Today 80% of Spaniards call themselves Catholic yet only 18% attend mass regularly – probably old ladies.
Spain just passed a gay marriage law and has loosened laws governing divorce.
In France the statistics are even worst. Eighty eight (88%) percent of the French call themselves Catholic but only 5% attend mass on a regular basis – those darn old ladies I presume.
In the United States, religion seems on the rise, or does it only seem that way to me because the fundamentalists are always in the news.
Polls show that the U.S. is also heading more to the secular side but a lot more slowly. 14% claim no religious affiliation, up from 8% in 1990. 23% of men and 18% of women under the age of 35 claim they do not follow any organized religion. 43% of the unaffiliated were former Catholics.
The survey also found that 19% of baptized Catholics leave the church compared to 16% of Americans of other faiths. 28% of Catholics who leave the church do not join another religion.
Pope Benedict XVI is concerned about his religion. It appears Catholicism is doing OK in the poorer regions of Latin America and Africa but is losing big time in Europe where it used to be on top. Is that the problem; the Church was too dominant in the past and people rebelled and are rebelling? Why are we going in the opposite direction; have we not learned from history or our Founding Fathers?
What about the prediction that Europe will be mostly Muslim by the end of the century – more on this later.
Janusz
FEMALE BISHOPS IT IS!
Here is a little update on the Episcopalian saga. Remember how the Vatican official spoke at the gathering in London of the governing body of the Church of England (Anglicans) and told them that IF they decide to allow female bishops to be ordained that any hope of a Catholic / Anglican union would be doomed.
Well the governing body voted after a three (3) hour debate. They voted 288 to 110 to allow female bishops – take that to the Vatican and stuff it! That is a more than two-thirds majority.
Well, at least they agree on female bishops. They do have other matters that may cause a schism in the 77 million member Anglican Communion; more on that later.
Janusz
Saturday, July 08, 2006
THE FEMALE BISHOP AND THE VATICAN
Continuing in my Episcopalian mode, a recent article in our paper’s religion section was titled “Female Episcopal bishop could strain Catholic ties”.
I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.
Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?
The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?
He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!
Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.
It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.
Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.
Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.
Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.
In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.
Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.
If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!
As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.
Janusz
ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?
I mentioned before that as soon as the Episcopal Church in the United States elected Katherine Jefferts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Vatican said forgetaboutit to talks of uniting the two churches.
Now just to be clear, the Vatican did not seem to have any problems with female Episcopal priests, gay priests or gay bishops, the problem is specifically a female bishop or any female that is placed in an “in charge” position within the Episcopal Church – interesting?
The Vatican’s top dude in charge of liaison with non-Catholic Christians, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to the Church of England’s bishops (Anglicans) about the four decades of work trying to bring both churches to “shared communion” – union?
He said that the goal of restoring full relations would no longer exist if the Anglican mother church in England were to consecrate a female bishop. He said nothing about a gay bishop!
Here is the kicker – Kasper defended his views and that of the Vatican on “theological convictions”.
It appears that the Vatican first explained its opposition to female priests when Canadian Episcopalians authorized female priests in 1975 and the U.S. in 1976.
Pope Paul VI said the ban honors “the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held” this fits “God’s plan for his church”.
Aha! It appears that this old reason, which many in the church have abandoned as silly, has resurrected and still holds as the official Vatican rationale.
Well using the Vatican’s own “Historical Critical Method” of reading the Gospels / Scripture exactly how and why they were written IN THE EXACT TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN IN, not as if they were written today to today’s population; Jesus had to choose men because women were total crap in their society and were treated as such! Obviously the Catholic Church still maintains that tradition along with the Muslims and a few others.
In fact, Jesus made it a point to associate with women and had women followers AND WAS CRITICIZED FOR DOING SO.
Here is the BIG POINT that the Vatican obviously refuses to recognize. The Gospels state that after Jesus died and resurrected, who did he appear to first? Who did the Angel appear to? Who was told to “tell the others what you have seen”? Who was deemed to be “the Apostle to the Apostles”? I can keep going but you know the answer – it was a woman or women depending which Gospel you read.
If the resurrection is so bloody important to the Catholic faith, you would think GOD would want to
present such an important and religion defining act to the leader of his chosen MEN – no, He chose to
reveal this most sacred of acts to a woman / women!
As far as I am concerned the Vatican does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to their argument against female priests, in fact, the Vatican insults all our intelligences by their stubborn and silly stance.
I will have more on this when I calm down.
Janusz
ps. What did you think of Paul VI's statement that this fits "God's plan for his church"?
Don't you just hate people who know what God is thinking and what His plans are?
DEMOCRATS AND BLACKS Letter
Saturday, July 08, 2006
To: The Detroit News
Re: “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.
The anti-Granholm ad in the Michigan Chronicle had a confusing presentation but I feel the main message is valid, “Anti-Granholm ad taps Nazi images”, July 7.
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s well intentioned “War on Poverty” is seen by historians as being ultimately detrimental to African-Americans by being a contributing factor to dependency on welfare, unemployment and high criminal involvement.
Blaming the Democrats for some of the problems facing the Black community today is not all that far-fetched.
Janusz M. Szyszko
HITLER, BLACKS AND DEMOCRATS?
Michigan is in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign. We have two very strong candidates for the office, Jennifer Granholm and Dick DeVos of Amway fame and money.
What caught my eye this week was a report of an ad placed in the Michigan Chronicle, a mostly African-American journal, featuring our Democratic Governor Granholm along side a picture of Adolf Hitler and the image of a Nazi swastika.
The message was that blacks have been used and abused by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have used blacks as “foot soldiers”, whatever that means, and that their reward has been a dependency on welfare, high unemployment and a disproportionate number of black men locked up in prison.
The ad called on blacks to abandon the Democratic Party and their candidates or demand respect from the party in exchange for their vote. The Republican candidate DeVos condemned the ad.
OK, what do it all mean? Well, in the first place, I kind of agree with the ad or at least part of it. I have always blamed the problems blacks face in our society on President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “War on Poverty”. I believe it was his good-willed program created the welfare society which rewarded unemployment and promoted out of wedlock childbearing. Those children now make up most of our prison population.
So in essence, it was the socialist ways of our Democratic Party that has harmed our African-American population.
Let me give you one example from our personal history. My wife went to a high school with a large black student population in the early 60s. The blacks in her school were not rich, nobody was, but they had two parents who were employed, lived in small, single-family homes, were well behaved and had plans for their futures. What the hell happened? The war on poverty happened and that is the Democrat’s doing!
The ad was pretty crude supposedly done by Adolph Mongo & Associates – get the “Adolph” connection?
Despite its jumbled presentation, it somehow had Jesse Owens / Hitler and the Munich Olympics as examples of disrespecting blacks, the main point was clear; Democrats have hurt African-Americans despite their well-meaning intentions.
