Tuesday, 2nd February 2010
Mutual respect not confrontation
"Let one hundred flowers bloom." This slogan uttered by Chairman Mao Zedong in February 1957 is generally increased ten fold becoming "let one thousand flowers bloom".
The full quotation from Mao read:
"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."
Some say that Mao was not really interested in enhancing diversity but was only interested in getting his adversaries to speak out publicly so that they could be identified and taken good care of. Whatever the case with Mao's intention, I think, that history proves that the promotion of diversity is generally a positive thing. The more ideas, opinions and positions there are the merrier, so long as these ideas are well thought out before being expressed and the opinions and positions taken are based on research and reflection.
When this is not the case, the one hundred flowers would look more like an overgrown front garden than a beautiful one.
Over to England
This beautiful garden is constructed when we genuinely listen to each other instead of insulting each other. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, during the installation Mass as the Archbishop of Westminster on May 21, 2009 said that:
"Let us be a society in which we genuinely listen to each other, in which sincere disagreement is not made out to be insult or harassment, in which reasoned principles are not construed as prejudice and in which we are prepared to attribute to each other the best and not the worst of motives."
These wise words are as applicable to Malta as they are to Great Britain, perhaps more so over here.
Across to the US
A couple of days before, May 17, President Obama was participating in a potentially explosive situation. He was addressing those gathered at the eminently Catholic University of Notre Dame for the commencement celebration. Many Catholics vehemently opposed the invitation, saying that a President who was in favour of allowing abortions should not have been there. Obama recognised the controversy and appealed for the quest of the common ground. The future of humanity depended on the result of this quest, he said.
"We must find a way to live together as one human family. Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history. ... ... when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."
Since we do not and cannot agree on the legality or otherwise of abortion is there no dialogue or concrete action possible between the two sides? Obama made this proposal:
"So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
He continued:
"I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. ... ... Life is not that simple. It never has been."
Back to Malta
The words of Archbishop Nichols and President Obama are very useful in Malta as well. We are a Mediterranean people, easy to ignite and explode. This is one of the characteristics of oral-aural cultures everywhere. We tend to be polarised and see things as good or bad, them and us. We go for extremes. We debate more than discuss. We try to win the argument not to find a mutually agreeable solution. We love to have a thesis and antithesis battling it out until no synthesis is found. Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit but I guess you get the drift of my argument.
We are all guilty.
We do this in politics. The most recent example is the group of friends set up on one of the social networks saying that they "hate Gonzi and the PN". I would have dismissed it as a youthful prank were it not for the presence of two Labour MPs among the "friends".
This tendency to paint those of a different opinion as enemies is present at all levels of society and in all institutions: unions, the Church, the parties included.
In times of crisis, we do have the ability to get together and move on together. One can point towards many examples of great maturity by all our political leaders in their attempts for reconciliation and the search for the common good. The experience of diversity in unity is cherished, lauded and enjoyed in such circumstances. However, we tend to do this mainly when we move very close to the precipice.
We - believers and non-believers; red, blue and green; etc - should learn more from the great Mediterranean evangelisers, Paul. During one of his voyages, he went to the Areopagus in Athens in an attempt to dialogue with Greek philosophers. The altar dedicated to the Unknown God provided his basis for finding the common ground. The dialogue was easy, but nonetheless necessary.
Bishop Nichols in his inaugural speech said that "He (Paul) struggled to find the language in which the insights and light of Christian faith can be brought into dialogue with the finest minds of his age. ... ... St Paul did not seek to impose his beliefs nor exploit anxiety or fear."
Would not our living in Malta be much better if the Pauline strategy should be adopted by church, political, union, business leaders and followers?
RSS
Comments
How is "speaking in a manner easy to understand" condescending, particularly when speaking to those "not of the finest minds"? I sense a lot of prejudice in my regard, but I'll let that pass, and, like I said, move on.
I know exactly what you meant, and I still stand by what I wrote. One doesn't have to be stupid to lack the ability to understand philosophical debate, for instance.
It is a fact that Malta falls behind other European countries in the percentage of people who read books. Despite the fact that one cannot say that most of the people who do not read in their adult life are stupid, one can say with near certainty that many of these people lack the ability to engage in intelligent "sophisticated" debate. Witness many comments in The Times. I also speak through experience in several internet debates. This does not apply only to religion or politics. It applies to all kinds of current affairs.
I'm also not that young. I'm nearly 40, and remember well enough the things you refer to regarding politics in Malta. I also happen to believe that those tho want to impose their way of thinking are either too powerful (power corrupts), or lack knowledge on other points of view.
In either case, failing to convince, one would have to move on. To do otherwise would be to impose.
Incidentally Ms. Debattista, should you deign to honour me with a reply, please keep in mind that I don't do 'civilized and fair' for their own's sake. I go deeper. I do reality-checks.
cont./
Incidentally, IF you decide to respond to this, please keep in mind that I don't do 'civilized and fair' for their own sake. I go deeper. I do reality-checks.
1) @ La Debattista. Quoting her: 'Sometimes I wonder why some expatriates who are actively contributing to this blog have so much our well being to heart! They really must feel for us living our narrow-minded vision of Christianity. They display a sense of altruism beyond belief'.No
I do not remember actively wishing anybody their well-being on this blog so the above quote may have been said not with me in mind. That said, I have to say that I have everybody's well-being at heart, that is a given. I'm an atheist after all. why otherwise? Siamo tutti figli di mamma`, no?!
cont./
It sounds like you and I share some common-ground and that has to be for the good. Take care. And don't fret about the name. It's only X-rated, my old son.
