Monday, August 20, 2012

Through Obamacare the USA is sterilising her children


Poor Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP Senate nominee in Missouri. In his rigorous, personal, no-exceptions belief about abortion, he said in a TV interview that ‘legitimate rape’ rarely causes pregnancy. And so the entire liberal-left establishment has besieged his little world, not to mention quite a few liberal-rightists, for (let us be frank) ‘legitimate rape’ is an absurd phrase to use, even when one is trying to highlight the thousands of times women lie about the circumstances surrounding a conception in order to procure a swift American abortion.

But it is strange that such a story should circumvent the globe with the predictable backlash against the GOP, when the Democrats are busy offering sterilisation to the giggling fans of Justin Bieber without parental consent.

In a policy which sounds as though it belongs in China, the state of Oregon is pursuing eugenically-inspired population reduction by providing free sterilisations to girls and boys as young as 15. And mum and dad don’t have a clue that they’re being permanently deprived of their grandchildren.

The ‘Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines’ set forth by the US Department of Health and Human Services states: ‘Non-grandfathered plans and issuers are required to provide coverage without cost-sharing consistent with these guidelines in the first plan year that begins on or after August 1, 2012. All [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.’

Under Oregon State Law, the state's revised statutes (ORS) defines ‘informed consent’ for 15-year-olds independently pursuing reproductive sterilisation as being ‘(a) Based upon a full understanding of the nature and consequences of sterilization pursuant to information requirements set forth in ORS 436.225(1); (b) Given by an individual competent to make such a decision; and (c) Wholly voluntary and free from coercion, express or implied’.

That's okay then. So, in the USA, you can’t obtain a driving licence until the age of 16; parental consent to marry is required under the age of 18; children also need parental consent to get a tattoo; and in some states you can’t buy a beer until you’re 21. But 15 is considered sufficiently mature to provide informed consent for one’s own permanent, irreversible sterilisation. It is incomprehensible that Democrats cannot see that this is likely to pressure the poorest and most vulnerable girls (for the boys are not likely to care) into a permanent insurance against the costs of pregnancy and child-rearing. And it is a decision they are taking years before they might meet their life-long partner, who is thereby deprived forever of progeny.

Oregon's consent form, specific for the sterilisations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads: ‘I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.’ And that’s it: comprehension established. In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient ‘to the best of (his) knowledge and belief’ in signing away the patient's reproductive capacity.

You’d better hope your interpreter understands the difference between translation, transliteration and dynamic equivalence. Or perhaps ‘to the best of (his) knowledge’ is the best one can hope for. This is Oregon we’re talking about, after all: the state which pioneered ‘physician assisted suicide’.

And scarcely a word about this development has been breathed beyond the fringes of the blogosphere. While the world’s media are focused on poor Todd Akin, America’s horny teenagers are being inculcated in the belief that irreversible family planning is a decision you can make out of the pits of hormonal depression and hysterical Justin Bieber obsession. It is an absolute Obamanation.

112 Comments:

Blogger Sam Vega said...

I was waiting for the bit that goes "No wait! His Grace seems to have got it wrong again!".

But it didn't arrive.

This is really serious. Did the legislators know what they were doing? Please tell me that they are stupid rather than evil...

20 August 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Catholics have been warning against this for years. People seem to think that eugenics went away with the Nazis, but the Nazis merely took the British and American eugenics movements of the early 20th century to their logical conclusions; those movements simply morphed into the "free love" movements of the sixties, and the more modern "reproductive rights" branch of feminism. They're still all about creating lebensraum for the bourgeois classes. Two excellent books on the subject are By Their Fruits: eugenics, population control and the abortion campaign by Ann Farmer (which is hugely expensive, unfortunately) and The Political Gene: how Darwin's ideas changed politics by Dennis Sewell, which is much more affordable.

Those interested might also follow this link below to a lecture on the effects abortion has already had on America by the Catholic apologist Michael Voris. Voris is absolutely implacable in his defence of Catholic values and some of our estranged brethren may find his manner somewhat irksome, but he says what needs to be said. Particularly, he describes the effects of the decision in Doe v Bolton, an abortion case handed down by the US supreme court on the same day as Roe v Wade. This case is much less well known than Roe, but it has had a far more damaging and insidious effect on American society. WARNING - WARNING - WARNING: if you follow this link you will arrive at a lecture theatre, and most of the video is just that - a lecture, with graphs and diagrams to assist the speaker. However, there are a couple of sections of video which are truly shocking and definitely NOT for the faint-hearted. These sections are well sign-posted in advance, and you will be given the opportunity to close your eyes. DO NOT WATCH THEM UNLESS YOU HAVE A VERY STRONG STOMACH. They are not in the video to simply shock; they do fit into the flow of Voris's narrative; they make a point. They are not gratuitous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyvgIM7E9Do

20 August 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger Gareth said...

It's like Ken Clarke all over again. Rather than do the man the courtesy of understanding what he was actually saying, rather than what his slightly clumsy words could imply (to anyone determined to believe him to be some sort of extreme misogynist), the Left has smeared him. Shame.

20 August 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger IanCad said...

Liberal, lefty, touchy-feely Oregonians are at it again.
Always in the forefront of progressive thought we should remember that the pleasant State of Oregon was a pioneer in the eugenics movement.
It first passed a eugenics law back in 1917. This piece of Nazi legislation was not repealed until 1983.
You just can't keep a good fascist down.

20 August 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Corrigan's absolutely right. This is the heritage of the left.

It's been kept subdued for a time - in part because of the horrors of the Holocaust, but more, I suspect because the horrors of the Holocaust have been come to be seen as primarily a racist genocide - where many of the left have come to position themselves strongly against racism.

That's probably the best avenue to pursue this diabolic policy into the ground. Make it clear that the groups most likely to be affected will be the poorest - and not coincidentally, those of ethnic minorities.

The fact of course that it will also be used on the poorest whatever their skin colour won't be sufficient to invoke those appalled looks that Democrats do so well. The fact that if this flies, we'll see pressure on those with hereditary disabilities being pressured, won't bother them for a second: they'll simply consider themselves even more enlightened in discovering a way to let disabled people have sex without making themselves "more of a burden" by procreating.

No, you want to see this pulled down, you paint in a way that makes Democrats hurts. And I'm afraid that means race.

20 August 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Not the original copy, so I make no defence of the website it's copied on, but this is an article by the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland tracing with commendable intellectual honesty the role of eugenics in the early 20th century British left.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/eugenics.html

20 August 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Jon said...

Since people can move into Oregon from the rest of the US more or less freely, aren't the various Lebensraum- based Godwinisms here misplaced?

After all, if Oregonians vote to allow their own children to be sterilised at their own choosing (and presumably this has been passed by some kind of democratic mandate rather than imposed) if there is sufficient demand, property prices will fall as demand falls, and people who didn't live in Oregon before will move in to take their place?

Unless the sterilisation is also accompanied by a forced acquisition of any inherited property by the state as well. That would be more holocaust- like.

20 August 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger Larry Short said...

Eugenics has an ugly history. The Church of England has yet to apologise for its own sordid part in that history:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986716/?page=2

Of course, it's not just Anglicans and Democrats who have supported eugenics. It has received support from across the political spectrum and by different Christian denominations.

Why not stand together on this issue, rather than suggesting that there is just 1 guilty party?

20 August 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger Fausty said...

"But 15 is considered sufficiently mature to provide informed consent for one’s own permanent, irreversible sterilisation."

You can be sure that the government will have delivered copious amounts of propaganda on this, under various guises:

* 'sustainable development';
* 'health' and safety;
* history (as in comparative population figures);
* geography (as in 'climate change');
* ...

Then they get home and are bombarded by the BBC's humanist, diversity-hugging, anti-family, pro-gay eugenics agenda.

The only solution appears to be to homeschool your children. But even that freedom is under increasing threat.

20 August 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger The Underground Pewster said...

Are 15 year olds capable of informed consent for medical procedures?

It looks like this is a natural consequence of the same reasoning that allows abortions to be performed on minors without parental consent.

The typical 15 year old in the U.S. is not going to able to make an informed decision for permanent sterilization. Most of them have a hard enough time deciding which body part to get pierced.

20 August 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Owl said...

Of course Eugenics never went away.

Just check Julian Huxley (as an example). Eugenist, Fabian socialist, WWF, Unesco.

Eugenics has been a part of Fabianism from it's beginnings in the late 19th centrury.

In the early 20th century, Fabianism entered America taking Eugenics in tow.

The UK, luckily, had G.K. Chesterton to combat this evil. America had, unfortunately, nobody.

What's new?

20 August 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Larry:

There isn't a single guilty party, but it is disingenuous to downplay the degree to which eugenics is intertwined with left-wing and statist liberal history. Putting it simply, it is in many ways a natural end to a collection of political philosophies that see the role of both their own politics, and the instruments of state, to influence, shape and direct society - and the people that comprise it.

In that sense, it is the kind of interference that one does not see nearly so strongly in socially conservative thought: because the relationship between the instruments of state and people inherently tends towards the former reflecting and serving the latter, rather than attempting to significantly alter it in the name of progress.

Your citing the Church of England, is thus misplaced if you intend to invoke it as a primarily conservative authority. The Bishop in question - William Boyd Carpenter - was in fact quite strongly liberal in inclination, both politically and religiously. One early biography actually describes him as being "modernist" in his theological inclinations, seeing as especially important the union of science and belief. He was also comparatively isolated in his outspoken favour for eugenics - precisely the reason why he was so celebrated by those who supported it. In fact he had several quite robust exchanges with dinosaur academics and clergy alike who saw little compatability between the kind of (Victorian) Darwinianism that Carpenter ended up supporting, and Christianity.

The "lay member" in the article is also worth looking into a little more. I've not been able to find a biography, but W.C.D Whetham appears to have been the author of several treatises on matters eugenical, which at the least may suggest that he is an individual with a particular interest, rather than a typical CofE parishioner.

I have no doubt that there were probably many parishioners who would have found much to commend in the attitudes of Whetham and Carpenter, but it would be a mistake to characterise their positions as being indicative of either the instution as a whole, or indeed of orthodox, conservative Christianity, which for the most part, has long been not only uncomfortable but explicitly opposed to philosophies that degrade the sacredness of humanity.

20 August 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Here's a nice quote from Bishop Carpenter - there are plenty of others with fairly hair-raising comments about the scum of humanity, but this one I think nails the idea that the man was a religious conservative rather firmly on the head:

“Man is a creature still incomplete and the process of his completion is in the social and ethical realms of nature.”

(1912 Liverpool Lecture)

20 August 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger David B said...

Assuming this is true, it looks to me like an inadvertent loophole in a law, or perhaps an unintended consequence of a law that is otherwise well intentioned.