What to do? Well, we can’t go back in history and change things so we have to look at what can be done today. Bush Republicans are not real Republicans when it comes to economic policies; they are more interested in religion. But if you find a real Republican, one that believes in separation of Church and State, vote for him because his economic principles are better for the American black than those of a Democrat.
Janusz
What caught my eye this week was a report of an ad placed in the Michigan Chronicle, a mostly African-American journal, featuring our Democratic Governor Granholm along side a picture of Adolf Hitler and the image of a Nazi swastika.
The message was that blacks have been used and abused by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have used blacks as “foot soldiers”, whatever that means, and that their reward has been a dependency on welfare, high unemployment and a disproportionate number of black men locked up in prison.
The ad called on blacks to abandon the Democratic Party and their candidates or demand respect from the party in exchange for their vote. The Republican candidate DeVos condemned the ad.
OK, what do it all mean? Well, in the first place, I kind of agree with the ad or at least part of it. I have always blamed the problems blacks face in our society on President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “War on Poverty”. I believe it was his good-willed program created the welfare society which rewarded unemployment and promoted out of wedlock childbearing. Those children now make up most of our prison population.
So in essence, it was the socialist ways of our Democratic Party that has harmed our African-American population.
Let me give you one example from our personal history. My wife went to a high school with a large black student population in the early 60s. The blacks in her school were not rich, nobody was, but they had two parents who were employed, lived in small, single-family homes, were well behaved and had plans for their futures. What the hell happened? The war on poverty happened and that is the Democrat’s doing!
The ad was pretty crude supposedly done by Adolph Mongo & Associates – get the “Adolph” connection?
Despite its jumbled presentation, it somehow had Jesse Owens / Hitler and the Munich Olympics as examples of disrespecting blacks, the main point was clear; Democrats have hurt African-Americans despite their well-meaning intentions.
What to do? Well, we can’t go back in history and change things so we have to look at what can be done today. Bush Republicans are not real Republicans when it comes to economic policies; they are more interested in religion. But if you find a real Republican, one that believes in separation of Church and State, vote for him because his economic principles are better for the American black than those of a Democrat.
Janusz
Friday, July 07, 2006
LETTERS VS GAY EPISCOPALIAN
Following up on the Episcopalian blog, a lesbian reporter (Deb Price) who happens to be an Episcopalian wrote a piece in our local paper titled “Losing my church, but not my faith”.
She wrote that she no longer would attend a church that discriminated against gays. Her faith is still strong and she will return to church once the “Neanderthals” are no longer in power.
As I mentioned previously, the Episcopal leaders pleaded restraint in addressing the gay issues in a bid to keep peace within the Episcopalian community but a number of churches voted to break with the main church specifically over the openly gay bishops and same-sex marriages.
Her article garnered an interesting assortment of letter to the editor.
One letter writer stated that God called homosexuality an abomination and how can you argue with that. This is obviously an example of people thinking the Bible is the word of God. In my previous blogs, I have argued that the belief that the words in the Bible are the actual words of God is totally unsupportable by available evidence. It is even unsupportable by plain common sense. Unfortunately, I do not see how people’s minds can be changed on this issue.
Another letter writer argued that we all receive free will with which we can agree to obey God or go against His will. This person obviously thinks that gays CHOOSE to be gay. I have pointed out in previous blogs that if you use your common sense how you could ever believe that someone would CHOOSE to be gay. That is Neanderthal thinking!
Another letter says that it is nice that Deb still has her faith and believes Jesus loves her BUT she should realize that God hates sin and the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin. That is not the case; they are not clear at all and how could you know what the hell scripture is talking about since was written by someone thousands of years ago to people that existed thousands of years ago.
A statement made fun of Deb suggesting that God made her gay; another imbecilic belief that gays choose their gay lifestyle. More and more evidence is being published that will hopefully, convince these people that God or nature created gays – they are born that way idiots!
Catholics took the stand that their church does not hate gays it just wants them to refrain from acting gay. They remained strong in their condemnation of gay marriage saying that God said marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Historical Critical Textual Criticism of the Bible reveals that the people that wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, did know the concept of homosexuality so how in the hell are we to treat their words as words of meaning to us in 2006.
Janusz
She wrote that she no longer would attend a church that discriminated against gays. Her faith is still strong and she will return to church once the “Neanderthals” are no longer in power.
As I mentioned previously, the Episcopal leaders pleaded restraint in addressing the gay issues in a bid to keep peace within the Episcopalian community but a number of churches voted to break with the main church specifically over the openly gay bishops and same-sex marriages.
Her article garnered an interesting assortment of letter to the editor.
One letter writer stated that God called homosexuality an abomination and how can you argue with that. This is obviously an example of people thinking the Bible is the word of God. In my previous blogs, I have argued that the belief that the words in the Bible are the actual words of God is totally unsupportable by available evidence. It is even unsupportable by plain common sense. Unfortunately, I do not see how people’s minds can be changed on this issue.
Another letter writer argued that we all receive free will with which we can agree to obey God or go against His will. This person obviously thinks that gays CHOOSE to be gay. I have pointed out in previous blogs that if you use your common sense how you could ever believe that someone would CHOOSE to be gay. That is Neanderthal thinking!
Another letter says that it is nice that Deb still has her faith and believes Jesus loves her BUT she should realize that God hates sin and the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin. That is not the case; they are not clear at all and how could you know what the hell scripture is talking about since was written by someone thousands of years ago to people that existed thousands of years ago.
A statement made fun of Deb suggesting that God made her gay; another imbecilic belief that gays choose their gay lifestyle. More and more evidence is being published that will hopefully, convince these people that God or nature created gays – they are born that way idiots!
Catholics took the stand that their church does not hate gays it just wants them to refrain from acting gay. They remained strong in their condemnation of gay marriage saying that God said marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Historical Critical Textual Criticism of the Bible reveals that the people that wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, did know the concept of homosexuality so how in the hell are we to treat their words as words of meaning to us in 2006.
Janusz
THE EPISCOPALIAN DILEMMA
Another recent religious headline was “Episcopalians Shaken by Division in Church”. Episcopalians, you may recall, are the liberal ones; the ones that elected a gay Bishop, a woman leader and perform gay marriages. Well I guess not all of them are that happy with the direction the Church is taking and has been taking.
Historically, the Episcopalians in the United States are the same, or at least similar to the Anglicans in England. Their nominal spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury (London). Anglicans exist all over the world, mainly where the British Empire once reigned supreme but are concentrated in Africa – remember Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Going back even further in history, England was Roman Catholic under the Pope in Rome during the reign of King Henry VIII. You remember him as the king that could not seem to get a male heir so he kept either divorcing or beheading his wives until he got one that would produce a prince.
Henry wanted to do all this according to Catholic law and asked the Pope at that time for an annulment (divorce). The Pope was feeling his oats and wanting to show how he is more powerful than some mere king, denied Henry.
Henry told the Pope to shove it and took over the Catholic Church in England making himself the head of the new Anglican Church. Henry also took over all the Church property and the property of all the monasteries in England; a tidy some of money.