When I said that the 'other side' might not be composed of the finest minds I did not mean that they were stupid. I don't imagine St Paul ever spoke to anyone condescendingly, "in a manner easy to understand".
What I meant was (and I gave examples) that they might be the ones wanting to impose their way of thinking. You are too young to remember but we have been through a lot in Malta and the memories are a major stumbling block towards achieving the kind of dialogue mentality suggested by Fr Borg at least in politics. One would like to move on but then there are moments when the mental images appear not to be memories but presentments.
And this is the beauty of the free-spirit. The atheist. A spirit that can be very serious but humour and light-heartedness is always just there, lurking just below to surface ever ready to burst out laughing. What else?!
Bonjour les enfants terribles. And that is the end. I promise.
Who said you can call me Joe. Show some respect. I never ate tripe with your mother (see note).*
The military metaphor made me smile. Of course there is safety in numbers in the primitive sense. As in the greater the number of tribesmen shouting obscenities at the sabre-toothed tiger, the more said tiger will shy away. But we are not primitive tribesman protecting our patch. We are modern men discussing thought. And therefore there is such a thing as a soldier who marches to his own drum-beat. Difficult of course but honourable. Because a beat that does not bow to automatic deference to a possibly murderous superior. Certainly not one to bow to tooth-fairies for propping up his aching body. And certainly one bows only to one kind of respect, the one we in England know as 'self-respect' first and foremost. The other piffling kinds can go jump.
cont./
The English we speak in England is finely-tuned, like a discerning gentleman. When said gentleman talks about 'my old son', the sophisticated will know that he could be talking about a twelve-year old or an old-timer. In England, the discerning learns to discern. Reads between the lines. What the discerning, non-discerning, do downunder, is none of my business. Piffling matters aren't my concern.
And finally. Age. As long as one's heart is truly in the right place, as long as one continues to reason, age is but a number.
And finallyx2,. Antoine, my old son, longish comment I know. But you may give it a miss. I'll let you.
cont./
The discerning reader looks at the dust-cover of a tome. If said reader disapproves of author, his name writ large on said cover, and experience of said author's contents brings on revulsions, then surely, said discerning-reader would gently bin the rubbishy tome. One always has a choice. The discerning willy-nilly respecter of men, one who off-handedly quotes Papal ramblings in Italian, to impress(?), would surely not waste time reading drivel.
cont./
"But I do flare up if someone has the nerve to twist what I say or assume things I never even thought of (regarding previous blog)".
If you are referring to me, and wish to bring that up, please be specific and explain in more detail, or else (preferably - my rule no. 3 below) put it all behind you.
"...I had formed an opinion of you as being quite fair in the way you carry out your exchange of views".
Being fair is one of my rules of life. Of course, what seems fair to one isn't necessarily fair to all. But I hope you at least believe I'm honest.
"I hope we can put it behind us and resume a civilized exchange".
That's what I'm trying to do.
"I do not like to create animosity although it seems that at times it is inevitable. But as long as we can rise above it, then it’s OK".
That would be great ;)
Kenneth, I do not need to calm down - not in this instance anyway. But I do flare up if someone has the nerve to twist what I say or assume things I never even thought of (regarding previous blog).
I am rather disappointed because I always looked forward to your posts since I had formed an opinion of you as being quite fair in the way you carry out your exchange of views. I hope we can put it behind us and resume a civilized exchange. I do not like to create animosity although it seems that at times it is inevitable. But as long as we can rise above it, then it’s OK.
Good question. Speaking for myself, when the other side is not made up of the finest minds, I try to speak in a manner that is easy to understand, giving analogies and patiently explaining once more if I am not understood the first time round.
That said, there will always be those who either lack sufficient intelligence, or else cannot shed deeply held prejudices and irrational beliefs. At some point, you have to give up and move on.
I only replied because you included me with those who "attack religion".
There are "attacks" and then there is "criticism". I only criticise. If my criticism seems repetitive, it is only because what I criticise is itself being repeated ad-infinitum. When I find some topic monotonous, I simply move on elsewhere.
It is true that this blog article is not entirely about religion. That is why I wrote that it is "largely" about religion. Of course, I won't argue about percentages. It's all relative and subjective. You will also concede that every comment will get a counter-comment, and so it goes on. You can't blame those who criticise religion if those who defend it can't keep themselves from replying back.
Regarding my comment about the constitution saying "Catholicism is the religion of Malta", you can't say it is off-topic when the topic is about mutual respect and I find that article offensive and showing lack of respect to non-believers or people of other religions.
We know you are a Christian. Do you have to keep pushing it down our throats every single time you comment?
Finally, I challenge you to indicate where I have attacked religion here.
"You must have put on your blinkers for this blog (and not only for this blog) if you fail to see how often the messengers on the other side are shot at, quoted out of context and their words twisted to suit the writer’s purpose - quoting your buzz phrase on this blog “talk is cheap”.
My comment regarding "shooting the messenger" was prompted by your comment to "ex-patriates" as if residence matters. This is not to say that others do not "shoot the messenger" too (although "others do it" is no justification).
However, I doubt that I ever "shoot the messenger" myself, so perhaps "talk is cheap" does not apply to me, at least certainly not in this instance.
Please calm down, and again, don't take criticism too personally.
"Would not our living in Malta be much better if the Pauline strategy should be adopted by church, political, union, business leaders and followers?"