I speak, as many of you will know, as a liberal atheist, and I am not happy about the idea of people that age having the power to consent to such procedures before the age of sexual consent.

One would hope that it is a loophole which, now being pointed out, will be closed in short order.

I do tend to the view, though, that it would be incompetence in the framers of the legislation rather than evil intent that would lead to such a loophole being present, assuming, as I say, that the reports are correct.

David B

20 August 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger John Magee said...


To understand the eugenics movement in the USA you must read about Margaret Sanger and her birth control and eugenics movement during the first half of the last century. She was an ultra left winger who wanted to stop "inferior races" (mainly blacks) and immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe from "excessive breeding". Her eugenics views as well as the whole USA's eugenics movement supported by the American left and a few "conservatives" were so crazy they were admired by Nazi Germany's Joseph Goebbel's and Heinrich Himmler. No doubt Himmler's extermination of Germany's mentally ill and handicapped in the early 1940's was inspired by this American feminist baby hater and eugenics fanatic Margaret Sanger.

Liberals in the USA, including President Obama, support all forms of abortion, yet the interesting fact is that black mothers have the higest % of abortions of any race in the USA.

The state of Oregon is one of the most liberal states in the USA. it wasn't always so. Up until the 1970's it was very conservative and traditional. It is also a very beautiful place to visit. Hippies and left wingers in California fed up with the catastrophic left wing social policies that ruined the major cities in California and the drastic rise in crime caused largely by illegals from Mexico and Central America went north to peaceful, all white, beautiful Oregon 30 years ago. Now they have managed to turn that state into another liberal cess pool. Isn't it strange how white liberals flee cities with so much multi-culturalism? You would imagine they would thrive in those places.

There is an interesting phenomenon in the USA of liberals leaving the cities their politics ruined and "emigrating" to lily white states, small towns, or the hated suburbs where they are safe and can then proceed to wreck those happy places with their dreams of environmental extremism and multi-cultural utopia's. Beautiful Vermont is another example. In 1960 that rural state was 80% Republican and full of common sense "Yankees" farmers. The word Yankee is the name given to the original English who settled in New England by the Indians. Now Vermont has a New York Jew, who runs as an independent but is in reality a radical socialist, as one of it's Senators and the state has been invaded, like Oregon, by hippies and left wingers fleeing the crime and violence of liberal New York and Boston and other multi-cultural Eastern USA cities.

20 August 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. A blatant attempt to ‘improve the stock’ if ever there were and by the lazy way too. It takes hard work to get the best out of some, and much effort is saved this way. But what can you do to stop this further outrage against humanity by humanity when abortion on demand is allowed. Eugenics is an outrage, isn’t it ?

During your abortion missals of last year, the Inspector researched abortion in US cities. Every city enriched with a substantial non white ethnicity was experiencing a massive and exponential rise in violent crime in the late 1980s early 90s. Abortion was introduced and in a matter of a few years the problem had subsumed to manageable (!) levels again. Now, you can guess that if this man knows about that across the Atlantic, there are powerful interests stateside who are all too aware of what went before and who want to keep it the way it is now, and extend it to pre foetal.

The stock is very often weak and degenerate and violent with it. One would like some solution to long term prison and this looks like it may be it. Of course, this man’s Catholic convictions prevent him from supporting the idea in any way. Having said that, he hasn’t had a relative shot dead in a robbery or mugging, and a fellow is only human, capable of vengeful thought. One can only wonder what it would be like to lose a son in the aforementioned manner…

For all those who have commented on 15 being young, that gentlemen just goes to show that the legislation is to target the groups we know they have in mind. You can also place good money that the offer will be made BEFORE her fifteenth birthday, so that everything is in place ready for the day it can done legally, with just the addition of her signature or mark. The eugenicists will know there will be no time to waste, as she will be expected to be on the cusp of sex by then, if not already there.

20 August 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, perhaps it would be a good idea to find out how many people are taking advantage of this before jumping to such conclusions.

Of course, any young girl who has such an op before reaching the age where she could give informed consent is one too many, but if the numbers are only in single figures, or double figures a year, then in terms of being a eugenicists plot it would be a singularly ineffective one.

If it gets to be a few percent of girls of that age, especially from some ethnic backgrounds rather than others, then that sort of concern becomes more pressing.

David B

20 August 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

One of the main reasons for the disproportionately high crime rate among blacks in majority black sections of USA cities is because at least 82% (I've read lower statistics but about 82% is seems to be accurate)of black babies are born to a single mother. Most black fathers abandon their babies soon after birth and these children are left to be raised by a mother who most likely hasn't finished high school because she already had a baby or two by the time she was 15 or 16. Knowing the welfare state will take care of her and her babies she has more babies to collect more welfare and of course get free medical care. The vicious and hopeless cycle is set in place for a lifetime of misery for all concerned. The fathers of these babies vanish before or shortly after the birth of their baby. Most likely never to be seen again and father more babies they will never take responsibility for. Of course the mother of a fatherless baby has no child support from the vansihed father of her baby. She can't count on her family because her mother is almost certainly a single parent herself. These black male babies grow up to become teenagers with no male role model or discipline at home that is a father's responsibility. What do they do? They turn to the only males in their neighborhood who offer support: gang members. It's a terrible and vicious cycle that is fed by the welfare state. Keep in mind in the 1950's over 85% of black children were raised in a two parent family with the father or both parents working. When liberals are asked why this "flip" from the majority of black families being two parents to the majority raised in a single parent home with a mother trying to raise her babies and no father around in only 60 years they have no answer. Other than to spend more money and make these women even more dependent and helpless to find a job. It's fair to say the blacks in the USA have been destroyed by "the new plantation" mentality, the welfare state gave them since the 1930's, which destroyed their iniative and self respect their concept of of a two parent family most likly forever. Aren't liberals "good intentions" by giving money away as the solution to all of our social problems "wonderful"? Remember the old saying: "The road to hell is paved by good intentions"?

Public schools (public schools in the USA are not to be confused with the elite and Public Schools in England)in the USA which are in fact just that, free to the public, in the inner cities are catastrophes where the students do as they please and even attack the teachers. The vast majority gradaute and can hardly read and have no skills to function in a highly comples society. Conservatives want vouchers so blacks and other poor people can use a them to chose the private school of their choice which has high standards (usually a Catholic school) so these mothers I mentioned above can have some hope their babies can have a decent education and a decent future. Liberals hate vouchers because of the teacher's unions who know the public schools would be empty overnight and they would be out of a job. So the cycle of self destruction of blacks continues...Very very sad

Don't believe those crime statistics you read. Blacks are 13% of the USA population yet they commit 51.2% of all murders in that country. Source: U.S. Justice Department.

20 August 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I think perhaps the introduction of various - what was it Jon described them as? "Godwinisms"? - analogies has tended to distort the point of why this should be resisted.

The idea that there is an evil eugencist lurking behind the Oregonian legislation is of course specious - but it is so on two counts; firstly because there is no reason to conclude the conspiracy is occuring; and secondly because there is no need for conspiracy.

The "lesson", if there can be one, of past countries' use of sterilization towards eugenic social design - whether that's Nazi Germany, or Social Democratic Sweden - is that once the idea that humanity may be subordinated to progress, to necessity (whether or the People, the State or both), it becomes its own justification.

Adherents point to their ability to distinguish between good and bad people, to note real trends, and then to see this ability as the justification of putting an end not to the cause of "badness", nor even its symptoms, but to people. For the offspring that will never be born, that's quite a literal end; for the sterilized themselves it's a tolerance to live out their days, directed no doubt to useful contribution, but never to fruitfulness.

Because let's be blunt: it won't be the well-educated or the kids of the affluent who find themselves on the wrong side of a doctor's clipboard with all the force of consent laden on the question: "don't you think it might be responsible not to bring (another) burden into the world?"

David B is absolutely right to see the line as being one girl. Because history shows that it is never just one girl. And it demonstrates that - just as Pelosi refuses to answer the point in the article Cranmer cites - the march from 1 to a 1 million is always under the cover of the compelling silence of Progress.

We can laugh off the idea that Oregon will end up sterilizing undesirables. But that's what we would have said of democratic, progressive Sweden doing it: a fantasy for (religious) obsessives and conspiracy theorists.

20 August 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, with greater knowledge of the human genome and with the potential ability to genetic engineer, this communicant sees eugenics becoming part and parcel of society. Like it or not. The possibility of a seamless inter-relationship between genetic engineering and eugenic practice is obvious. How this scientific development is going to be managed ethically is moot. The state will no doubt make its claims to usurp the right of parents to make decisions in the best interests of the child, as is always the case.

The issue in Oregon is that 15yo is accepted as an age of consent for an irrevocable change in a girl's life. This seems terribly wrong and unfair, as would be a reduction in the age of consent for all forms of sex to 15, as proposed by elements of the gay lobby.

What is being proposed in Oregon is child abuse of a very extreme kind that will inevitably trigger a round of very expensive law-suits with even more expensive compensation payments. Paid for, of course, by taxpayers who had no part in the initial decision.

20 August 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Everyone,

yeah, yeah, let's create a master race and exterminate anyone who is inferior, via abortions and sterilization and the gas chambers. Let's agree to this new world view and embrace it, it is of course 'science', is 'rational' and has never been done before.... oh wait a minute, I forgot to look up Nazi Germany 1933-1945.

20 August 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Bluedog is quite wrong; the elements of the gay lobby to whom he refers are actually looking for the age of consent to be reduced to 14, not 15. Ironically, had they succeeded in doing this years ago they could have saved the Catholic Church a lot of money, since most (although admittedly, not all) of the abuse against minors was against boys of this age group. In fact, most of the priests involved in the sex abuse scandals did not practice pedophilia (which has a very specific psychological definition) but ephobophilia, a sexual attraction towards mid-teenage boys: the same practice that the homosexual lobby is trying to get legalized now. Funny old world, eh?

20 August 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 August 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

@ Corrigan,

Your are a piece aren't you? You have to get your silly justifications and so called superiority in somewhere don't you?

How can you rather smugly sit there and make pot shots via the views of certain gays and use this to justify the terrible acts done to children by individual priests (and in some cases 'covered up' by certain Catholic Bishops) within your Church , which go against the commandments of your own G-d, the belief of your Church and the laws of the land?

20 August 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger John Magee said...

Hannah

In my mind any racial, ethnic, religious, or political group who call themselves or claims to be "chosen" have a master race complex.

That's not to be confused with people believing their group has the "truth" which can be good if their truth teaches them to care for and help others in need. Especially strangers.

Jesus Christ asks us to this in the Gospels.