I am of course simplifying everything as you may gather. The Anglicans were called Catholics without a Roman Pope as their head but actually their religion is not identical to Catholicism even though there has been a Vatican Commission trying to unite the two faiths together for quite a few years. When the Vatican heard they elected a woman as Bishop they told the Anglicans forgetaboutit.
American Episcopalians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual priests and bishops and the sanctioning of gay marriage; basically conservatives against the liberals with the liberals being in the majority.
To complicate things a little further let me add the African Anglicans. These are definitely arch conservatives who oppose homosexuality but on the other hand they believe each male can have sex with any female he meets and that condoms do not prevent AIDS and debase a man’s masculinity if he has to wear one.
So you have this world Anglican Communion which the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to keep together. He recently issued a “theological reflection” where he will try to find a theological path to bring both sides together. This, all sides agree, will not happen because a bridge that both sides can live with does not exist and cannot exist.
I don’t pretend to know everything about the Episcopalian / Anglican religion but I know that I have always admired their liberalism, flexibility and dedication to social issues and social ills. They were a truly progressive religion, to me, that also truly represented the essence of Christianity and of Jesus in their treatment of people, no matter whom they were or where they came from (Christian love and Christian justice).
Obviously, these American Christians found a way to practice their religion in a compassionate manner without some of the fundamentalist, discriminatory views of other Christians in this country. I have to believe that the way they treat the Bible has to play a role. I know they consider scripture as the foundation of their religion but why do they not read the Bible in the same way that homophobic fundamentalists do?
The story with the Episcopalians is unfolding just like our entire society is. We are being divided into Right and Left with no apparent room in the middle – why?
I think a good start on the road to recovery would be to tell the African Anglicans and the American Episcopalian Conservatives to form their own religion because clearly they are not true followers of Jesus; more on this later.
Janusz
Historically, the Episcopalians in the United States are the same, or at least similar to the Anglicans in England. Their nominal spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury (London). Anglicans exist all over the world, mainly where the British Empire once reigned supreme but are concentrated in Africa – remember Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Going back even further in history, England was Roman Catholic under the Pope in Rome during the reign of King Henry VIII. You remember him as the king that could not seem to get a male heir so he kept either divorcing or beheading his wives until he got one that would produce a prince.
Henry wanted to do all this according to Catholic law and asked the Pope at that time for an annulment (divorce). The Pope was feeling his oats and wanting to show how he is more powerful than some mere king, denied Henry.
Henry told the Pope to shove it and took over the Catholic Church in England making himself the head of the new Anglican Church. Henry also took over all the Church property and the property of all the monasteries in England; a tidy some of money.
I am of course simplifying everything as you may gather. The Anglicans were called Catholics without a Roman Pope as their head but actually their religion is not identical to Catholicism even though there has been a Vatican Commission trying to unite the two faiths together for quite a few years. When the Vatican heard they elected a woman as Bishop they told the Anglicans forgetaboutit.
American Episcopalians are divided on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual priests and bishops and the sanctioning of gay marriage; basically conservatives against the liberals with the liberals being in the majority.
To complicate things a little further let me add the African Anglicans. These are definitely arch conservatives who oppose homosexuality but on the other hand they believe each male can have sex with any female he meets and that condoms do not prevent AIDS and debase a man’s masculinity if he has to wear one.
So you have this world Anglican Communion which the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to keep together. He recently issued a “theological reflection” where he will try to find a theological path to bring both sides together. This, all sides agree, will not happen because a bridge that both sides can live with does not exist and cannot exist.
I don’t pretend to know everything about the Episcopalian / Anglican religion but I know that I have always admired their liberalism, flexibility and dedication to social issues and social ills. They were a truly progressive religion, to me, that also truly represented the essence of Christianity and of Jesus in their treatment of people, no matter whom they were or where they came from (Christian love and Christian justice).
Obviously, these American Christians found a way to practice their religion in a compassionate manner without some of the fundamentalist, discriminatory views of other Christians in this country. I have to believe that the way they treat the Bible has to play a role. I know they consider scripture as the foundation of their religion but why do they not read the Bible in the same way that homophobic fundamentalists do?
The story with the Episcopalians is unfolding just like our entire society is. We are being divided into Right and Left with no apparent room in the middle – why?
I think a good start on the road to recovery would be to tell the African Anglicans and the American Episcopalian Conservatives to form their own religion because clearly they are not true followers of Jesus; more on this later.
Janusz
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CATHOLICS AND THE BIBLE
The newspapers are filled with religion related stories which I will comment on shortly but first I need to get in one Catholic issue from my childhood.
My religious education was Catholic. I was taught primarily by nuns from grade school all the way through high school. We had regular “religion” classes which were sometimes attended by the local priest and “Catechism” classes where we studied the latest edition of our Catechism book.
Early on in my education, I was told NOT to read the BIBLE because I may become confused. I was told to rely on the Catholic Church and my Catholic teachers to convey everything about religion I needed to know.
Obviously, I went and got a Bible and started reading it but they were right, it did not make much sense to me even though I enjoyed some of the “dirty” stories.
The instructions to NOT read the Bible puzzled me. My Protestant friends would tell me that in their religion SCRIPTURE was paramount. In my study of religious history I saw how the words in the Bible not only dictated what people believed about God but influenced their views about a variety of subjects.
Today Christian Fundamentalists, who believe EVERY WORD in the Bible came from God himself, play an influential role in our government and therefore in our society which means a direct affect on us as individuals.
As you know, I have been studying religion and the history surrounding religion for most of my life. I credit my Catholic education for inspiring me to search for answers my Catholic education did not provide.
Anyway, the Bible is a study topic all by itself and the most interesting part of Bible study to me is how it came to be written and by whom. Most books are about the words in the Bible and what they all mean but I needed to know how the Bible itself came to be.
A great new book by Bart D. Ehrman, my favorite religion professor and author, called “MISQUOTING JESUS; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, 2005, came on the market recently. It not only talked about how the Bible became what it is today but also touched on why the Catholic Church, at one time, discouraged its members from reading it.
I am referring mostly to the New Testament Books.
Now I am not going to detail all that has happened with the Bible throughout history but kind of summarize what scholars have found. We do not have the originals of any of the Books found in the New Testament (NT). We don’t even have the first copies of the originals. What we have are a hell of a lot of translations of copies of copies……………………………………………….etc.
In 1707 a book was published that is considered a classic in New Testament textual criticism. This particular book compelled scholars to take the “textual situation of our NT manuscripts seriously”.
John Mills, a fellow at Queens College, Oxford, England spent 30 years researching his Greek New Testament edition.
He compared ALL available translations of the NT in all languages. In his “critical apparatus” notes he indicated places of variation among all the surviving material available to him. He listed thirty thousand (30,000) variations.
His work prompted the BIG question IF ONE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WORDS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, HOW CAN ONE USE THESE WORDS DECIDING CORRECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING.