St Paul was a very intelligent man and a brilliant communicator so he could "find the language" fore"dialogue with the finest minds of his age. " as Archbishp Nichols says. He didn't need and chose never to take the easy short-cut of appealing to sentiments and emotions.
The first step towards adopting a Pauline approach would therefore be for the church, political parties and unions to find enough men and women who are intelligent (intelligent, not crafty and cunning) and excellent communicators. They would know how to put their ideas across competently and effectively without resorting to impositions and scare-mongering.
In other words, "the politics of persuasion".
This strategy works however if, like St Paul, one is faced with "the finest minds". What if the 'other side', so to speak, is not exactly made up of the finest minds? What do you say if they prefer rampaging to debating or if they barely acknowledge your existence? That is where the real challenge lies.
My main objection to certain repetitive attacks on religion is that after a while they become monotonous. It is not true that this blog is always about religious principles. This entry, for example is about the need for dialogue and Fr Borg quotes Mao and Obama as well as Archbishop Nichols. Dialogue is necessary in all aspects of life including politics, for example, but also any other social and personal conflict. it is not an intrinsically religious subject.
It was your off-topic comment about abolishing references to religion in our constitution that started the ball rolling for the usual predictable endless tirades against religion. We have all understood by now that you are non-religious and atheist. Do you have to keep pushing it down our throats every single time you comment?
You must have put on your blinkers for this blog (and not only for this blog) if you fail to see how often the messengers on the other side are shot at, quoted out of context and their words twisted to suit the writer’s purpose - quoting your buzz phrase on this blog “talk is cheap”.
1. If in doubt, always assume the best intentions in others.
2. "Attack" ideas or arguments, and not the person.
3. Treat every topic separately. Do not bring up what someone said in the past unless absolutely necessary.
4. In a free blog (where everyone can comment), expect disagreement, and resign yourself to the fact that some people will still disagree with you no matter what.
5. If you feel the discussion is getting too personal, take a few days off from commenting.
A friendly advice: Shoot the message, not the messenger. To do otherwise displays a sign of weakness (even if only apparent). When debating or discussing with people, nationality or residence are irrelevant, especially when discussing an issue which is not just local.
Sometimes I wonder why some expatriates who are actively contributing to this blog have so much our well being to heart! They really must feel for us living our narrow-minded vision of Christianity. They display a sense of altruism beyond belief !!!
Perhaps its because the topic is largely on religion. Perhaps, also, it is because this is a blog (where all views may be expressed) and not an homily in church, where everyone simply nods.
I have decided that I will not waste anymore time. However I have to correct some statements you have made about me.
"I feel that your biggest conflict is that you have not yet come to terms with the fact that you have left your religion of birth".
Believe that, if you wish. That does not make it true. And it isn't. What is there to come to terms with, anyway? It's not like rejecting religion required any effort on my part. The change was gradual and comforting.
"The fact that you are so well versed, and can quote the bible with such facility, is enough to give me to understand that you struggle to find justification/confirmation for the major step you took".
Once again, you would be wrong. I am "so well versed and can quote the Bible" only because I give very high value to evidence. No struggle at all for someone who is a reading addict. I also believe one shouldn't criticise anything one knows little about. Ironically, I have read the bible more since I became an atheist. I don't do so for justification or confirmation. I do it for information.
No, it is not. The last time I checked, I am Maltese.
Quote:The believer's life is beleaguered by doubt and guilt and rendered difficult because getting to grips with real issues, realistically, is denied him. So he hankers for death and 'salvation'.Unquote
What you say does apply to a few decades ago when indeed, the psyche of so many was negatively impacted by the 'hell' prospect.
Yet times have move on and so many today share your conclusion, yet realise that society is complext, needing a layer of institutions to help humanity deal with its mental universe.
If my impression serves me right,Malta is one of the largest pro-capita importer of condoms, and i do not see too many fretting at the prospect of eternal fire. The list is endless.
The sorry thing about it all is that the state is unable to upgrade its laws fast enough to cater for today's society.
I would say that our religion is more akin to christian agnostic. There are however many others who find great comfort in their beliefs and so why take the carpet away from under their feet in a world that can be quite challenging, as long as these do not themselves, harass other non-believers?
"Malta has been a member of the COE since independence. On no occasion during the last 46 years did anyone from the COE consider Article 2 of the Constitution as in any way going against human rights. Wake up to this reality Mr Zammit and stop dreaming."
The day I stop dreaming will be the day that I die ...
Until last year, no one within the CoE complained about crucifixes, and then along came Ms. Soile Lautsi. As they say, the rest is history.
Fr. Borg's retort is another example of Ms. DeBattista observation: "There will never be common ground! I wonder why we bother to argue. It is a fait accompli!"
As this blog is part of the greater court of public opinion, Fr. Borg is well within his rights to pose as the sole arbiter of what constitutes a violation of human rights. And it is for that reason that I would want to argue my case in a real Court, such as the ECHR.
does it mean that some laws and social policies do need to be approved by the Bishops?
I still remember Fr Gouder on Xarabank threatening MPs with fire and brimstone if they vote for divorce… He's very nice though.
@ Antoine Vella: "why does every single discussion, on whatever topic, have to degenerate into an attack on religion and the church"
Most pointed arguments on issues get ignored. To be fair it's difficult to refrain from pointing at the Emperor's new clothes without letting off a chuckle… The faithful's favorite argument closer is "Because I say so! Nuf said!"
Oh for a drenching after suffereing the worst drought in Australian History and having to put up with water restrictions!