20 August 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

@John,

It's in your Bible OR as you call it the Old Testament. I am not surprised at all that you would use this thread to justify your own bigotry against Jews, blacks and anyone none white. How do you cope with being an American, given that America is made up of different races and peoples?

20 August 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

Corrigan

I've noticed not one single person in any of the sexual abuse cases I've read about against a Catholic priest has ever consented to take a lie detector test. I wonder why not?

Of course lie detector test results are not admissable in a court of law but a negative lie detector tests does indicate deception.

People will do anything for money and sexual abuse cases against the catholic Church are like winning the lottery.

I am not saying or suggesting that there are not valid sexual abuse cases against some Catholic priests. But so many and some dug up 20, 30, 40 years after the "event" make me suspicious.

Just a thought.

20 August 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Miss Kavanagh,

I believe you have mistaken pointing out a hypocrisy for justifying an atrocity. The gay lobby have wailed and moaned and shouted indignantly at priests for doing something they wish to legalise. How is this not hypocrisy? How is it justifying it? We don't agree with their premise, we're just pointing out that they aren't following it to its logical conclusion.

I will add something that most here have ignored. The scandal in the Church was not the number of cases (which was lower than could be expected for similar privileged professions) but the covering up by Bishops. It just so happens that the Bishops in question were rarely those who sought good relations with the Holy See. Many opposed contraception and priestly celibacy and supported abortion. Cardinal Roger Mahony is a perfect example. He presided over the worst of the abuse scandal and flagrantly disregarded Catholic teaching on sexuality. Coincidence?

20 August 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Lakester 91

In actual fact I was suggesting that Corrigan was using an hypocrisy (what you call the 'gay lobby', or what I call certain gays) to justify an atrocity (certain Priests of the catholic church and the subsequent cover up by certain bishops). If you look at what I had written I referred to the perpetrators as individual priests and to some or certain bishops. I did not tar the whole catholic church with such mud.

As for John Magee and his thesis about how it was really a question of people seeking money from the Catholic church, my thought is wtf? Has he read up on this subject or any of the posts done by this weblog regarding this issue?

20 August 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger Berserker said...

Eugenics to MP's?

Natural selection, good breeding, good schooling, great wealth, influential friends, nice suits - is this not what we all want and what does it produce but... Dave!

Labour's NEC and their selection of an all women local party shortlist is in a form of eugenics - weed out all those inferior males with even more inferior women and you get... Blair's Babes!

20 August 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Well said Lakester!

Mr Magee
It's 'politically incorrect' and 'unfashionable to say it but both Catholic Tradition and Scripture teach that there is a "Chosen People" which is composed of any person, Gentile or Jew, who has received salvation in Jesus Christ.

Saint Peter taught the following when he spoke to the Church at large: in 1 Peter 2:9-10:

"But you are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises" of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were "no people" but now you are God's people; you "had not received mercy" but now you have received mercy."
(1 Peter 2:9-10)

Nowhere does any official teaching of the Catholic Church ever call modern day Jews the "Chosen People" in the present tense. The Catholic Church refers to the Jews as the “Chosen People” is in reference to their status with God in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Additionally, the Church Fathers never called the Jews living in their day “the Chosen People,” and neither did any medieval theologians or any of the Church councils or official papal teachings.

The Catholic Church teaches that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, need Jesus Christ and his Church.

Lumen Gentium (1964), affirmed that God “chose the race of Israel as a people” and “set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, “all these things … were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant” instituted by and ratified in Christ". In Dominus Iesus (2000), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states, “There is only one salvific economy” and “God willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. …The certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ”.

The Church has taught that the Jewish people still maintain an irrevocable and special relationship with God because of their forefathers. It also teaches that this relationship is not salvific; it finds its ultimate fulfillment in and through Christ and his Church. The Gospel and the Church are for all men — Jew and Gentile alike.

21 August 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger John Magee said...

Hannah

Read my post very carefully. All I asked was why have I yet to read or hear of a man or young man accusing a priest of sexual abuse ever volunteer to take a lie detector test. "Deception indicated " means the examinee produced deceptive reactions that were not truthful. Of course this is not evidence that can be used in court but I would still like to know how many of the accusers would produce this result and have the info made public. I never said or suggested that any or all the accusations were not true. When money, LOTS of money, is involved in a law suit you must be suspicious. Especially when an accuser pops up from nowhere 30 or 40 years later when the priest is in his 80's and accuses the priest of abuse and wants tens of millions in a cash settlement from the priest's diocese. Do you understand my point or is your hatred of Catholics so overwhelming that you don't care if the accusers might be liars after easy money? Some people are so evil and lack a conscience they would tell a lie and have an innocent priest sent to prison where he will either die of old age or be killed by hypocritical criminals who have a special hatred of child molestors.

21 August 2012 at 00:49  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

Thank you for that clarification.The Gospel and the Church are for the entire human race. That's the perfection of hope!

21 August 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lakester

How's this for liberal hypocrisy and inconsistency? Gays want to be "married" which of course will legally redefine the definition of marriage yet Gays and liberal hetrosexual supporters of Gay "marriage" are the first to say we can't legalize polygamy which was practiced by the ancient Hebrews, is allowed in Islam today, and is also practiced by several Mormon sects, as well as some pagans in remote parts of the world and possibly by a few constantly traveling businessmen. If Gays can "marry" legally Pandora's Box will, and has. been opened and marriage must legally mean what anyone or any group says it should mean if society it to be consistent. What person 50 years ago in their right mind would have imagined we would get to this point in 2012?

21 August 2012 at 01:12  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Magee
This info comes from Banana Brain in a previous post
The Torah says
"love the stranger for you were strangers in Egypt" (deut 10: 19)
"do not mistreat a stranger or oppress him,for you were strangers in Egypt"
( exodus 22:21)
This means that Jews are obligated by their religion to love and not mistreat Gentiles.Not all Jews or all Christians follow the precepts of their religion.
PS
You should be patient with Annna Anglican who has now become Hannah jewess. She constantly refers to "your own God " when she is commenting at Christians . She obviously has not arrived at the part in her Jewish religion lessons where it will be explained that Jews and Christians share the same God.Omitting the o does not make for a different entity.

21 August 2012 at 04:24  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Abortion helps keep the poor poor.

It is the antithesis of real change and social justice as well as mass slaughter.

21 August 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The point, Miss Kavanagh, is that most of the acts done by the "individual priests" to whom you refer, while morally repugnant according to the official Catholic rule book, are perfectly acceptable - indeed, are to be striven for - by the standards of the very people who are screaming "abusers!" at us for doing what they want legalized. Hence, "funny old world".

21 August 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida

You seem to becoming more and more Anglican in your spiritual and religious outlook (a complement btw, for you know I generally hold the C of E in high -ish regard) and it is great that you wish to make interfaith overtones, but I am unable to reconcile your statement that Jews and Christians "share the same G-d", because with all due respect that would require Jews to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and Jews do not do so.

For if we "shared the same G-d" that would make Dodo look a bit silly in his explanation of the Christian -Catholic position as he outlines it above- "we" that is the Jews still need to convert according to that message. I would also summarize that this is the world view of the Protestant Christians who post here.

I would also like to add that the O is missing from the G and the D, because as you are aware it is blasphemous for Jews to spell or pronounce the name. I could use acceptable Hebrew, but as this is an English written blog...

Finally, I was always Hannah "Jewess" as Hannah is my name- Anna Anglican was the pseudonym. In respect of the religious aspect, I have explained all of this before, if you choose not to read, that is up to you.

Anyway G-d bless you Cressida.

21 August 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2012 at 14:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida

A nice and polite reply from you as usual.

What you have in effect done in your reply to me is to reiterate the Christian worldview in respect of G-d, faith and salvation.

There is nothing wrong with you explaining your own faith, for that is how we all grow, however, it seems you are confusing two religions and how they see G-d.

21 August 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

It is an absolute Obamanation Again, Your Grace, very clever! Thank you once more for highlighting a situation we are wise to keep in view and even explore.

I’ve appreciated responses on this one too, especially those recognising the part Fabian/Marxist “Modernists” have played in bringing us to this pass. As I’ve claimed before, writers didn’t get struck by lightning before they warned us. People like Huxley (Brave New World; Orwell 1984; and Conrad The Secret Agent even “Heart of Darkness” were thoroughyly familiar with the “intellects” around them.

As to possibilities presently unfolding: the steps from large-scale sterilisation need only be short. They could include-> GM-->artificial insemination–> external gestation-> battery farms (once the family unit is obsolete).

In the meantime, we might imagine the future lives of Obama’s sterile children. Bearing in mind Mr. Magee’s (accurate) picture @ 19:19 Aug 20, we see that many will proceed to middle age with none to care for them, or for them to nurture. Perhaps they’ll escape loneliness in old age: our society is already conditioned to the killing of inconvenient patients, by “health services.”

cont'd...

21 August 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

Hannah

I have a few questions. Please remember I am not trying to be obnoxious by asking them. My questions come from a Christian perspective almost 2,000 years after Pentecost.

Why did Jews before Christ, as far as I know, never evangelize their faith to the pagans around them and spread the Torah's message throughout the world and still don't? Why were the Jews obsessed with their own tribal identity selfishly guarding their ethnicity even to the point of making blood (having a Jewish mother) the definition of being Jewish? Why did the Christian Jews of the early Church not want to share Christ's message to the pagans unless they became Jews first? We owe it to St. Paul that Christ's message was shared, as Christ intended, with the Gentiles (all people's of the world).

If the temple is ever restored in Jerusalem will you support animal sacrifice again? Hundreds if not thousands of animals were sacrificed in the Temple on the Jewish High Holy Days, especially The Day of Atonement, before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. On those High Holy Days the Jewish Temple Priests sacrificed so many animals the gutters in the streets of Jerusalem literally flowed with the blood of those sacrificed animals. I am sure you realize Orthodox Jews will restore animal sacrifice once again if the Temple is ever restored.

It's ironic had it not been for the existence of Christianity and it's rapid growth, spread by the preaching of the Apostle's and others, throughout the pagan Roman Empire and beyond after Christ's Christ's Resurrection. The Jewish Torah, which we Christians call the Old Testament, would have most likely have been known to only a few scholars of philosophy in a pagan world without Christianity.

Christ's message throughout the Gosepls is love (unselfishly caring for others). Everything about Him we read in the those four books is about his helping others, especially strangers, and asking us to do the same. Other faiths have variations of the "Golden Rule". Jesus, the Son of God, unlike anyone before Him or since made this his dominant message during His life on earth. He was hated by many during his life here on earth for His message of universal love. Today Jesus is especially hated by atheists and secularists because of He claimed to be the Son of God who promises us a heavenly life after our short time here on earth and not a "heaven on earth" which is the promise of Marxism and materialism.