Protestant scholars quickly argued that God would never allow the holy text to be so corrupted as to render the standard of faith insecure. They accused the “Papists” (Roman Catholics) of trying to undermine the basis for Protestantism.
This was 1707 but today we have discovered and catalogued 5,700 Greek manuscripts. We also know of 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate plus versions of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, Church Slavonic and the like. The number of variations has now grown to 400,000 or more.
Not all the variations are earth shattering. Many are accidental but many are intentional and those should give us pause.
The Catholic Church knew about the variations and the unreliability of any one text from the very beginning. They continued to teach that true faith required the “Apostolic Traditions” preserved within the Church itself and that true faith cannot be based solely on scripture (Sola Scriptura) as the Protestant Reformation maintained because the scripture is unstable and unreliable.
The Protestants then set upon devising methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words of the NT.
Many, many books have been published on the subject and continue to be published but in my opinion it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the original words of the N.T.
Today, the Protestants have their version of the Bible and so do the Catholics. Each version tends to reflect the specific theology of each Christian sect.
But to me, the early admonition not to read the Bible makes perfect sense when trying to mold young minds into the “correct” religious thinking. It is easier to study “stories” from the Bible instead of the actual words of the Bible which may or may not be correct.
On a deeper level, religion scholars cannot guarantee that the words in the N.T. are the ones originally written and because such a guarantee cannot be made, the idea that the “words” were / are “divinely” inspired cannot be supported either.
This obviously wreaks havoc with the people that use Biblical “words” to support their way of thinking about matters.
Janusz
My religious education was Catholic. I was taught primarily by nuns from grade school all the way through high school. We had regular “religion” classes which were sometimes attended by the local priest and “Catechism” classes where we studied the latest edition of our Catechism book.
Early on in my education, I was told NOT to read the BIBLE because I may become confused. I was told to rely on the Catholic Church and my Catholic teachers to convey everything about religion I needed to know.
Obviously, I went and got a Bible and started reading it but they were right, it did not make much sense to me even though I enjoyed some of the “dirty” stories.
The instructions to NOT read the Bible puzzled me. My Protestant friends would tell me that in their religion SCRIPTURE was paramount. In my study of religious history I saw how the words in the Bible not only dictated what people believed about God but influenced their views about a variety of subjects.
Today Christian Fundamentalists, who believe EVERY WORD in the Bible came from God himself, play an influential role in our government and therefore in our society which means a direct affect on us as individuals.
As you know, I have been studying religion and the history surrounding religion for most of my life. I credit my Catholic education for inspiring me to search for answers my Catholic education did not provide.
Anyway, the Bible is a study topic all by itself and the most interesting part of Bible study to me is how it came to be written and by whom. Most books are about the words in the Bible and what they all mean but I needed to know how the Bible itself came to be.
A great new book by Bart D. Ehrman, my favorite religion professor and author, called “MISQUOTING JESUS; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”, 2005, came on the market recently. It not only talked about how the Bible became what it is today but also touched on why the Catholic Church, at one time, discouraged its members from reading it.
I am referring mostly to the New Testament Books.
Now I am not going to detail all that has happened with the Bible throughout history but kind of summarize what scholars have found. We do not have the originals of any of the Books found in the New Testament (NT). We don’t even have the first copies of the originals. What we have are a hell of a lot of translations of copies of copies……………………………………………….etc.
In 1707 a book was published that is considered a classic in New Testament textual criticism. This particular book compelled scholars to take the “textual situation of our NT manuscripts seriously”.
John Mills, a fellow at Queens College, Oxford, England spent 30 years researching his Greek New Testament edition.
He compared ALL available translations of the NT in all languages. In his “critical apparatus” notes he indicated places of variation among all the surviving material available to him. He listed thirty thousand (30,000) variations.
His work prompted the BIG question IF ONE DID NOT KNOW WHICH WORDS WERE ORIGINAL TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, HOW CAN ONE USE THESE WORDS DECIDING CORRECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND TEACHING.
Protestant scholars quickly argued that God would never allow the holy text to be so corrupted as to render the standard of faith insecure. They accused the “Papists” (Roman Catholics) of trying to undermine the basis for Protestantism.
This was 1707 but today we have discovered and catalogued 5,700 Greek manuscripts. We also know of 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate plus versions of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, Church Slavonic and the like. The number of variations has now grown to 400,000 or more.
Not all the variations are earth shattering. Many are accidental but many are intentional and those should give us pause.
The Catholic Church knew about the variations and the unreliability of any one text from the very beginning. They continued to teach that true faith required the “Apostolic Traditions” preserved within the Church itself and that true faith cannot be based solely on scripture (Sola Scriptura) as the Protestant Reformation maintained because the scripture is unstable and unreliable.
The Protestants then set upon devising methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words of the NT.
Many, many books have been published on the subject and continue to be published but in my opinion it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the original words of the N.T.
Today, the Protestants have their version of the Bible and so do the Catholics. Each version tends to reflect the specific theology of each Christian sect.
But to me, the early admonition not to read the Bible makes perfect sense when trying to mold young minds into the “correct” religious thinking. It is easier to study “stories” from the Bible instead of the actual words of the Bible which may or may not be correct.
On a deeper level, religion scholars cannot guarantee that the words in the N.T. are the ones originally written and because such a guarantee cannot be made, the idea that the “words” were / are “divinely” inspired cannot be supported either.
This obviously wreaks havoc with the people that use Biblical “words” to support their way of thinking about matters.
Janusz
Friday, June 30, 2006
BUSH IN HUNGARY
Recently, President Bush went to Budapest, Hungary and gave a speech commemorating the fifty (50) years since the 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION. This uprising was by the Hungarian people against their Soviet masters.
Our headlines read, “Bush compares Iraq to Hungary uprising”. In his speech, President Bush said that “…when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them”.
Again, I have to set the record straight because obviously neither President Bush nor his administration give a shit about history and just make up stuff as they go along.
After World War II President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. Roosevelt just basically placed millions of Eastern Europeans into Soviet slavery, a whole generation, just like that. I should include Churchill in the decision to hand over Eastern Europe but it really was mostly Roosevelt’s call.
When the Hungarians rose up in revolt against the Soviets in 1956, the boys in Moscow sent over a few thousand tanks and took care of those upstarts. The United States just watched. We may have stood with them but only in our imagination. To our credit, we did allow many Hungarians who escaped Hungary to emigrate here under “political asylum”. Some of my Hungarian friends are here because of that move.
Now Bush wants to compare the Hungarian uprising to the situation in Iraq. I don’t see the similarity.
The Hungarians were invaded by the Soviets and occupied by them. They wanted to rid themselves of the Soviets, they wanted out of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets could not let that happen – at that particular time in history and so they used overpowering force to quell the rebellion.
The Iraqis were not engaged in a revolution or uprising. The Sunnis in the South did try to revolt after Desert Storm but we allowed Saddam to quell that uprising with brutal force.
We invaded Iraq so we can make them into a democracy and thus start changing the world order in our favor. Invading Iraq to set the Iraqi people free of Saddam was good propaganda but not our reason for invading Iraq.