You called me old son - well that puts you in a very, very old age group-good on you and may you have many, many more years of a healthy and a happy life.
I assure you that I have no claim for erudition. And honestly I do not see how knowing a language could be a sign of erudition and besides I quoted a person speaking in Italian; what is so wrong in that? And I assure you also that I have no invested interests in anythin or any one. That quote suits me because I do not agree with people wanting to impsoe at all costs their beliefs on others.
No Joe when I said that I am not an expert in constitutional matters it was not sweet humility but the simple truth.
Yes life is very hard Joe, especially when a single soldier tries to convince others that he is the only one in-step and all the regiment is marching out of step. True respect should be shown always.
quote: 'Isn't it true that the religion of the Maltese people is the RC Religion? This is a fact of history and the present situation'. But not to be taken for granted because with a little helping hand from ......... http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
Some memories are short it seems.
See Antoine, I sensed even you had a friend somewhere.
my motto is 'slowly but surely!' I don't plan to leave this existential plane any time soon: there are a lot of books to be savored slowly, besides there's not much to do on the other side!
"The believer's life is beleaguered by doubt and guilt"
Mostly catholics it seems. The catholic church throws original sin at you when you're born, then leaches off your existential angst all through your teens. When you're suitably broken you'll grow to be a loyal servant, ever grateful that there's an afterlife and Jesus will forgive your sins through the church.
Stockholm syndrome should be renamed catholic church syndrome :)
Malta has been a member of the COE since independence. On no occasion during the last 46 years did anyone from the COE consider Article 2 of the Constitution as in any way going against human rights. Wake up to this reality Mr Zammit and stop dreaming.
cont./
Yes I agree ,I try to leave space for doubt not because I am not sure of myself but to allow people to make their own reflections and answer for themselves for whatever is in their own hearts.I wish the best for people if they can be helped to think deeper.
As I said, the atheist's lot is 'lone journey, onwards and upwards, and finally 'dropping' dead, no sweat. Every day fresh. I'll explain.
Joseph A. Borg. I have just watched 'Nicholad and Alexandra', an oldish film about the demise of the Czar's family. This time round I saw it with new insights I did not have first time round. The script incredible, given the new insights. For example: 'A strong man does not need power. A weak one is destroyed by it'. Ouch!! What weakens? Investment outside of the self, weakens. Fairy-tales and smugness about a healthy bank-balance. U meta l-qzieqez ifallu (when stocks fail), as happened in America during the depression, hundreds of failed investors topped themselves. Nobody ever told them that investment needs to be from inside one. Only that can be guaranteed. Anything else is mere safety-valve that does not guarantee delivery. Punto e bast!
re: Curmi. 'I am not an expert in constutional matters and therefore I stand always corrected'. How sickly sweet and humble! And then proceeds to us 'festeggia' with the Constitution. That makes ME a complete ignoramus about the Constitution. No matter. My atheism transcends such piffling matters.
And the self-same Curmi, yet again: 'Pope Benedict put it nicely and succintly when he said "La chiesa propone, ma non impone" (the church proposes but does not impose)'. How humbly self-effacing! How terribly, terribly infallible! And how very erudite, quoting in Italian from downunder. What is that Maltese saying 'il-bniedem jipproponi w Alla jiddisponi'?
But then, that is the whole point of vested interests. One is allowed to see whatever one wants to see. As long as the proscribed comes from above somewhere - in spite of the common-ground.
"No it does not. Malta has an official religion enshrined in its constitution. To legislate on anything that goes against the Catholic religion would be anti-constitutional."
I am not an expert in constutional matters and therefore I stand always corrected. It seems to me that in the first place we should read Chapter I -2 (1) in conjunction with Chapter IV -40 (1)
The Constutuion does not state that the Catholic religion is the 'National' religion because as I said in a previous contribution Malta is not and I add should never become a Theocracy. Being a catholic is by no means a condition of citizenship and indeed the Constitution guarantees the "freedom of conscience and mode of worship" for all permanent and temporary residents of Malta.
I do not think that by legislating in favour of something that goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church would necessarily be unconstitutional. For example civil marriage is not part of the catholic doctrine but I believe that the legislation covering it is not unconstitutional.
Having said all that I tend to agree that the constitution should not mention one particular religion.
Quoting La Debattista: 'I still have a “safety valve” in the comfort that I derive from other aspects of my religion'. Pray, and what would these OTHER ASPECTS be? We need to know.
The atheist's lot is not exactly 'free as a bird'. But, having overcome the fear that, if he says there ain't no god, he might drop dead, zobtu, he is free of the shackle that fetters the soul so. He still has to juggle with morality/ethics/justice etc. but his vision is clear. His choice is to travel along 'the road less travelled' when the alternative would be to be a sheep in a stifling fold, with other sheep - with a trained dog yapping at their heels. So, the atheist is on a solo journey, but real. And when he drops dead, that's it. No mausoleum, no eulogies. He does not do hypocrisy in life and certainly not in death. A life's work well done, in other words.
"There will never be common ground! I wonder why we bother to argue. It is a fait accompli!"
She is so right! 'Nuff said.
@Kenneth Cassar
If I were domiciled in Malta, I would bring to the attention of the European Commissioner for Human Rights -- http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/default_en.asp -- Article 2 of the Constitution. Due to its egregious nature, the odds are high that the Commissioner's office will take the necessary steps to have the Maltese government repeal it.
You don't have to be a lawyer to do it.