I mean no offense asking these questions.

PAX VOBICUM

21 August 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd...

So what will be the interim existence of the aimless, loveless, pointless, sterile children?

They’ll be the workers; a body Dystopian fiction already considers the impossibilities of those “life-styles.” More’s Utopia itself was an early exploration of some potential effects of authoritarian rule in the style we now label "Communist: and his, like the present version, freely tolerated all religions.

And if the Worker-insects have problems, mentally... or get revolutionary? Dinnae fash yersel’s about the Communist Dialectic!!! There’s more research afoot. A couple of days ago, I heard a neurologist on the radio talk about stem-cell technology. He was thrilled about recent progress towards brain transplantation.

Not that any of the above will worry individuals who claim to be chosen by the Holy Ghost: to think for others, judge them, and condemn them. But shouldn’t the rest of us be vigilant; shouldn't we prepare to divert eventualities like those outlined?

21 August 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

usual regrets for typos e.g that should read: "a body of Dystopian fiction."

And, of course, State nurseries would follow the battery farms-a much-needed link between to the in-school indoctrination about personal matters.

21 August 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse

I am the "king" of typos and grammar errors. It's the ideas and opinions that people share with others that are important.

Carry on.

21 August 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi John,

1)Judaism is not a faith like Christianity, we are to show by example, not conversion.

2) You can become Jewish by conversion to Judaism as well as via your mother.

3) Re the Temple, I understand that this is a debated topic between the various traditions, so not one I can fully answer.

The other questions really pertain to The New Testament, so I guess you will find the answers there.

Also Judaism (as Cressida has already noted) has obligations in respect of loving your neighbour.

21 August 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger len said...

There seem to be an ongoing attack on 'the family unit( Mother/father/ Children and this is pretty widespread and encompasses many things.

Christian values, morals, and anything remotely' pro family' seems to be under remorseless pressure morally, socially, and financially.

Since the 'family unit' is the 'cement' that binds society together it is perhaps not too surprising that those who wish to rebuild society in their 'own image'have no scruples about tearing down our existing society.
The destruction of our Society (as anyone over the age of 60yrs will appreciate) is already well under way.
There has never been so much advice on birth control as is available today so the need for sterilisation(which presumably is irreversible )is completely unnecessary and shows a callous disregard for those in the formative and often changeable teenage years.




21 August 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

John, it is incorrect to think that Judaism never actively sought converts; in fact, in the first century or so of Christianity, Jews were very vigourous in attempting to convert Gentiles. Prior to the Roman Empire, they overran and forceably converted the Idumeans (Edomites) to Judaism.

21 August 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger len said...

Perhaps O/T Jews have not tried evangelising the pagans because the pagans have constantly attacked the Jews because of their religion.?
It seems pretty incredible to me that the Jews have kept their national identity despite being dispersed throughout the World.

The Apostles did however travel and preach the Gospel to the pagans and suffered greatly for it!.
PETER was martyred in Rome about AD 66 during the persecution under Emperor Nero. Peter was crucified, upside down at his request, since he did not feel he was worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord.
ANDREW went to the "land of the man-eaters," in what is now the ex-Soviet Union. Christians there claim him as the first to bring the Gospel to their land. He also preached in Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey, and in Greece, where he is said to have been crucified.
THOMAS was probably most active in the area east of Syria. He preached as far east as India, where the ancient Marthoma Christians revere him as their founder. He died there when pierced through with the spears of four soldiers.
PHILIP possibly had a powerful ministry in Carthage in North Africa and then in Asia Minor, where he converted the wife of a Roman proconsul. In retaliation the proconsul had Philip arrested and cruelly put to death.
MATTHEW the tax collector and writer of a gospel book, ministered in Persia in Asia and Ethiopia in Africa. Some of the oldest reports say he was not martyred, while others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia.
BARTHOLOMEW had widespread missionary travels: to India with Thomas, back to Armenia, and also to Ethiopia and Southern Arabia. There are various accounts of how he met his death as a martyr for the Gospel.
JAMES the son of Alpheus, is one of at least three James's referred to in the New Testament. There is some confusion as to which is which, but this James is reckoned to have ministered in Syria. The Jewish historian Josephus reported that he was stoned and then clubbed to death.
SIMON THE ZEALOT ministered in Persia and was killed after refusing to sacrifice to the sun god.
MATTHIAS was the apostle chosen to replace Judas. He went to Syria with Andrew and to death by burning.
JOHN is the only one of the company generally thought to have died a natural death from old age. He was the leader of the church in the Ephesus area, now in west Turkey, and is said to have taken care of Mary the mother of Jesus in his home. During Domitian's persecution in the middle 90's, he was exiled to the island of Patmos, in modern-day Greece. There he wrote the last book of the New Testament--the Revelation. An early Latin tradition has him escaping unhurt after being cast into boiling oil at Rome.

21 August 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Len said ...
"PETER was martyred in Rome about AD 66 during the persecution under Emperor Nero. Peter was crucified, upside down at his request, since he did not feel he was worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord."

Progress! Finally you accept Peter preached in Rome and was martyred there.

Hannah
There is only one God. Christians accept the God worshipped by Israel. However, we believe His nature and expectations were more fully revealed in Jesus Christ.

John Magee
As I understand it, the Torah required Jews to be seperate from other nations so as not to become corrupted by paganism.

21 August 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hi Hannah

I think the crux of the misunderstanding between you and Cressida De Nova is that as a Christian she sees Judaism and The Tenakh (for Christians, the old testament) through the prism of the Christian new testament as “Judaism fulfilled” and subsequently Christianity’s claim to be the universal, one, true and only path to G-d (as she notes in her last paragraph). Hence the claim to worship the same G-d is perfectly logical from her standpoint. This is not a surprise because this is after all a predominately Christian weblog, however , as Jews, we both understand that there is more to Judaism than the Christian interpretation of our faith.

21 August 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

For John & others :

Judaism is not an evangelistic religion, which is in contrast to Christianity. The covenant between the Jewish people and G-d means that Jews are under a higher standard (as far as G-d is concerned) than anyone else, but that we should show G-d by example and not by conversion, nor do we set our law as a universal obligation for the world. I also think you have got the notion or interpretation of a ‘chosen people’ slightly wrong in earlier posts. This is I believe because of the Christian view that there is now have a new covenant which supersedes and replaces ours, but which stresses that Christians are required to convert the people of the world via Christianity and to follow Jesus as the one and only true path for salvation; ergo that is what the Christians think of the old (our current ) covenant as being .

We also believe that gentiles (non -Jews) are not required or expected to follow the same laws as ourselves. There are laws which The Talmud says (in order to be assured of a place in the world to come) gentiles should follow and these are Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach. Judaism holds that others may have their own, different, paths to G-d as long as they are consistent with Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach.

For your information the Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach are as follows :

1.Prohibition of Idolatry
2.Prohibition of Murder
3.Prohibition of Theft
4.Prohibition of Sexual immorality
5.Prohibition of Blasphemy
6.Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
7.Establishment of courts of law

WE do accept converts, but not in a careless or frivolous fashion and the process does take a long time (at least a year) . In respect of the bit about love and kindness, Judaism also has these principal; unfortunately, it is one of the more negative aspects of the new testament writers that they portray my faith as rigid, uncaring and overbearing, which is simply not correct. Look up Leviticus 19 vs 17-18 and see who quotes it in Matthew 22 vs39.


21 August 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

David Kavanaugh

You said:

The covenant between the Jewish people and G-d means that Jews are under a higher standard (as far as G-d is concerned) than anyone else, but that we should show G-d by example and not by conversion, nor do we set our law as a universal obligation for the world

This is theological arrogance. Jesus Christ loved all humans equally. In the Torah it says that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death and condemns homosexuals to hell:

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."


Leviticus 20:13

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

These quotes are from the Torah. Do you belive this stuff? I have many more quotes from the Torah that are just as brutal and ugly. Jesus Christ released us from these awful concepts in the Torah.

Is stoning a woman for adultery "justice"? This sounds like the Koran.

You either believe these and other negative quotes in the Torah or you don't. Which is it? Jesus was an unmarried man in his 30's and he had many women as his friends. He saved an adulterous woman from being stoned from an angry Jewish mob. He never mentioned or condemned homosexuals...

I see justice in the legal systems of Western Christian nations. Not in the Torah. The above quotes are just a partial list of stuff from the OT I totally disagree with.

Give me the pagan Greeks any day over the ancient Hebrews and their fire and brimstone and brutality.

Here is an example of what the ancient Greeks taught their people in Athens 500 BC while the Jews 700 miles SE of Athens were stoning adulterous women to death:



Ancient Greece

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[19] (c. 640–568 BC)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[20] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean. The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[23](436–338 BC)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[24]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed', and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus
"...it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere." - Socrates, in Plato's Republic. Plato is the first person known to have said this.








<<


<


=
=


>


>>


22 August 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Magee said ...

"Give me the pagan Greeks any day over the ancient Hebrews and their fire and brimstone and brutality."

Are you denying the Torah was the inspired word of God? Suggesting that the Israelites invented these laws themselves? That Judaism and its rligious system was not founded by God?

In my opinion, by insulting the Torah in this way you are blaspheming God. If I understand them correctly, I also believe your views are heretical. You would favour pagan Greek mythology over the laws given by God?

22 August 2012 at 01:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

What do you mean, "In my opinion, by insulting the Torah in this way you are blaspheming God"? I simply ask questions and post facts. This is 2012 AD. I believe anyone who still thinks he/she are members of God's "chosen people" simply because of luck of birth and at the same time consider themselves held "to a higher standard" by "G-d", whatever that is supposed to mean, is a "blasphemer" against the rest of the human race because they arrogantly imagine themselves somehow superior to the rest of us because of their DNA. The idea that a certain group still considers themselves held to a "higher standard by "g-d" in this day and age and somehow have an innate sense of justice mocks the decency shared by most of the human race. Especially those of us in majority Christian Western nations where fair and just legal systems have evolved, based on Christian beliefs and values and also those of ancient Western civilizations like the ancient Greeks (the Greeks had a code of ethics very similar to the Ten Commandments) and the Anglo-Saxons, over many centuries into what we have today in our court systems. I am a Catholic and I believe Christians: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and others are a just people too who live up to the higher standards given to the entire human race by Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

Please don't call me some sort of hater for my views. I only hate people and systems which chose evil over good. Even then, as a Christian, I am obliged pray for their souls.