I understand that Bush needs to apply as much spin to events as he possibly can. The Hungarian anniversary was an opportunity but as evidenced by the blank stares of the Hungarians at his speech, they were wondering what the hell he was talking about.
Janusz
Our headlines read, “Bush compares Iraq to Hungary uprising”. In his speech, President Bush said that “…when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them”.
Again, I have to set the record straight because obviously neither President Bush nor his administration give a shit about history and just make up stuff as they go along.
After World War II President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. Roosevelt just basically placed millions of Eastern Europeans into Soviet slavery, a whole generation, just like that. I should include Churchill in the decision to hand over Eastern Europe but it really was mostly Roosevelt’s call.
When the Hungarians rose up in revolt against the Soviets in 1956, the boys in Moscow sent over a few thousand tanks and took care of those upstarts. The United States just watched. We may have stood with them but only in our imagination. To our credit, we did allow many Hungarians who escaped Hungary to emigrate here under “political asylum”. Some of my Hungarian friends are here because of that move.
Now Bush wants to compare the Hungarian uprising to the situation in Iraq. I don’t see the similarity.
The Hungarians were invaded by the Soviets and occupied by them. They wanted to rid themselves of the Soviets, they wanted out of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets could not let that happen – at that particular time in history and so they used overpowering force to quell the rebellion.
The Iraqis were not engaged in a revolution or uprising. The Sunnis in the South did try to revolt after Desert Storm but we allowed Saddam to quell that uprising with brutal force.
We invaded Iraq so we can make them into a democracy and thus start changing the world order in our favor. Invading Iraq to set the Iraqi people free of Saddam was good propaganda but not our reason for invading Iraq.
I understand that Bush needs to apply as much spin to events as he possibly can. The Hungarian anniversary was an opportunity but as evidenced by the blank stares of the Hungarians at his speech, they were wondering what the hell he was talking about.
Janusz
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
MI SENATOR VOTES AGAINST FREEDOM!
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
To: The Detroit Free Press
Re: “By 1 vote, Senate rejects ban on flag burning”, June 28.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, voted in favor of amending our Constitution to ban the burning of our flag, “By 1 vote, Senate rejects ban on flag burning”, June 28.
Senator Stabenow thought it more important to protect a piece of cloth than to protect our Constitutional right to free speech.
She is up for re-election this November and obviously thinks that most Michigan voters care more for a piece of cloth than for their freedoms.
Good luck in November.
Janusz M Szyszko
FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY ONE VOTE!
The “Flag Burning” Constitutional Amendment failed in the Senate by one (1) vote. One of the Michigan Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow, actually voted for the Constitutional Amendment because she felt our flag needed protection like that statement makes any sense whatsoever!
I wrote my senator and told her she was a political whore with no principals.
More importantly I told her she cannot be relied on to protect my and my family’s freedoms from jackasses that would take them away from us – and this is where I would like to make my final point since I realize I have been raving about this issue for some time.
Our Founding Fathers, the guys that started this great nation and fashioned our Constitution which has guided us safely for all these years, made sure certain freedoms were guaranteed. One of them is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
These guys studied history and knew what to avoid in forming a brand new nation. They were wise and what they formed then is now history. We are the envy of the world. People flock to our shores to taste some of those freedoms they longed for but could never realize in their own countries.
And here comes the flag burning issue that wants to reverse what the Founding Fathers created by doing away with our guaranteed freedoms. Don’t understand? Let me explain.
When the flag burning issue first came up some time ago the Supreme Court said that flag burning (in this country – it cannot pertain anywhere else) is a form of speech / protest. You see the flag is not usually burned as fuel or to keep warm or to cook hot dogs. When it is burned (practically never) it is burned as a protest against this nation or more likely the policies of the nation / administration. The Court saw this as a freedom of speech issue and declared it UNCONSTITUIONAL; against the guarantees afforded by our Constitution.
So the only way these morons could get around it is by including an amendment in the actual Constitution at which time the Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional because it is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In amending our Constitution they are basically telling our Founding Fathers that they were stupid and wrong to insist that Americans need guaranteed freedom of speech. These political twits are willing to compromise our freedoms for political gain. Let me put it this way, they are willing to deny Americans their freedom of speech for a piece of cloth, cloth that is worn by Kid Rock as a poncho at his rock concerts, shapely women wear as short, shorts, fisherman wear as hats, etc……………………………………………………………………………………… give me a bloody break!
THE CONSTITUTION IS OUR SACRED DOCUMENT – DON’T FUCK WITH IT!
Janusz
I wrote my senator and told her she was a political whore with no principals.
More importantly I told her she cannot be relied on to protect my and my family’s freedoms from jackasses that would take them away from us – and this is where I would like to make my final point since I realize I have been raving about this issue for some time.
Our Founding Fathers, the guys that started this great nation and fashioned our Constitution which has guided us safely for all these years, made sure certain freedoms were guaranteed. One of them is the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
These guys studied history and knew what to avoid in forming a brand new nation. They were wise and what they formed then is now history. We are the envy of the world. People flock to our shores to taste some of those freedoms they longed for but could never realize in their own countries.
And here comes the flag burning issue that wants to reverse what the Founding Fathers created by doing away with our guaranteed freedoms. Don’t understand? Let me explain.
When the flag burning issue first came up some time ago the Supreme Court said that flag burning (in this country – it cannot pertain anywhere else) is a form of speech / protest. You see the flag is not usually burned as fuel or to keep warm or to cook hot dogs. When it is burned (practically never) it is burned as a protest against this nation or more likely the policies of the nation / administration. The Court saw this as a freedom of speech issue and declared it UNCONSTITUIONAL; against the guarantees afforded by our Constitution.
So the only way these morons could get around it is by including an amendment in the actual Constitution at which time the Supreme Court cannot declare it unconstitutional because it is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In amending our Constitution they are basically telling our Founding Fathers that they were stupid and wrong to insist that Americans need guaranteed freedom of speech. These political twits are willing to compromise our freedoms for political gain. Let me put it this way, they are willing to deny Americans their freedom of speech for a piece of cloth, cloth that is worn by Kid Rock as a poncho at his rock concerts, shapely women wear as short, shorts, fisherman wear as hats, etc……………………………………………………………………………………… give me a bloody break!
THE CONSTITUTION IS OUR SACRED DOCUMENT – DON’T FUCK WITH IT!
Janusz
Monday, June 26, 2006
THANK YOU MR. BUSH?
House Resolution 861 declared the “war in Iraq as the central struggle in our war on terror” and should be wholeheartedly supported by one and all. My Republican Congressman, Thaddeus McCotter, voted “present” instead of yes or no. The resolution was non binding but I considered it as an insult to the intelligence of all Americans and I told him so and thanked him for not voting in support of the Republican resolution.
Mr. McCotter replied in pure political fashion saying he did not support the specific resolution BUT he still supported the President and our efforts in Iraq – playing both sides of the issue.