While you are it, consider forming an NGO along the lines of the American Civil Liberties Union to stand up for what is right. There are many issues which must be moved out of the court of public opinion where they can never be settled (as Jessica has rightly pointed out), to a Court of Justice, such as the ECHR, where fair decisions are made in the interest of all concerned.
It's not the talk; it's the walk that gets us to a better pasture. You are an EU citizen with certain rights and privileges. Don't let either prelates or politicians rob you of them.
It should be a simple story with a happy ending.
Except it is not.
That judge's ruling — which focused solely on the child's well-being — enraged some on the religious right.
Why? Because the little boy's adoptive parents are gay.
So now those who profit from division are pouncing.
They aren't the people who have cared for this little boy, who have nursed his wounds and tucked him in at night. In fact, they haven't done a thing for him.
They haven't consulted the experts — everyone from a child psychologist to a Guardian ad Litem — who say the parents provide precisely the loving environment that this child needs.
All these critics know is that they don't want gay people to have the same rights as straight people.
So they want him separated from the parents who love him.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-scott-maxwell-gay-adoption-020310-20100202,0,1037988.column
very true! my biggest gripe is that there is no hell to smite the "evil" Oh well I'll have to live with it and make the best of the little I have — which is a lot compared to 90% of the world's population… Being in touch with your inner self or introspection is available to all of us. I feel that religion can easily stumble you in your personal voyage … go figure!
I personally feel very catholic. My childhood and youth are full of very positive memories. However I will not shirk from protesting certain attitudes of today's catholic church. May I remind you that the prophets didn't have nice words to give to their fellow Israelites. I don't mind doing voluntary work for the church, if I felt the work was beneficial in any way.
@ Joe Xuereb: I wish I had the resources to run around the med at least…
" …he maintained he could come back as a blade of grass"
I know the feeling. It takes time and effort to come to grips with your mortality. Personally I find the lack of afterlife to be liberating. After all it's not like I'm going to wait all eternity under a bed of soil. I will simply cease to exist so the problem is not there: It's like discussing the value of zero…
Now, whose values are the Church, Sociology and the Law, whose values are we to choose for the common good? And it begs the question, what happens to those who do not go along with these values? String 'em up like they used to?. With a mindset like this, any Institution's adherents are just making sure that whatever the Institution they stick up for and uphold, as sure as water can not stand still, that Institution is destined to disintegrate into piffling commmon-ground dust. You see, the Abrahamic legend is up against the Internet - and the rest - and therefore does not stand a snowball's chance in Hell. (and that is 167 words long by my standards, piffling or otherwise).
Writing anything in ten feet high letters in order to make a point is - pointless. Because content is everything. You know who you are. How sweet! How very, very sweet!
Sorry for the capital letters but I can think of no other way to make my point in the midst of all this verbosity.
GIVE IT A REST EVERYONE AND SHOW SOME RESPECT NOT CONFRONTATION.
Some of the more prolific and long-winded posters - you know who you are - need to realise how tiresome they have become. I've given up trying to join in the discussion because of them.
Now how should I say this? Well, I believe that everyone concurs with your analysis. Yet it may not be a good idea to go shout it out that father xmas is a figment of the imagination because all individuals manage their mental universe in so many different ways.
Now your point that organised religions are a cause for so much human misery is, in my opinion, the key issue. I am not totally convinced even if I am absolutely convinced that religions can do much much more to foster peace and fulfillment.
Some ministers of religion are overt provocateurs who support power basis on the one side and foment division in the interest of power on the other.
This state of affairs runs through history. Jesus confronted the Sadducees who were performing this role exactly...Yet Paul diluted significantly this momentum also through confrontational methods...that is why I find it ironic that Pauline strategy should be now help up us some icon of respect over confrontation...ultimately it is obvious that any God is love, and love is not detected through words but through one's actions as a tree is known through her fruit. Warm regards
I feel that your biggest conflict is that you have not yet come to terms with the fact that you have left your religion of birth, and that is probably why you feel that there could be no common ground between us. Once you come to terms with this fact, you will probably come to accept the idea of others still in the Catholic faith.
The fact that you are so well versed, and can quote the bible with such facility, is enough to give me to understand that you struggle to find justification/confirmation for the major step you took.
As for me, my biggest failing is that of having too much of a relaxed attitude towards the bible. I know I am in the wrong, and I find myself in grave difficulties if I have to counter an argument where I am called to refer to passages in the bible, primarily because I know that I am up against strong competition.And that is where I might be unable to meet you on common ground.
"To get my drift, suppose that instead of "The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion", the article stated "The political ideology of Malta is the Marxist Communist ideology". What would you think about that?"
In that case, I think that our parliament would vote to discard that (hypothetical) article as soon as possible because what is says is obviously false. Regarding Chapter 1 Article 2 (1) and (3) of the constitution, I'm not in a position to say whether I agree or disagree because frankly, I don't understand its legal implications.
You also said that in Malta, non-Catholics are second class citizens. As you know, I'm not a religious person (although I don't consider myself to be an atheist either) but I never felt like I'am some kind of a second class citizen. Maybe different, but certainly not inferior. So maybe you can give some examples.
Now, given that we do know how the three religions interpreted Abraham according to how it suited their agenda, I would suggest that this Abraham man be shelved once and for all and then, maybe, just maybe, with a level playing-field, we can forget about high walls, terrorism and holocausts and other genocidal nonsense. It's worth a try. What have we to lose but a load of piffling nonsense? Plausibility. That's the key word.
Slept like a babe after that but no one to share it with. But Joseph's listening now.