22 August 2012 at 04:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Take it easy Dodo. You passing fixation on jewish roots is clouding your judgement. As Catholics we reject a lot of the Torah . The NT is the foundation of our faith.Anyway your friend Hannah and her brother say we do not share the same God so which God is Magee blaspheming against?
PS
Magee, the Greeks were brilliant but they were pagans and had multiple Gods.As a convert you might not realise that the Jew is our older brother whether you like it or not and the Greeks are not related to us spiritually.Although I concede
that we owe Greek civilsation a lot.

22 August 2012 at 05:04  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Morning Dodo, Cressida,

As you both note there is a common heritage in both of our faiths and as per the wit of Solomon I am sure that G-d is vast enough for all of us.

John, I understand that the founder of Christianity (and I think as Roman Catholics see it the universal Church) Jesus said something in reference to the Torah as follows (Matthew 5, vs 17-20):

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

22 August 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John

Thanks for your post with all of the Biblical quotes in it. I think you unfortunately misunderstand Judaism and by saying I believe them or not, seem to want to turn our faith (presumably because of the emphasis on Torah) into some form of Christian Sola scriptura position. Again this is not surprising given that the new testament continually reminds the reader of being ‘freed’ from the obligations of the law, because as I quoted above Christians see Jesus as the fulfilment of the law.

However from our perspective this assumption is not correct, because we also have the oral law as well as the written law - The Mishnah as set out in the Talmud.

So in answer to your questions both homosexual practice and adultery are wrong, but the punishments are not applicable. What the passages tell us is the severity to which G-d sees these acts.

Furthermore, in both of your cases even when these punishments were applicable, in Biblical times there were stringent procedures that had to be followed in order for a conviction and punishment to be carried out (there needed to be the testimony of two eye-witnesses of ‘good character’ and the defendants must also have had to have been warned about the consequences before preforming the act itself).

As an aside, the point about capital punishment is a moot one because Rabbinical scholars suggest that the system of capital punishment as relayed in the Torah is not applicable because such sentences had to be undertaken with a full meeting of the Sanhedrin at the Temple ( neither of which exist anymore).

It is interesting that you use the parable of the woman caught in adultery from the New Testament, because in the Christian Bible I have it tells me that the oldest manuscripts do not have John Chapter 7 vs. 53 to Chapter 8 vs. 1 to 11). I did read a translation once, where that section is put at the back of John, I think for the same reason. In any event having read that part, it was hardly an “angry Jewish mob” given that the encounter took place within the Temple complex.

It is also interesting that you suggest Jesus never mentioned or hated homosexuals.

As you may be aware my sister is a homosexual, albeit a celibate one, and I understand from her that Christians here are rigorous in opposition to same sex marriage and that the justification is the reading of the New Testament via Paul’s letters to various Churches ( I guess your own opposition does not come from The Torah?).

Anyways, I hope that my responses have at least helped you in your own faith journey.

22 August 2012 at 09:58  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

David, Catholics accept the ten commandments as the corner stone of our faith and that is what your quotes are referring to.However there are a significant number of sections in the Torah that are rejected on the grounds of barbarism and violence. If we accepted the entire Torah we would all be Jews.

"I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" means Jews have misinterpreted and got a lot of things wrong that need correction
e.g peace and love verses an eye for eye,blood guts and mayhem.

I suppose if one thought Jesus was a false Messiah this could get up one's nose if one was Jew.When your Messiah arrives will he change anything in the Torah?





22 August 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

For anyone interested in the politics of self destruction - which the pagan liberal west seems determined upon, may I recommend David Goldman's recently published book "How Civilisations Die" http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=David+Goldman

22 August 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Cressida,

In respect of the coming of the Messiah, there have been and are many different views and interpretations, depending on which tradition you follow, whilst it might be stupid of me to make this comparison it is a bit like asking about how Christians see the second coming of Jesus via the theology/scholarship around the book of Revelation.

22 August 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Also, cheers for clarifying that passage I quoted from Matthew. As you can see from that exchange, there is a matter of quoting a passage and providing explanation, context and meaning ( a point I trust John Magee will grasp).

In respect to blood, guts and mayhem, there is slightly more to our Bible and your Old Testament than that (I would tackle the eye for an eye meme, but I've got to go and do some work).

Take care, David.

22 August 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you David. I would like to continue this discussion when I return. You have three weeks to bone up on your arguments in an attempt to dazzle me with your ratiocination (Chortling OL)

22 August 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

david

You will never have Moshiach. Jesus was the Messiah.

Are you more concerned about your ethnic identity and traditions or the truth? Think about this.

Late in the evening after Jesus's last Passover Feast and the night before his death on the cross, all of His Apostle's had either abandoned and even betrayed Him because they feared the Roman authorities and were cowards. Yet in the days and weeks that followed, after seeing the Resurrected Christ, all were transformed and all went on to preach the Gospels to fellow Jews and pagans throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. They all died terrible deaths refusing to deny they had see the risen Christ. Why? People rarely, as a group, die a terrible death refusing to deny something they never saw or heard.

Please don't use cases like Jonestown as that is a completely different case involving a psycopathic cult leader and not a man like Jesus who taught caring unselfishly for others, forgiveness, and redemeption.
Jesus would never have condoned suicide.

For over 300 years after Pentecost Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians suffered unbelievable persecution and death by the pagan Romans and others yet their religion grew because it gave a message of hope to the pagans they had never heard of before. The example Christians gave in their personal lives of modesty,charity, and self control and their ability to face a terrible death for their faith in the Risen Chrtist deeply impressed the pagans. By the 300's AD it was probably the largest single religion in the Roman Empire. Why?

Judaism is the promise and Christianty is the fulfillment. Modern Jews, in my opinion, are more concerned, even obsessed, with their ethnic identity and traditions and being somehow "special" which blinds them to the reality of Jesus the Jew from the 1st century as the real Moshiach.

By the way. Aren't we all special in God's mind?

These are my opinions so there is no need to throw verbal stones at me and call me a "hater". I am not.

22 August 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Cressida,

I am quite nervous now, as I have to live up to certain expectations, I am not sure if I will succeed in dazzling you. Making you chortle, might be an easier task.

22 August 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John,

That is twice you have asked me not to call you a hater or a bigot and I have not actually accused you of any of that , in fact I have replied to you in several length posts in answer to your questioning, so I am perplexed as to where that has come from.

In respect to your latest post, that is a good account of the Christian message and I do appreciate that a corollary of your faith is a requirement to missionary activity.

As far as I am concerned the truth is already known. I am proud of my cultural and racial heritage, it is quite a rich one and I am proud to be a British Jew.

I am convinced that you do not understand the whole issue of a chosen people and its context for G-d's desire for the world. I have hinted, but failed on that account; I would try and explain further, but I think you still would not understand.

Unfortunately you confuse it with some form of superiority complex on our behalf. In fact that could not be more untrue, both in terms of our traditions and history.

22 August 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Kavanagh,

In my experience of this blog, many respondents think in terms of our Judeao-Christian heritage; I am one of them. Indeed, a few strands ago, I drew attention to that tradition by interpretation of Chaucer's "Prioress's Tale" - while showing that only part of that reaction is anti-semitic.

Anyone who thinks about the history understands that Christ was Himself a Jew ---on all sides of His earthly family. Furthermore, His story would have been impossible without the Jewish history to which it links, in what we call the Old Testament. Christianity is the religion of the Book: and that Book includes OT and NT.

Through that Book, we made a significant contribution to the history of book-making (from Monkwearmouth-Jarrow and Lindisfarne). This was because Augustine's mission, and that of Hadrian and Theodore, brought the Bible to the pagan English tribes and backsliding Celts. Through the need to preach to the pagans in English, while also making them literate: Christian establishments education and literacy in English developed to new heights.

These people were Catholics, Mr. Kavanaugh. So it is wrong to suppose that they all hated Jews. I suspect that some of their ideals of kingship borrowed much from the story of King David. And it is most likely that our rhetorical technique responded to that of Biblical passages also; we didn't acquire everything from the Greeks. For example, the Psalms, which monks sang daily, provide models of parallelism. King Alfred translated those into Old English.

Our culture thus grew from a collection of cultural influences: Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking. Personally, I respect the tradition that wove them together for the greater Glory of God. And I don't think that, without the Jewish contribution, the world would have developed to the heights it so recently did.

However, there have always been those who tried to stop us from doing it our way....

22 August 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

David

I think it's pretty clear that many or even most Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, still take the concept of being "the chosen people" seriously in 2012. It doesn't necessarily still mean they think of themselves only as the "chosen of people" of God. But as a seperate and unique people while living in majority non Jewish societies. In any other ethnic group this would be called racism or bigotry. As an of what I am trying to say please read the Jerusalem Post, October 2010 article quoting the former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and Israel Ovadia Yosef as one example of this kind of retrograde thinking:

The Jerusalem Post

Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews

By JONAH MANDEL

LAST UPDATED: 10/18/2010

According to Rabbi, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.


“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.

That is why gentiles were created,” he added.

Ovadia Yosef is not an isolated crackpot. Not only is he a former Cheif Rabbi of Israel he is seen constantly with Israeli leaders and other prominant Jews in Israel and from the USA and other countries.

I can imagine the uproar in Western media if a modern Pope or Protestant or Eastern Orthodox leader would say anything remotely similar about Jews or any other faith equal to the hatred of Ovadia Yosef in his own words in he above article.

22 August 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse.

If you live in a European country or in one of it's "children" such as the countries in North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, even former colonies of European countries You are part of Western Greco-Roman-Christian Civilization. Our Greco-Roman-Christian heritage dominates our entire Western Christian Civilization in everthing from philosophy,law,language,religion,ethics, art,architecture,music, and much much more we see and experience around us every day.

As an example: we are all typing using what alphabet? The Roman or Latin alphabet of course. How many words in the English language have Latin roots? Possibly as many as 60% with another 15% or more having Greek as their root. The rest of our words, mainly the basic ones such as me, you, mother, father, brother, sister, and, etc are from the Angles and the Saxons (Germanic roots) with a few Norman French words thrown in which combined they all make up the English we speak today.

22 August 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Dodo is quite right in defending The Torah against John Magee's predictable responses towards any kind of reasoned argument or view point. And does it matter if Dodo is thinking in terms of his Jewish heritage - he is sure of his believes in Catholic tradition, but seems to acknowledge that that tradition has roots in Judaism and the OT/Hebrew Bible.

22 August 2012 at 23:57  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

excellent responses to all of the questions put to you by Mr Magee (although there is no response to them when you given them). I fear that he is making you go round in circles.

23 August 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David K

In the pasages of Christian scripture you quoted one part jumps out:

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus was referring to the "oral law" contained in your Talmud, supposedly given to Moses by God, and seen by the Pharisees as holding equal status to the Torah. Central to Jesus' mission was pointing out the corrupt nature of Pharisaic Judiasm and how it blinded the Jewish leaders to His Kingship and the true nature of His Father's plan.