My objection to the resolution and the Republican and Democratic support for the war in Iraq is that we are conveniently trying to erase history and in a sense, re-write it and make President Bush and the Republican Party look like our saviors. Family members ask me how I can attack Bush when he is protecting us from the terrorists – I say bullshit!
I don’t believe we should arbitrarily leave or abandon Iraq at this very moment but I want people to realize that we are embroiled in the Iraq war and our soldiers are dying every day because Bush screwed up big time!
Bush planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11; long before there was a war on terror. After the 9/11 attack Bush basically ignored the terrorists that attacked us (Bin Laden and the Taliban are still alive and getting stronger) and pursued his original plan of attacking Iraq EVEN though Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Now the terrorists are in Iraq because Bush created a haven there for them and a perfect place for them to gather terrorists from all over the world.
For Congress to pass a resolution praising Bush for protecting us against terrorism is a total insult to our collective intelligence. He fucked up big time and now he is using the bad situation he created to his own advantage? I don’t think we should allow him or the Republicans to put that spin on it. I think we should hold their feet to the fire and remind them every day THAT THEY CREATED THE SITUATION WE ARE IN – ENDANGERED THIS COUNTRY AND EVERY ONE OF US UNNECESSARILY AND HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE.
The next president and Congress will have to spend years fixing the mess Bush and his Republicans have created and our children and grandchildren will have to spend their lives paying for it. Do you think we should praise Bush and the Republicans?
Janusz
Mr. McCotter replied in pure political fashion saying he did not support the specific resolution BUT he still supported the President and our efforts in Iraq – playing both sides of the issue.
My objection to the resolution and the Republican and Democratic support for the war in Iraq is that we are conveniently trying to erase history and in a sense, re-write it and make President Bush and the Republican Party look like our saviors. Family members ask me how I can attack Bush when he is protecting us from the terrorists – I say bullshit!
I don’t believe we should arbitrarily leave or abandon Iraq at this very moment but I want people to realize that we are embroiled in the Iraq war and our soldiers are dying every day because Bush screwed up big time!
Bush planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11; long before there was a war on terror. After the 9/11 attack Bush basically ignored the terrorists that attacked us (Bin Laden and the Taliban are still alive and getting stronger) and pursued his original plan of attacking Iraq EVEN though Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
Now the terrorists are in Iraq because Bush created a haven there for them and a perfect place for them to gather terrorists from all over the world.
For Congress to pass a resolution praising Bush for protecting us against terrorism is a total insult to our collective intelligence. He fucked up big time and now he is using the bad situation he created to his own advantage? I don’t think we should allow him or the Republicans to put that spin on it. I think we should hold their feet to the fire and remind them every day THAT THEY CREATED THE SITUATION WE ARE IN – ENDANGERED THIS COUNTRY AND EVERY ONE OF US UNNECESSARILY AND HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE.
The next president and Congress will have to spend years fixing the mess Bush and his Republicans have created and our children and grandchildren will have to spend their lives paying for it. Do you think we should praise Bush and the Republicans?
Janusz
MICHIGAN VOTES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION!
This November, we in Michigan will be voting for or against MCRI, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
This is a proposed constitutional amendment. I am usually against tampering with constitutions in general, especially our Federal Constitution but this is a State Constitution which I do not hold in the same reverence as I do the federal one.
Anyway, this proposed (State) amendment wants to ban affirmative action programs based on RACE, GENDER & ETHNICITY for purposes of public employment, education or contracting purposes.
This whole initiative stemmed from the University of Michigan’s program to give preferential treatment to blacks as part of an admissions policy. The matter went to the Supreme Court where the policy was judged unconstitutional with stipulations. Some people wanted the policy to be very plain and simple (black & white) and therefore they suggested amending the state constitution to say – NO DISCRIMINATION – PERIOD!
We are all painfully aware of our nation’s discriminatory past. It has been a long and tumultuous road to legally end racial and gender discrimination. We have also gone through a period of adjustment where those who were discriminated against were given preferential treatment to make up for passed discriminatory treatment. Some say the adjustment period is over, some say it needs to continue for quite some time.
I am basically a realist so I don’t look at things only philosophically or based only on principal but on the actual situation at hand – today! I personally think we have come a long way and even though I personally know some diehard racists, I believe they are in a rapidly dieing minority.
As an employer, I don’t see color, sex or ethnicity when I hire and my management does not either. I believe we have reached a stage where talent and skills prevail. I am not so naïve as to believe everyone acts like me but I truly believe that a majority of businesses and institutions do. I feel people who want to prolong the period of adjustment (affirmative action) are just freeloading on society’s guilt trip or are not realists.
As you notice the amendment talks about discrimination only according to race, gender and ethnicity and that the areas it is concerned about is public employment, education and contracting purposes although education is what started this whole thing in motion.
Institutions can still give certain groups special considerations but not based on race, sex or ethnicity. Schools still can give preferential treatment to, let’s say, students that are poor or the first ones in their families to attend college. Cities may look at giving a certain amount of contracts to locally owned companies – see, no race, sex or ethnicity involved.
I think MCRI makes sense. What does not make sense to me was to give a black kid from Detroit admission to UofM over all other qualified applicants because he is black and from Detroit. That kid, statistically, would not make it past the second year. It would make more sense to fix grade schools and high schools in Detroit to give that black kid from Detroit the same academic chance at admission to UofM as everybody else.
I read all of the opposing views and I feel they just don’t hold water even though many, many serious groups are actively trying to defeat this proposal.
Let diversity happen naturally; don’t force it. Women are already the majority at universities and taking science and math classes so don’t despair for them; they will be your bosses in no time.
A vote for MCRI is a vote against discrimination and I think this is a good thing for our society.
Janusz
This is a proposed constitutional amendment. I am usually against tampering with constitutions in general, especially our Federal Constitution but this is a State Constitution which I do not hold in the same reverence as I do the federal one.
Anyway, this proposed (State) amendment wants to ban affirmative action programs based on RACE, GENDER & ETHNICITY for purposes of public employment, education or contracting purposes.
This whole initiative stemmed from the University of Michigan’s program to give preferential treatment to blacks as part of an admissions policy. The matter went to the Supreme Court where the policy was judged unconstitutional with stipulations. Some people wanted the policy to be very plain and simple (black & white) and therefore they suggested amending the state constitution to say – NO DISCRIMINATION – PERIOD!
We are all painfully aware of our nation’s discriminatory past. It has been a long and tumultuous road to legally end racial and gender discrimination. We have also gone through a period of adjustment where those who were discriminated against were given preferential treatment to make up for passed discriminatory treatment. Some say the adjustment period is over, some say it needs to continue for quite some time.
I am basically a realist so I don’t look at things only philosophically or based only on principal but on the actual situation at hand – today! I personally think we have come a long way and even though I personally know some diehard racists, I believe they are in a rapidly dieing minority.