At four this morning I was fighting my demons and chose to watch TV instead. A program on Channel 4 about Abraham the Prophet. I knew a little about the men (though I've visited his one-time abode - allegedly - in Turkey where Peygamber(prophet/patriarch) is much revered.
The presenter, Rageh Omaar, was brought up as a Muslim. He examined - I'll paraphrase - Abraham, one of the most revered patriarchs of both the Jewish and Christian bible and the Koran. He's often cited by world statesmen as a unifying figure for all three religions (see common-ground piffle on this blog interestingly enough), yet today many of the 'children of Abraham' are locked in conflict. So there you have it.
I knew about the attempted murder of his son Isaac, and through art, Hagar in the desert, but unconnected. Well, this morning I learned that Sara, Abraham's wife, was barren so she lent him her maid Hagar to sire Ismail. God wanted him to sacrifice his son/s but held his hand. See what I mean about the implausibiity of all this piffle.
cont./
And finally, it is not so much about Darwin - very useful - and Dawkins. It is more about weighing up and approach the matter via plausibility.
cont./
Joseph, of course I could go on and on for hours. But this is the gist. Face the reality of a non-life after death and, having conquered that primeval fear, you can embrace your own humanity. It is a liberating feeling.
cont./
cont./
The pro-choice issue has often featured in this blog and I never shirked from giving my views, which incidentally were at times in conflict with what the Church teaches, probably prompted by the fact that being myself a woman, I could empathize with somebody who found herself in such a predicament (particularly rape victims). Having said that, I cannot ignore what the Church teaches since as a Catholic I have to abide by the rules of my religion. It is definitely hard at times, but then, life is not a joy ride.
Sometimes I envy you atheists for the way you project yourself as being so fancy free. But then from what I understand from these discussions, I find that you are subject to as many conflicts as I am. In fact, with all the restrictions I feel I am burdened with; I still have a “safety valve” in the comfort that I derive from other aspects of my religion.
When? Before the Reconquista, the moors tolerated catholics and jews. I hope you know what happened thanks to the spanish crusade and afterwards with the inquisition…
Communism also fundamentally sought the good of mankind.
I'll repeat it again here: the church is actively obstructing 3rd world countries from promoting contraceptives against aids and for population control.The biggest environmental problem we have is population growth yet the pope riles against the godless… Being misguided doesn't absolve the church from past misdemeanors.
I'm currently leaning towards some history books: British in India, Spanish Civil War, early greeks, fall of Roman Empire, a spin through the crusades… Might go political soon and go back to Naomi Klein with 'Shock Doctrine' seems like pertinent now that Haiti is back in the spotlight… then get some books on the Founding Fathers (Adams, Washington…) Fancy getting something on Newton and Feynman later. Problem is I take long to read a book!
How to foster mutual respect and not confrontation between people of different or no faith:
1. Kindly point out that all opinions are welcome but insist that your country should have an official religion which is yours.
2. Ignore most of what the others say, except when you think you will score points by replying.
3. Remind the others that your religion is the majority religion, so they should grin and bear it.
4. Misunderstand someone, take him to task for it, and fail to acknowledge your mistake.
5. Suggest that the other is not competent to understand the topic and unqualified to give factual opinions.
6. Create a caricature of the other in your mind, and state what you think he believes as fact.
and finally, to add my own ingredient in the mix...
7. Throw in some sarcasm.
Curmi, I couldn't agree more about respect, etc. Respect needs to be earned my old son. Theories based on fairy-tales do not do it for me and are indeed piffle. Simple comme bonjour. And by the same token, anyone who invests in piffle and does not respect me - I am not going to lose any sleep over that am I now?! Take a page from my book Curmi. Mutual respect because it is social protocol is too simple, too simplistic. Like automatic respect, I don't do infantilism any more than I do good behaviour to maintain my social standing. Deference to some titled drunk?closet child/wife abuser?/philandering twat? They do exist you know - all bonton and starched collars and starched everything else. Not for me Curmi, not for me.
If you follow what happens in the USA, Bush got nary a whimper from the US Archbishops over his tenure as president on the Iraq war, yet Obama was put on the stake for being pro-choice before the elections. Indeed the rightwing media were raising hell about the catholic church wanting to refuse communion then VP candidate Biden.
Obama is pro-choice, does your comment mean you are pro-choice as well? I only assume that Fr Joe put in Obama in his story because he wants to illustrate this point explicitly. But maybe it was a case of telling two audiences two different things… If that's the case, then it was very misleading.
Maltese politicians, in such cases, have no choice but to comply. Not so in other matters that are not so obviously and indisputably human rights matters. It is in these other matters that Religious imposition in the constitution binds politicians' hands.
"What I find particularly worrisome is the resistance some atheists are putting up against Obama’s words to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."
You need not worry. Those imaginary atheists are only living in your mind. At least, I can't see any of them here.
When you stop being selective in your replies, I will start considering replying to the posts you address to me. And please stop your condescention. You may be a "father" to many, but you are definitely not a "father" to me. You need to take a couple of tutorials in fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect. Isn't this what this blog is about? But again...talk is cheap.
@J. DeBattista
Are you advocating that a majority has the right to impose on the minority if it so desires? If yes, then welcome to Vella-Flights-of-Fancy and imagine a time in the future when Catholics are a minority in Malta. Would you accept atheist impositions as gracefully as you request us to do?
Might (read majority) cannot always be right.
Part 2.
In view of our ignorance of the future we may be taking an enormous risk. One can never be sure before the event that it is the right decision, or if, indeed, as a result of the decision, one’s life may become meaningful.