I understand fully the concept of a "Chosen People" and accept it applied to the Jewish nation, as did the written law of Moses. This gave Jews a seperate and special place in the world - to demonstrate the power, majesty and forgiveness of their God, Yahweh.

Christians believe a New and Everlasting Covenant with God has replaced the Old Law - as its fulfillment. We believe the Jewish nation, whilst retaining a place in God's heart, is no longer a "Chosen People", in the theological sense, or required to continue to live under the Old Covenant.

All this can get very heated and
certain Christian Zionists will attempt to confuse these points. However,I believe these are core to Christianity in relation to modern Judaism.

23 August 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

Hannah

Did I make any personal insults about you. No I did not.

I asked valid questions and posted verbatim quotes from the Torah about brutality toward women and the condemnation of homosexuality.

If Jesus's life in the New Testament and all he did, including the miracles He performed, as well as His death on the cross, Resurrection, and Acension can be questioned and denied and I have even seen mocked by modern Jews. Then the Torah can also face some harsh questioning too about it's brutality and vengefulness, "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth", and lots of other stuff that's difficult to swallow. The Torah can also be praised for some wonder things in the Psalms and many valid moral lessons too.

What I said about animal sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem on High Holy Days is the truth which you should know.

Here is another question:

Why did "g-d" let the holocaust happen? If "g-d" really saved the Jewish people so many times in the Torah where was "g-d" from 1939 to 1945 in Nazi occupied Europe?

Why didn't "g-d" work a miracle and stop the Nazi's evil work?

Why was there no intervention by "g-d" during the Jewish people's darkest hour?

I asked a valid question and would like a clear answer and no personal insults please.

Doesn't "g-d" work miracles anymore?

23 August 2012 at 04:01  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

No mouse,

Thank you for your post to me, I am pleased that you note the contribution that British Jewry has made to our Kingdom over the past few hundred years, which for a group of people who have usually made up less than a quarter of 1% of the population has produced many prominent scientists, businessmen, artists, philosophers. As I and the rest of my brothers and sisters have benefited from a top class British education, I am fully in touch with the great classical literature of our country as well as her history.

23 August 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dodo the Dude,

Thanks for your explanation of the Christian viewpoint and the possibility of other Christian views. As an aside I have noticed you have used the modern vocalization of the Tetragrammaton - was this an attempt to gain a reaction from me?

23 August 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee,

You keep asking people not to insult you and so far no-one actually has. Secondly neither my sister or I are here to answer questions you wish to cherry pick out of the air, we have both provided answers to your previous queries, but one feels that you already have your own answer, often with negative overtones, in any event, so having a dialogue in the first place is, unfortunately, pretty fruitless.

23 August 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

kavanagh

Do you visit Christian blogs and web sites to tell "Xians" that we are "wrong" about the Messiah Jesus and sniff out antiSemites (people who disagree with you)? You post your views and I have answered them and asked a few questions of my own.

I am well aware that there are two faces of Judaism. One that is public and seemingly tolerant and the other in the Talmud which loaths Christ and "Xians" and is personified by the rantings of the former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and Israel in his own words in the Jerusalem Post in October 2010 and was not an isolated incident: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

23 August 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David Kavanagh asked ...

"As an aside I have noticed you have used the modern vocalization of the Tetragrammaton - was this an attempt to gain a reaction from me?"

Of course not!

Christians are not prohibited from using the revealed name of God provided they do so with respect.

23 August 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dodo the Dude,

I didn't think that you intended too.

John Magee

As I haven't actually accused you of anything, nor have I specifically criticised your faith, I am not sure where this is coming from. I am beginning to think that you might suffer from a phobia of Jews. As you may be aware I have gentile family as well, so I don't think I could ever really be two faced... but if that is how you see matters that is you to your good self.

23 August 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi John,

Not sure if you were addressing me as well. The answer is no and in any case I don't know what an "Xian" actually is, sounds like something from a 1950s Alien invasion B movie. Take care and lighten up a bit.

23 August 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

From eugenics straight to R' Ovadia; o how the twisted minds of the Joo-obsessed work, Your Grace. Ive missing a few battles lately with my heavy schedule this season, but I'm pleased to see and greet the sharp and competent Mr Cavanaugh in your lean contingent of Hebraic camp-followers. I notice that he clued-on to the Magee character much faster than I did and that he disposed of him with greater elegance and economy (and without insulting him in Czech) than I did.

And a hearty yasher-koakh on your firm stand on the Pussy Riot case below, Your Grace. I must say, though, that I'm disappointed in most of your communicants (and many friends in the conservative blogosphere) for missing the mark in this drama. You hear that folks? Shame on you, with your pollyanish splutter! The girls were certainly naughty and disrespectful with their protest theatre. But anyone who knows Eastern Europe even a little should know that they are not to be compared to our own post-modern, brainless middle class muffins, the feckless liberals and pretend-anarchists and that they didn't go about insulting Christianity gratuitously, but followed a respectable protest convention familiar to all from the Warsaw Pact. Their mockery wasn't aimed at the iconstasis, but targetted the current dirty collusion between Church and State. Their minute-long "performance" hit the bull's eye without damaging anything or terrorizing anyone ...and no animals or by-standing babushkas with their knickers in knots were harmed. This was not a "hate crime" against ordinary worshippers, nor was their intent to blasheme their own religion. Be assured, my judgmental droogs, that in taking aim at the governing KGB mug and his KGB lap-dogs in the Church, the young ladies knew well what was to follow: A corrupt, Stalinesque show-trial in front of a joke of a judge, with perjuring "witnesses" (some who babbled about Satanism) and a savage exemplary penalty issued by a kangaroo "court." With that brief act of silliness, the heroic young women remind us to look beyond the Gucci bags and Mercede Benzes of Moscow, the ballet and such flummery and that Russia is Russia and will always be Russia.

24 August 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Welcome back. As sweet tongued as ever too.

The cause is not the only issue. The politics and movement these young women represent are atheist, anarchistic and secular. They went for the symbol of hope for so many of the people of Russia - their faith in God.

The methods and means of their protest is what is significant. Imagine such an intrusion into the Jewish Holy of Holies. I acknowledge this isn't the same level of offense but, in the minds of many Russian Orthodox Christians, it is similar to what these girls did.

Russian country. Russian laws. Russian judicial system.

24 August 2012 at 00:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, Dodo, knock it off. I dont have to imagine similar intrusions; as a volunteer security guard in my synagogue I and my colleagues have dealt with several comparable incidents of non-threatening, tasteless and disruptive acts of protest. We surround them quickly, snap cuffs on them before they know what's happening, politely-but-firmly escort the miscreants out of the sanctuary, position them in front of the security cams, inform them that they are trespassers from then on, and warn them that a repeat "performance" will result in us seeking charges. By then they are pretty subdued and readily concede with dry mouths; amazing how a pair of irons on one's wrists calms the turbulent soul. Should they return and should we involve the police and prove our case, the culprits can expect a mild suspended sentence, community service, "sensitivity training" or a small fine out of which they can usually beg their way out. This is how it works in civilized democracies.

"Russian country. Russian laws. Russian judicial system"? How stomach-turning. What a little apartchik you are, Dodo. You really do belong in the 16th century with your register on a little table in the room with the racks and the irons. You forget that the blatant show trial, the fake witnesses and the inability of the girls to bring forth their own witnesses violates Russia's constitution and laws and exposes the corruption of its judicial system. Russia has gained a seat on international venues and has earned favourable trading rights on the claim of being a functioning democracy.

"The cause is not the only issue. The politics and movement these young women represent are atheist, anarchistic and secular. They went for the symbol of hope for so many of the people of Russia - their faith in God." Bullshit, Dodo, they should not have been on trial for what they "represent" to you. They mocked the tyrant Putin, his KGB buddy the Patriarch and the corrupt Church leadership in Moscow, which as with the Czars, then with the Bolshies and now with this current abomination, tends to cozy up to the strongmen and tread on the little people. Familiarize yourself with the world beyond your fish'n chips shop, will ya? And democracies ...and Russia claims to be such... are obligated to tolerate atheists, anarchists and secularists. The girls were not trespassing, they made a tasteless performance and quit within a minute. They did not threaten or intimidate anyone, they did not interrupt a service in progress; they offended a few visitors. At most, they disturbed the peace. This is a fascistic power-play intimidation by Putin and his stooges and it's shocking how so many of our conservatives are totally missing what's going on.

24 August 2012 at 02:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

Avi

Naturally being who and what you are you forgot the greatest hero of them all from the pre Berlin Wall collapse era in Eastern Europe who comes from the devout Roman Catholic nation of Poland: Pope John Paul II and the devout Roman Catholic who started the ball rolling to end Communism in his native Poland, Lech Walensa.

24 August 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lech Walensa

24 August 2012 at 07:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

The only thing twisted about Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is what he said in the Jerusalem Post article in October 2010 in his own words

Jerusalem Post

Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews

By JONAH MANDEL

LAST UPDATED: 10/18/2010 05:13

According to Rabbi, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said.


“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.

That is why gentiles were created,” he added.

Yosef’s Saturday night sermons have seen many controversial statements from the 90-year-old rabbi. In August, Yosef caused a diplomatic uproar when he wished a plague upon the Palestinian people and their leaders, a curse he retracted a few weeks later, when he blessed them along with all of Israel’s other peace-seeking neighbors

24 August 2012 at 07:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

Amazing. He forgot to mention that a disproprotionate percentage of the Bolsheviks in Russia were Jews. All but one of the killers of the last Russian Orthodox Tsar and his family at Ekaterinburg in July 1918 were Jews. No ethinic Russians participated in the regicide of their Tsar and his family... Jews killed them.

The Soviet butcher of millions was a Jew named Lazar Kaganovich who engineered the Ukrainian forced famine that killed over 7 million Ukrainian Orthodox Christians 10 years before the Nazi mass murder of the Jews in Eastern Europe

Responsibility for 1932-33 famine

Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of the collectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932-33 famine known as the Holodomor. He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods. Similar policies also inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan, the Kuban region, Crimea, the lower Volga region, and other parts of the Soviet Union. As an emissary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kaganovich traveled to Ukraine, the central regions of the USSR, the Northern Caucasus, and Siberia demanding the acceleration of collectivization and repressions against the Kulaks, who were generally blamed for the slow progress of collectivization. Attorney Rafael Lemkin in his work The Soviet Genocide in Ukraine tried to present the fact of Holodomor to the Nuremberg trials as a genocide of a totalitarian regime.[2]

On January 13, 2010, Kiev Appellate Court posthumously found Kaganovich, Postyshev and other Soviet Communist Party functionaries guilty of genocide against Ukrainians during the catastrophic Holodomor famine.[3] Though they were pronounced guilty as criminals, the case was ended immediately according to paragraph 8 of Article 6 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.[4] The importance of the case is its historical aspect that legally explains the particularity of that historical event. By New Years Day, the Security Service of Ukraine had finished pre-court investigation and transferred its materials to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. The materials consist of over 250 volumes of archive documents (from within Ukraine as well as abroad), interviews with witnesses, and expert analysis of several institutes of National Academies of Sciences. Oleksandr Medvedko, the Prosecutor General, confirmed that the material gives clear evidence of the genocide occurring in Ukraine

This happened ten years before the Nazi holocaust of the Jews of Europe. Soviet Jews were responsbible for participating in Stalin's mass murder of tens of millions of Eastern Orthodox Christians THIS IS FACT!