As an employer, I don’t see color, sex or ethnicity when I hire and my management does not either. I believe we have reached a stage where talent and skills prevail. I am not so naïve as to believe everyone acts like me but I truly believe that a majority of businesses and institutions do. I feel people who want to prolong the period of adjustment (affirmative action) are just freeloading on society’s guilt trip or are not realists.
As you notice the amendment talks about discrimination only according to race, gender and ethnicity and that the areas it is concerned about is public employment, education and contracting purposes although education is what started this whole thing in motion.
Institutions can still give certain groups special considerations but not based on race, sex or ethnicity. Schools still can give preferential treatment to, let’s say, students that are poor or the first ones in their families to attend college. Cities may look at giving a certain amount of contracts to locally owned companies – see, no race, sex or ethnicity involved.
I think MCRI makes sense. What does not make sense to me was to give a black kid from Detroit admission to UofM over all other qualified applicants because he is black and from Detroit. That kid, statistically, would not make it past the second year. It would make more sense to fix grade schools and high schools in Detroit to give that black kid from Detroit the same academic chance at admission to UofM as everybody else.
I read all of the opposing views and I feel they just don’t hold water even though many, many serious groups are actively trying to defeat this proposal.
Let diversity happen naturally; don’t force it. Women are already the majority at universities and taking science and math classes so don’t despair for them; they will be your bosses in no time.
A vote for MCRI is a vote against discrimination and I think this is a good thing for our society.
Janusz
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
HOPE IN SOUTH DAKOTA?
South Dakota recently passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in this country since Roe vs. Wade. The law disallowed abortions in cases of rape and incest. The law allowed abortions only when the mother’s life was in danger. Overnight, South Dakota and the people that live there became symbols of backwardness. My wife refused to go on vacation to S. Dakota for this very reason; not want to spend her vacation dollars to bolster the economy of THOSE people. The law was slated to go into affect on July 1, 2006.
But wait, a ray of light appeared. There were actually some righteous people left in South Dakota that did not subscribe to the beliefs of the dark side. They actually were progressives that were able to rid themselves of centuries old religious superstitions and think in humanist ways which places humans before superstition.
I must admit I don’t know how they did this but they actually managed to collect enough signatures in that seemingly backward state to have the issue placed on a ballot. Think about it; the people of South Dakota will actually get a chance to vote on it instead of a renegade legislature forcing it down their throats.
Now make no mistake about it, the law will probably be approved because the so called progressives are in a minority but just to see that minority fight for their rights does my heart good and keeps me from thinking the whole country has converted to the dark side.
Now I realize that a debate about choice/abortion cannot be held between people representing the competing sides; it has not worked for me so far. But let me try a little reasoning and see where it gets me.
The South Dakota law prohibited abortion in cases of rape and/or incest. I am not a woman but I try to understand how it would feel to get raped. I guess I can try to imagine if I was raped by another male. I can try but I cannot even imagine the horror. To me the violator/rapist would be a criminal monster of the worst kind; Satan himself.
If you’re a woman, the devil can impregnate you with his seed; Satan’s child. What kind of a person would force you to carry Satan’s seed for nine months and then give birth to it even if the child is blameless – just think of the psychological torture to the woman – unimaginable?
What if the rapist was your perverted father? What type of person would force a child to carry the incest seed (her brother or sister) for nine months and then give birth to it? The child will be scarred for life as it is but forcing her to go through a pregnancy is plain barbaric.
What of the unwanted and hated child that is produced (even though innocent)? What kind of life can that child expect and don’t tell me – at least their alive.
If none of this fazes you in the least then you are a cold-blooded, brainwashed worshiper of fetuses with no feelings for your fellow human beings.
Janusz
But wait, a ray of light appeared. There were actually some righteous people left in South Dakota that did not subscribe to the beliefs of the dark side. They actually were progressives that were able to rid themselves of centuries old religious superstitions and think in humanist ways which places humans before superstition.
I must admit I don’t know how they did this but they actually managed to collect enough signatures in that seemingly backward state to have the issue placed on a ballot. Think about it; the people of South Dakota will actually get a chance to vote on it instead of a renegade legislature forcing it down their throats.
Now make no mistake about it, the law will probably be approved because the so called progressives are in a minority but just to see that minority fight for their rights does my heart good and keeps me from thinking the whole country has converted to the dark side.
Now I realize that a debate about choice/abortion cannot be held between people representing the competing sides; it has not worked for me so far. But let me try a little reasoning and see where it gets me.
The South Dakota law prohibited abortion in cases of rape and/or incest. I am not a woman but I try to understand how it would feel to get raped. I guess I can try to imagine if I was raped by another male. I can try but I cannot even imagine the horror. To me the violator/rapist would be a criminal monster of the worst kind; Satan himself.
If you’re a woman, the devil can impregnate you with his seed; Satan’s child. What kind of a person would force you to carry Satan’s seed for nine months and then give birth to it even if the child is blameless – just think of the psychological torture to the woman – unimaginable?
What if the rapist was your perverted father? What type of person would force a child to carry the incest seed (her brother or sister) for nine months and then give birth to it? The child will be scarred for life as it is but forcing her to go through a pregnancy is plain barbaric.
What of the unwanted and hated child that is produced (even though innocent)? What kind of life can that child expect and don’t tell me – at least their alive.
If none of this fazes you in the least then you are a cold-blooded, brainwashed worshiper of fetuses with no feelings for your fellow human beings.
Janusz
Saturday, June 17, 2006
CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A CHANGING!
Hey the Catholics are at it again and I just love it. My profile reads “raised a Catholic” so I have a lot of Catholic upbringing in me. That upbringing (sometimes forced) has inspired me to research Christianity and especially the role the Catholic Church has played in the history of the world. Another point about Catholicism that still fascinates me is the influence it has had and continues to have on our society and us as individuals.
What brings me to the subject of Catholicism is that it is making NEWS and waves at the same time.
You have read that the “words” of the Mass are being changed. It appears that the late Pope John Paul wanted the secular words of the mass today to reflect, more closely, the words of the original LATIN mass; the words I grew up with. The late Pope thought the secularization of the mass got a little out of hand and he was a BIT CONSERVATIVE if you know what I mean.
The problem, as I see it, is that people (like my mother) who finally accepted English instead of Latin and grew to learn those English words will now be asked to RE-LEARN NEW ONES. These old Catholics just hate to change even if the changes will bring the mass closer to the older version of the mass.
How about the headlines “PASTOR DECLARES KNEELING A SIN” – WOW!
Now this gets a little more tricky to explain but in essence the late Pope was still trying to “go back” in time and try to replicate the original meaning of the mass and get rid of the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries – now that is meaty stuff for a history nut case.
In previous blogs you have heard me explain the beliefs of early Christians and that there were MANY Christianities with a VARIETY of beliefs, especially about Jesus and the man /God thing.
When the Christianities finally coalesced into somewhat of a unified group in Rome under the Roman Catholic banner, the beliefs were centered on the fact that Jesus was BOTH MAN AND GOD / HUMAN AND DIVINE.