For a fact the Church has had a turbulent history throughout the years but its teaching has always, fundamentally, sought the good of mankind.
What I find particularly worrisome is the resistance some atheists are putting up against Obama’s words to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."” It is worrisome also because I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that in such a little island, where we are practically “one large extended family”, we mange to be so hostile to each other.
Part 1.
I always read Fr. Joe’s articles very carefully but, to please you, I will read this one again.
Now! I thought that what Obama said made sense, but please can you specify which part you felt was so relevant to your cause?
Were you referring me to the following passage? “"We must find a way to live together as one human family. Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history. ... ... when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."
If so, I can only say that I agree. I hope that likewise you are in agreement. So what is your contention – that we erase Chapter 1 Article 2 (1) and (3) from the constitution? In the hope that such a step would put everyone (of whatever belief) on the same footing?
Continued…..
Finally, in the spirit of healthy discussion, I would like to point out that there are arguments both in favour and against having a constitution, but I would think that the pros outweigh the cons (by a low margin, but an important one nonetheless).
Constitutions were historically a response to prior tyranny. Let's not forget the spirit in which they were conceived.
Since I might not have originally explained myself well in the text you quoted, I would like to make the following clear:
1. There are some things the inclusion of which in the constitution are necessary and warranted as a safeguard from the whim of politicians. One example would be free speech.
2. There are some things the inclusion of which in the constitution are actually harmful, because they deter progress. One example would be specifying an official religion or political ideology in the constitution.
My comment should be taken in context. I was discussing a section of the constitution and not abolishing the constitution completely. Therefore (1) and (2) as quoted by yourself, would apply only to the specific article in the constitution that I mentioned.
So I would remove (through a 2/3 majority, of course, and not literally "I"), that specific article which binds the hands of politicians on almost any kind of legislation.
It is true that one of the main aims of a constitution is to limit the freedom of legislators and make it harder for them to change laws "at whim". However, constitutions, to be democratic, should limit constraints to freedom to change laws, to as little as possible, and not be binding on matters of religion and/or ideology.
To get my drift, suppose that instead of "The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion", the article stated "The political ideology of Malta is the Marxist Communist ideology". What would you think about that?
No need to abolish the whole constitution.
"No, that is not what I'm basically saying, at least not unless you think the whole constitution is composed of only one sentence."
I don't think that the constitution is composed of only one sentence, but I do think that what you said below (1),(2), does not only apply to one particular article of the constitution, but also to the whole concept of any constitution.
(1)"The rules that are part and parcel of our society should be ones freely discussed and freely legislated in parliament, and not pre-determined by a binding constitution."
(2)"My suggestion would not bring any immediate drastic changes. But it would free legislators to freely legislate."
One of the main aims of any constitution is to limit the freedom of legislators to legislate. You can't be in favour of having a constitution but then being also against the whole concept of any constitution.
Just to clarify, I never said that there will never be common ground. I only said that, as things stand in Malta, finding common ground or compromise is next to impossible. The key phrase is "as things stand". The good will has to come from the advantaged party.
How can we be a republic (no monarchy but a president guarding the constitution and a government of the people) why should there be a special place for a religion? A religion that has meddled in European politics since at least the 2nd century AD… always ending with egg on its face.
Regarding Kenneth's blame piece, I'd venture this example: most muslims aren't suicide bombers or terrorists, yet I expect muslims to publicly denounce such acts as being outside their religion and beliefs. Same goes for many other things. This is not rocket science, but effective and honest leadership.
The church cannot expect to be respected in a round table if it always argues for the privilege of being superior due to divine right.
"So either way somebody gets the blame".
Of course. How could it be otherwise? It's not a question of "pinning" blame. It's a question of knowing who's responsible for what.
This in no way implies (as you seem to suggest) that blaming someone for something means that I cannot be wrong, or that I know best. Far from it.
But it is an inescapable fact that unless convinced otherwise, everyone believes he or she is right. Therefore, in the case of decisions one believes are wrong, one has to apportion blame to something or someone (cause and effect). You yourself must do it if you're human. And its not a "problem with us". Its completely reasonable and natural. Person A does something (or fails to do something) which results in B (which you believe to be harmful or wrong). Who is to blame for B? A, who else?
Your adverse reaction to "blame" probably stems from associating blame with punishment, although I could be wrong. The association need not be made. There could be blame without punishment.
Don't you agree that I am right, at least on this?
I think you're taking my replies too personally.
So either way somebody gets the blame. That is the problem with us - always wanting to pin the blame on somebody else and we cannot accept that we might, in fact, have it all wrong. (It is my way or nothing! I know best!).
You are right Kenneth! So right! - There will never be common ground! I wonder why we bother to argue. It is a fait accompli!
"So, what you're basically saying is that we should abolish the constitution, and do without one".
No, that is not what I'm basically saying, at least not unless you think the whole constitution is composed of only one sentence.
True, changing it requires a 2/3 majority. This would be easier to obtain if the Church explicitly proclaims that it has no problem with the removal of Chapter 1 Article 2 (1). What's more, if the Church does express that view, and a 2/3 majority is still not obtained, I would not blame the Church, but would only blame the politicians.
The Church has a lot of influence on local politicians. It should use it even in matters which, although fair, do not benefit her directly.
So, what you're basically saying is that we should abolish the constitution, and do without one.