24 August 2012 at 07:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Greetings Mr Barzel and thank you for the welcome here.

24 August 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee,

So the Jewish people are now collectively responsible for a genocide, rather than this terrible event being the result of certain individuals working within a regime of a cult of personality, communism and brutal dictatorship? That inference made my draw drop.

John, I would implore you, as an apparent man of faith, to reflect and pray on some of your views expressed here regarding Jews and Judaism. For they do not seem to reflect the general view of your Church, or other Catholics who post here.

Pope John Paul II , who put tremendous effort into Christian –Jewish dialogue, taught, said and prayed :

“With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”

Plus :

“We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

And :

“I assure the Jewish people the Catholic Church ... is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place... there are no words strong enough to deplore the terrible tragedy of the Holocaust”.

G-d bless and Shabbat Shalom to you, His Grace and the readers of this blog.

24 August 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, a pleasure, Mr Kavanagh. You are so much better at handling raging antisemites than I am; my astonishment usually renders me speechless, as it were, and I don't even know where to begin in addressing their idiocies.

You didn't address his other hobgoblin, though, his obsession with Rabbi Ovadia. Although the
Mishnah warns against ageing scholars, our jolly nanogenerian R'Ovadia hasn't taken the hint and issues jaw-droppers from time to time. The Gentile slavery idea of his, though, has me intrigued. It begs the question why John Magee is still alive, however, as he is a pretty humdrum antisemite, repeating the standard a la mode quackery straight from Stormfront and such. The horns on the head and the blood-drinking bits are far more flamboyant, having a certain Gothic flavour about them. Now that Magee brought the issue up, I'm in need of a Gentile servant (fellow Jews I know are grossly unreliable and look down on truck driving) and having dismissed the idea of retaining the Inspector (too much of an alpha-type and a guaranteed predator of my scotches and whiskies), Dodo is a possibility. I could use a back-up driver on my long-hauls, although I worry about his chattiness, which always turns argumentative and also worry about him mumbling over his rosaries or even doing his mea culpas with a bullwhip as I try to catch a nap in the sleeper. I don't know what Rabbi Ovadia was thinking, but with gentiles like those, I think robotics and androids is the way to go.

Anyhow, quite an interesting blog, with some brilliant, fascinating and weird people here, no? Glad to see you here. Shabbat shalom!

24 August 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

This is quite fascinating - watching two Zionists discussing "anti-Semites", or, as we Gentiles call them, Gentiles. I particularly love the narcissistic assumption that all the material cited by the Gentiles/anti-Semites comes from Stormfront and such sites; this must be the case since, of course, all Gentiles are beasts of the field lacking the intellectual nature of human beings (or, as Zionists call them, Jews). And apparantly, the Gentiles are the racialists. Quite, quite fascinating.

24 August 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

" ... my astonishment usually renders me speechless."

Oh, if only!

You do jump in feet first at times. I've noticed you're developing quite a little anti-catholic theme too with your stereotyping of my faith.

"O, Dodo, knock it off. I dont have to imagine similar intrusions; as a volunteer security guard in my synagogue I and my colleagues have dealt with several comparable incidents of non-threatening, tasteless and disruptive acts of protest."

You missed my comparison with the Holy of Holies. A synagogue is not the same. Your faith believes God is specially accessible there and no one can enter but the High Priest. Orthodox Christians believe Christ is physically present on the altar of their churches. These women intruded into that sacred space and also insulted the Mother of God. Try to understand that.

You think a quick slap on the wrists sufficient for this outrage in the context of Russia?

"What a little apartchik you are, Dodo. You really do belong in the 16th century with your register on a little table in the room with the racks and the irons."

An unnecessary insult to me and to the Catholic Church.

"Bullshit, Dodo, they should not have been on trial for what they "represent" to you. They mocked the tyrant Putin, his KGB buddy the Patriarch and the corrupt Church leadership in Moscow, which as with the Czars, then with the Bolshies and now with this current abomination, tends to cozy up to the strongmen and tread on the little people."

So you don't like Putin or Russian Orthodoxy. Get over it. Christians paid a very heavy price under the communists as did the ordinary Russian people. The Russian people elected Putin. Under Soviet control do you think you would have heard of Pussy Riot? You demean the likes of Solzhenitsyn by comparing these anarchists with him.

"Familiarize yourself with the world beyond your fish'n chips shop, will ya?"

More unnecessary abuse.

"And democracies ...and Russia claims to be such... are obligated to tolerate atheists, anarchists and secularists."

Indeed, provided they abide by the laws of their country.

"The girls were not trespassing, they made a tasteless performance and quit within a minute. They did not threaten or intimidate anyone, they did not interrupt a service in progress; they offended a few visitors. At most, they disturbed the peace."

So now you speak for Russian Orhodox Christians?

"This is a fascistic power-play intimidation by Putin and his stooges and it's shocking how so many of our conservatives are totally missing what's going on."

Maybe Putin was sending a signal that hooliganism of this offensive type will not be tolerated. Maybe he doesn't want his country following the road of secular and godless liberalism and watch it descend into chaos. Maybe he represents the majority of Russians in this.

24 August 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger len said...

Dodo..... what comes first in your list of priorities Catholicism or Christianity.?.
As you spend most of your time attacking Christians and their Jewish roots I suppose my question answers itself?.

Oh and God doesn`t have a 'Mother'how could He?.

24 August 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Catholicism is the definition of Christianity, len, the rest is under investigation by the trading standards people. I thought we'd established this.

24 August 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, my time is short, so for fear of appearing, uh, abrupt:

"You missed my comparison with the Holy of Holies." I didn't miss it; it's irrelevant. Our axis mundi, our Holy of Holies, has a former church wrapped around by a mosque squatting on it and Arab urchins play soccer on its court yard. Somewhat rude, but perfectly legal. Sucks, doesn't it?

"These women intruded into that sacred space and also insulted the Mother of God." No. In a secular democracy, with a tamed Church, they made a rude spectacle of themselves and deserve to be barred from further access without permission.

"....You think a quick slap on the wrists sufficient for this outrage in the context of Russia?" Uh, yeah, but I guess you don't. Would you prefer they be subjected to some of the crafts your admired Dominicans perfected or is it better to go straight for the stake? CNN and BBC will cover it, I'm sure.

"So you don't like Putin or Russian Orthodoxy." I think Putin is a digusting KGB punk, but that's me. I never said I disliked Eastern Orthodoxy; if you must know, I think it's far more genuine than Roman Catholicism...and for less annoying too. I have a particular fondness for its Bulgarian variant, having visited Batschkovo Monastery, with its haunting iconogaphy and charming monks. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church, whose Patriarch threatened to lie down on the train tracks when Germans attempted to grab and transport Bulgaria's Jews to Poland deserves admiration.

"So now you speak for Russian Orhodox Christians?..." O, please. "You demean the likes of Solzhenitsyn by comparing these anarchists with him." O, dear, you want like this: They were far more effective in much shorter time then Solzhenitsyn and his turgid, overly verbose narodnik jeremiads for the overly educated. Of course, you'd have have to have read him in his own language.

"Maybe Putin was sending a signal that hooliganism of this offensive type will not be tolerated." Message understood; Putin will persecute anyone who mocks him or his KGB bum-buddy, Moscow's patriarch. Scoundrels stick together, a new mafia runs Russia and little has changed since the Czars and Drzhezinsky Square.

"Maybe [Putin] doesn't want his country following the road of secular and godless liberalism and watch it descend into chaos." Ha ha ha ha ha! Dodo, you simpering moppet, looking for your mythical principe to restore the forum and the Curch...in a KGB punk? Machiavelli is laughing his skinny arse off at you in his grave.

Maybe [Putin] represents the majority of Russians in this." Ya know, ya jess might have somethin' there. Russia will be Russia, as I said. Have a good one, Dodo.

24 August 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings Avi, Inspector here and quite loaded up with whisky, though that will come as no surprise to you. Now old chap, you really must refrain from calling everyone who is ever so slightly critical of your position as ‘anti-smites’. It’s just not the done thing, you know. There, said it, and feel much the better for doing so.

Now, at ease, and on your way. Happy motoring...

24 August 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said...

"Dodo..... what comes first in your list of priorities Catholicism or Christianity.?."

I see you're back to your usual self asking innane questions and then answering them yourself. Catholicism is Christianity - read your scripture. You know the relevant verses by now.

"As you spend most of your time attacking Christians and their Jewish roots I suppose my question answers itself?."

I attack those such as you who fail to comprehend Christianity. And when have I ever attacked the Jewish roots of Christianity? I'm a Catholic. We were raised to understand the Old Testament as the foreshadowing of the New Covenant - unlike you who only ever cites the prophets (and then out of context) and fails to understand the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

"Oh and God doesn`t have a 'Mother'how could He?."

Just to remind you of past discussions, Christians believe Jesus was truely God and fully man - part of the Trinity made flesh. He was formed in the womb of a woman and was born of a woman - Mary. She was His earthly mother. You're not back to your old unitarian leanings are you? Or toying with the notion that God never really became man?

24 August 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Dodo is a possibility. I could use a back-up driver on my long-hauls, although I worry about his chattiness, which always turns argumentative and also worry about him mumbling over his rosaries or even doing his mea culpas with a bullwhip as I try to catch a nap in the sleeper."

The only thing you'd need worry about is my forcing a bacon sandwich on you in the morning.

Anyway, let's face it, you'd be too preoccupied with following your 613 'laws' to notice me saying the Rosary. Also, Catholics keep their "mea culpas" for the privacy of the confessional. We don't go in for hugh public displays in search of atonement.

24 August 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"Dodo, my time is short, so for fear of appearing, uh, abrupt:"

Isn't all our time short, friend? But you, abrupt? Never!

" ... our Holy of Holies, has a former church wrapped around by a mosque squatting on it and Arab urchins play soccer on its court yard."