It is for this reason, out of respect for both his natures, that Catholics STOOD at mass during the AGNUS DEI or the time the priest raises the chalice and when the wine and bread (communion) turns into the body and blood of Jesus.
Through the centuries, the Catholic Church placed greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and minimized his human nature. In fact, Jesus’ humanness really took a back seat and he was “only” worshipped as a God. For this reason, Catholics started (seventh century on) kneeling during this part of the mass – only apropos for worshipping a God – no?
Again, the late Pope was trying to go back to the origins of the faith – cool! I really like this plan only if the Church really explains the reasons to its parishioners. I know that they will follow like lambs or goats or whatever but I always hope some of them will actually give it some thought.
As to the headline about making kneeling a sin well it is Catholicism at its best; to make people change, declare them sinners if they do not. Growing up I was scared to death to eat meat on Friday ‘cause’ I would burn in hell. Later I was told that if a baby died on the way to getting baptized it would burn in hell forever! These are just some of the hard held beliefs that were reversed when the Church could no longer intelligently support such bullshit.
I am eagerly waiting to see my 84 year-old mother’s response once I tell her about the changes – great fun!
Janusz
What brings me to the subject of Catholicism is that it is making NEWS and waves at the same time.
You have read that the “words” of the Mass are being changed. It appears that the late Pope John Paul wanted the secular words of the mass today to reflect, more closely, the words of the original LATIN mass; the words I grew up with. The late Pope thought the secularization of the mass got a little out of hand and he was a BIT CONSERVATIVE if you know what I mean.
The problem, as I see it, is that people (like my mother) who finally accepted English instead of Latin and grew to learn those English words will now be asked to RE-LEARN NEW ONES. These old Catholics just hate to change even if the changes will bring the mass closer to the older version of the mass.
How about the headlines “PASTOR DECLARES KNEELING A SIN” – WOW!
Now this gets a little more tricky to explain but in essence the late Pope was still trying to “go back” in time and try to replicate the original meaning of the mass and get rid of the changes that have occurred throughout the centuries – now that is meaty stuff for a history nut case.
In previous blogs you have heard me explain the beliefs of early Christians and that there were MANY Christianities with a VARIETY of beliefs, especially about Jesus and the man /God thing.
When the Christianities finally coalesced into somewhat of a unified group in Rome under the Roman Catholic banner, the beliefs were centered on the fact that Jesus was BOTH MAN AND GOD / HUMAN AND DIVINE.
It is for this reason, out of respect for both his natures, that Catholics STOOD at mass during the AGNUS DEI or the time the priest raises the chalice and when the wine and bread (communion) turns into the body and blood of Jesus.
Through the centuries, the Catholic Church placed greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and minimized his human nature. In fact, Jesus’ humanness really took a back seat and he was “only” worshipped as a God. For this reason, Catholics started (seventh century on) kneeling during this part of the mass – only apropos for worshipping a God – no?
Again, the late Pope was trying to go back to the origins of the faith – cool! I really like this plan only if the Church really explains the reasons to its parishioners. I know that they will follow like lambs or goats or whatever but I always hope some of them will actually give it some thought.
As to the headline about making kneeling a sin well it is Catholicism at its best; to make people change, declare them sinners if they do not. Growing up I was scared to death to eat meat on Friday ‘cause’ I would burn in hell. Later I was told that if a baby died on the way to getting baptized it would burn in hell forever! These are just some of the hard held beliefs that were reversed when the Church could no longer intelligently support such bullshit.
I am eagerly waiting to see my 84 year-old mother’s response once I tell her about the changes – great fun!
Janusz
INVASION OF IRAQ LIE!
Saturday, June 17, 2006
To: The Free Press
Re: “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17.
The invasion of Iraq was never a part of the war on terrorism and historical facts bear that out. The resolution passed by the House of Representatives, “House resolution supports mission in Iraq”, June 17, just promulgates a lie. I know why the Republicans voted for the resolution but the 42 Democrats that did should be ashamed of themselves.
Janusz M. Szyszko
Friday, June 16, 2006
A BURNING ISSUE; OUR FLAG!
In my previous blog about Republicans trying to divert our attention from the shitty job they are doing for us and this country, will again bring up hot-button, emotional issues in the hope Americans will somehow forget reality. This has worked for them in the past and they expect to work for them again. We will see in November when Americans actually have an opinion that counts – elections.
Recently they brought up the Gay Marriage issue and tried to change our Constitution to prohibit Gay Marriage. It failed but they hope voters will remember where they stand on this very important issue.
Today it is another “Constitutional Amendment”, this time a ban against burning our flag; another vital, very important issue that has to be addressed or the country will collapse.
Newspapers tell us that this time, they have been bringing this issue up every year; they have a chance of passing it out of the Senate (even if by one vote).
Some Democrats fear that if they vote against it they may be perceived as unpatriotic or somehow un-American and I can see why they have this fear. Our Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow feels the heat since she is up for elections this November so she will vote to amend our Constitution but maybe she actually believes it is needed – well I am starting to think less and less of her and not only because of her stance on this issue.
The issue is nothing if not EMOTIONAL. Obviously, no red-blooded American likes to see his flag burned. Hell, we have strict rules about how the flag can be displayed and even folded. When you burn our flag you burn us as a people, as a nation and that makes us feel very bad.
But basically and realistically the issue is a BULLSHIT issue being used by Republicans for political purposes. It is bullshit because the flag is not burned on a daily basis. In fact, I don’t remember the last time our flag was burned in the United States period – maybe during the Vietnam protests? Yes, it is burned overseas on a regular basis by whoever is against us but this Constitutional Amendment cannot stop them!
SO IF THERE IS NO PROBLEM, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX.
Another objection I have to this issue even being discussed is the fact that it is messing with our CONSTITUTION. I happen, as an American and history nut, to value this document. It has served us well over the years even though MORONS from time to time, try to change it for dubious reasons. I am not saying the Constitution should never have been changed or needs to be changed in the future. Certain Amendments were obviously needed but “Prohibition” – give me a bloody break and this is in the same category of totally worthless and stupid.
Another objection is more about reason and common sense. If this country is all about freedom including freedom of speech and expression, what the hell are you doing by prohibiting the burning of the flag as a form of free speech and free expression; you are a hypocrite, a liar and this country is not really based on principles of freedom!
I do not want to disparage the people that want an amendment banning the burning of our flag because I understand the deep emotions associated with that act BUT there comes a time when you have got to use your brains and realize that this is NOT an issue we should be even talking about. It has NO meaning and will not affect diddly-shit and is just a Republican ploy to get votes BUT is speaks volumes about the mentality of people in this country (I guess I am disparaging) and the ease with which they can be manipulated.
Janusz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...
Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...
-
Image via Wikipedia I am sure you have not been following the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) funding reauthorization battle betwee...
-
There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Detroit News by Nolan Finley, a conservative columnist. The title of his column was THE... -
Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...