I was asking you to consider times past when the Holy of Holies was the most the most sacred place on earth. Just imagine if the Temple had been restored and a bunch of godless punks burst into it and insulted your God on that sacred spot.

"In a secular democracy, with a tamed Church, they made a rude spectacle of themselves and deserve to be barred from further access without permission."

A democracy does not have to be "secular". And why should the Church be "tamed"?

You clearly do not understand Russian society or its people; neither do you understand the Russian Christian view of the relationship between the Church and the State. You may also want to research the Russian legal definition of "hooligan".

"Would you prefer they be subjected to some of the crafts your admired Dominicans perfected or is it better to go straight for the stake?"

Your point being? Oh, I see, more anti-catholic 'humour'. Come now, your own people weren't so cool and accomodating towards the rebellious or sinful 'back in the days' were they?

You agree Islam is on the rise and bemoan Christian Europe doing nothing. Look at what's happening in all Western secular liberal democracies, including Israel. Your think this a good thing? How do you think a Christian Russia might deal with radical Islam?

"I think Putin is a digusting KGB punk, but that's me."

One is entitled to one's considered opinion on these matters.

"I never said I disliked Eastern Orthodoxy; if you must know, I think it's far more genuine than Roman Catholicism...and for less annoying too."

That's okay then. What do you actually know about either toarrive at such a conclusion?

"I have a particular fondness for its Bulgarian variant, having visited Batschkovo Monastery, with its haunting iconogaphy and charming monks. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church, whose Patriarch threatened to lie down on the train tracks when Germans attempted to grab and transport Bulgaria's Jews to Poland deserves admiration."

This is what you base our preference on? You can get "haunting iconogaphy and charming monks" in Russian Orthodoxy too. Come to think of it, you get it in Catholicism too. Visit the magnificant monastery at
Monte Cassino.

"They were far more effective in much shorter time then Solzhenitsyn and his turgid, overly verbose narodnik jeremiads for the overly educated. Of course, you'd have have to have read him in his own language."

No comment ....

"Putin will persecute anyone who mocks him or his KGB bum-buddy, Moscow's patriarch. Scoundrels stick together, a new mafia runs Russia and little has changed since the Czars and Drzhezinsky Square."

*sigh*

"Ha ha ha ha ha! Dodo, you simpering moppet, looking for your mythical principe to restore the forum and the Curch...in a KGB punk? Machiavelli is laughing his skinny arse off at you in his grave."

This is being abrupt? God help us when you have more time! The Russian people chose Putin. It's their country. If they want a sense of discipline and decency in their country then who can deny them this right?

"Russia will be Russia, as I said."

It is its right to rule itself, yes?

"Have a good one, Dodo."

You too Avi.

25 August 2012 at 00:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Magee @ Aug 22, 21:01, you responded to mine of 20:23. There I indicated the fact that: Our [present day] culture ... grew from a collection of cultural influences: Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking.

I’m unclear as to why you then provide a History of the English Language for Dummies and why, whatever the source of your statistics, you pay no heed to the relationship of PD English words to syntax, or to frequency and function of PD English word usage. Further, whatever the reasoning behind your linguistics, I am surprised you have ignored elementary teaching about the Indo-European roots--- by which we recognise that our Germanic words are cognate with those in the Italic and Hellenic branches of the Centum languages. You cannot have forgotten that “mouse” (mus)is a case in point- its cousins appearing in Old Irish, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit!!!*

In short, we owe neither our language, nor everything we are to the Romans. It was the Hebrew Book which the Christian Church brought us, even though they presented it in Jerome’s Latin translation from the Greek. I don’t understand, either, why your explication omits that the preachers brought a Judaeo-Christian message and translated it into English. In these islands,(DG)the Romance languages never replaced the indigenous ones that had retained proud and parallel oral traditions of their own.

So why do you ignore my credit to Theodore (Archbishop of Canterbury AD 668-90) a Greek, who brought with him rhetorical traditions that had fallen into disuse among Romans who no longer administered an empire? Personally, I am fascinated by the work Lapidge and Bischoff did on the glosses Theodore and Hadrian initiated; thereby they built word collections for translations of Christian scholarship into English.** As Patrick Wormald observed, “The eastern church always approved the use of native vernaculars more than the aggressively Latin west...”***

26 August 2012 at 05:18  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd....

Though please don’t imagine I’m forgetting that the oldest surviving text we have in English is that of the law code of Aethelberht of Kent(560-616), of which we have a twelfth century copy: the Textus Roffensis (Rochester Cathedral Library, MS A. 35). You are, of course, familiar with the extensive discussions as to why Aethelberht chose English. It is, however, worth remembering that the Irish already had laws in their vernacular, and the Welsh probably had recorded some charters. Further still, early insular authors had always before them the model of translated Scriptures: a collection of ancient texts, including laws, woven together in recognition of the Jewish God. The Old and New Testaments were not linked in tribute to even so great a Papa as Gregory I (590-604).

Yes, early Christian teachers did apply the Roman Script we have adapted to present use, although I say it was much more interesting and beautiful when they included Germanic runes and Celtic uncials-for sounds not included in Latin!

Once again, our early manuscripts were used to propagate Judaeo-Christian texts. Had it not been for those sources, Christians could not have established education in Canterbury and the northeast.
___________

Your Grace,

I’m sorry this has gone off topic. However, I do not see that a discussion of Christian-related Justice can be properly founded when the Jewish contribution to our ideas is denied.

___________________________________
*Cassidy and Ringler, eds. Bright’s Old English Grammar and Reader. London: Holt Rinehart and Winston,1971; 1-3.

**Bischoff B. and M. Lapidge. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

***Wormald, Patrick. “Anglo-Saxon Society and its Literature.” The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. Eds: Malcolm Godden & Michael Lapidge. Cambridge: CUP 1991; 8.

26 August 2012 at 05:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, the reason many fear the return of religion and shy away from conservatism is that they fear old-school parochial aunties like you, who will suck up to any dictator and hand him the car keys on the promise that he'll defend the dignity of their faith religion and traditions and look like the other when all he does is to protect himself and his cronies. Your rants prove that such fears are well-founded.

Again, what don't you get? A brief, one-minute protest act against State and Church leadership was made, which was interpreted under the broad and corrupt Soviet-era charge of "hooliganism" and the accused were paraded in a corrupt show trial and sentenced to a disproportionate punishment.

In your argument you accuse me of having it for Christian Orthodoxy, a red herring and rile against liberalism and anarchism, a straw man. And just because people and movements you don't like went on to defend the girls, you turn into a defender of dictatorship and argue that the Russian government is legitimate, while all the world knows about the suppression of the Russian media and opposition parties, the corrupt elections, and killings and jailing of dissenters.

Then, you appeal to a common cause and make comparisons with Islamism? No, Dodo, I don't want to engage the state to defend my or anyone's religion or ideology by any other means than secular and civil laws pertaining to protection of individuals and property. Regardless of the level of my religiosity, which some would call "high," I prefer a system where religion must compete on the merits of its values and everyone is free to join or leave, participate or criticise...even rudely.

Happy sloshings, Inspector these have been busy weeks and I remain dry for the third one, as I'm overly strict with myself and prefer 48 hour abstention before drives. I can be jealous though, no secular penalties for that.

As for our John Magee, he's not an antisemite because he disagrees with me. He is an antisemite because he is obsessed with Jews, bring up selections of irrelevent or false charges practically verbatim from standard collections of antisemitica at the drop of a hat. Scan the thread to see what I mean. I know your interpretation of the malady stops with the Mosley types, but mine doesn't, a matter of a more inclusive interpretation and personal prerogative. I'll be happy to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of my definition with you when we both have more time.

Otherwise, I hope you're enjoying a bit of the summer and managed to get a vacation. I amagine your ideal of a vacation to be close to mine: Visits of historical, cultural or nature sites only if located close to well-appointed "watering places."

26 August 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Mr Barzel,

You swiftly cover all of the points raised in the latter half of this blog post in a concise fashion. A fitting conclusion to this thread.

26 August 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, Mr Kavanagh; fatigue and your example are helping me be more concise. However, don't be so quick to call a conclusion; Dodo always has the last word. Then again, maybe not this time, just so he can prove me wrong.

27 August 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

"Dodo, the reason many fear the return of religion and shy away from conservatism is that they fear old-school parochial aunties like you, who will suck up to any dictator and hand him the car keys on the promise that he'll defend the dignity of their faith religion and traditions and look like the other when all he does is to protect himself and his cronies. Your rants prove that such fears are well-founded."

Not much of an argument is it really? Just abuse about religion and secularism. You do know they are competing and inconsistant world views? Just consider the State of Israel and its departure from the Law of Moses. A good thing?

"Again, what don't you get? A brief, one-minute protest act against State and Church leadership was made, which was interpreted under the broad and corrupt Soviet-era charge of "hooliganism" and the accused were paraded in a corrupt show trial and sentenced to a disproportionate punishment."

They offended the Russian people and their faith. We've covered this. They invaded sacred space and in the eyes of the Russian people offended God. How would you deal with such an act in a rebuilt Holy of Holies? I applaude the Russians for dealing with it under their law.

"In your argument you accuse me of having it for Christian Orthodoxy a red herring"

Did I? Must have missed that one! I mean you enjoyed the kind monks in Bulgaria!

" ... and rile against liberalism and anarchism, a straw man."

Is it? It's hardly consistent with the Noahide laws.

"And just because people and movements you don't like went on to defend the girls, you turn into a defender of dictatorship and argue that the Russian government is legitimate, while all the world knows about the suppression of the Russian media and opposition parties, the corrupt elections, and killings and jailing of dissenters."

No, I just argued this situation was dealt with according to Russian laws. The Russian people elected Putin. There's been more opposition to this from the anti-religious outside of Russia than within the country. I mean Madonna of all people! I am not in favour of a dictator or of repression. I do agree with the Russian response to this particular situation.

"Then, you appeal to a common cause and make comparisons with Islamism? No, Dodo, I don't want to engage the state to defend my or anyone's religion or ideology by any other means than secular and civil laws pertaining to protection of individuals and property."

The State in a Western liberal democracy without the influence of faith can only go one way - the "human rights" of man take precedence of the responsibilities of man to God. Look around and see what's happening. You accept the German law on circumcision, do you? The Israeli laws on abortion and marriage?

"Regardless of the level of my religiosity, which some would call "high," I prefer a system where religion must compete on the merits of its values and everyone is free to join or leave, participate or criticise...even rudely."

I wouldn't disagree with that. However, what these women did eas not rudeness. It was, from a Christian perpective, blasphemy against God and His Church.

27 August 2012 at 00:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older