The Maltese constitution needs updating however to better reflect our self image and our improved perception on human rights and better protect civil liberties. We have to move from the mentality of the old 'rule by divine right' to 'rule by the US people'. That will need some proper public discussions on popular TV … but I'm not holding my breath on it happening any time soon.
I would have preferred parliament had chosen for president an experienced constitutionalist who could guide us, the people, into a proper discussion on the way forward but I digress…
"...but if I may, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Malta is still predominantly Catholic".
Yes, that would be a great way of starting off an inter-religious discussion where compromise and common ground is sought.
"The Governement has the right to follow or not to follow that which the church proposes".
No it does not. Malta has an official religion enshrined in its constitution. To legislate on anything that goes against the Catholic religion would be anti-constitutional.
That Malta is "predominantly Catholic" is besides the point and irrelevant. The rules that are part and parcel of our society should be ones freely discussed and freely legislated in parliament, and not pre-determined by a binding constitution.
My suggestion would not bring any immediate drastic changes. But it would free legislators to freely legislate. It would not automatically cause a revolutionary change of local laws, but would provide the legal framework and tools to remove archaic laws that are usually associated only with fundamentalist theocracies.
The constitution of Malta makes a "system of social organization designed to evolve, to meet change and to adapt to new developments", next to impossible.
The fact that we are disagreeing even on this, proves that in Malta's semi-theocratic state, "to find common ground" is not only difficult, but next to impossible. And yes, there will be resistance.
Building a hypothesis, figuring out test experiments, refining the hypothesis and repeating. Sometimes you get great scientists spending their best years working on theories that will end up disproven. That's why in 300 years since the our quality of life has improved so much Fr Joe.
This is a good example of what I mean when I refer to FACT and reason instead of faith with Richard Feynman (jewish quantum physicist and a great mind) describing some fundie jews:
http://www.collectedthoughts.com/quote.aspx?id=11302
and here's an example of painstakingly extracting nature's secrets:
http://futurity.org/earth-environment/shaking-up-estimates-about-the-big-one/#more-8688
Here's an interesting article by Karen Armstrong debunking Mohammed's and St Paul's perceived misogyny. She goes on to pillory Thomas Aquinas and the orthodox greeks!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/15/gender.religion
Then I'm looking forward for a Sunday letter from the Archbishop about the benefits of a secular government and the separation of church and state (give to Caesar…). He can also highlight the principle of protecting minorities and those who are different from us, something that the EU is trying to instill in fractured communities through its institutions, programmes and laws (though I suspect the heart of its bureaucracy is racist). He can also tell the local faithful to grow a thicker skin and accept criticism. Turning the other cheek to other people's opinion can have a beneficial effect, it's a sign of strength not weakness and they can learn to accept their faith better in the process.
Naturally he should extoll the virtues of living a pious life, but that's a PERSONAL journey we all should be aiming for.
"The Church does wish for a Government that represents all of its citizens".
2. (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion - Constitution of Malta.
No it does not. Not unless the Church publicly expresses its wish to remove this article from the constitution. Talk is cheap.
"There is nothing in the Constitution which says that Malta "is a Catholic club, so anything that does not follow Catholic teaching is inadmissible and automatically ruled out". THERE IS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING STATING THAT. If you think otherwise produce evidence".
2. (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
I think this should be enough. If this has no influence on legislation and policy, then what's the problem with removing what would otherwise seem just a formality? Some people may be naive to think otherwise. I'm not that easily fooled.
Even a simple statement like "the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" makes it a Catholic "club" where at best, other religions (or sects, as the law condescendingly calls them) are tolerated (see discrepancies in penalties on "offending" the Catholic religion and other religions) .
There's no place for a "religion of Malta" in a pluralistic world. If Malta has an official religion (like Iran does), then that makes citizens of other religions (or none) second class citizens.
But of course, "Catholics" wouldn't mind that as long as they're having their way. So much for cheap talk of "mutual respect".
Each one of us is expressing an OPINION. Opinions can be wrong, right or partly right/partly wrong. This goes for all opinions and with this in mind each one of us should, no matter how strongly one propounds one's opinions, one should always remeber that there could be better or equally right opinions. Debates, arguments, discussions etc should never exclude respect if we are fair dinkum (as we say down under) about our freedom of expression.
Pope Benedict put it nicely and succintly when he said "La chiesa propone, ma non impone" (the church proposes but does not impose).
Malta's Constitution does not say the the Government of Malta is a Catholic Govt. because it is not. It is simply the Government of Malta and this basic fact should be remembered by all of us. The church as any one of us has the right (duty) to teach/propose. The Governement has the right to follow or not to follow that which the church proposes.
re: giving us the faith, I did not provide any opinion other than stating a general belief that it was St Paul who passed on to us the now catholic faith.
I have no idea if this was a blessing or otherwise. As i had occassion to state, I do see our 'faith' as being an important block in our cultural matrix. Now one can be an atheist, a christian agnostic or a practicing catholic and still consider the church as a compenent of our cultural mix.
Also, i often had occassion to express an opinion that I find it very unfortunate that individual members of the church keep insisting on playing at what they may think to be sofisticated political games as they prance on the stage in their 'emperor's clothes'.
So, a panel of debaters are invited to share a common-ground. So far, so good. And they talk and talk. And they talk some more. The problem is that, one of them can not relinquish his stance, let down his guard - can NOT, NO way - and so the common-ground becomes very common indeed. So common it crumbles into dust underfoot like some terrible all-swalling voraggine, devouring anything on it. Except the tigerish one in the think-tank who survives to pull the strings, again (something about being blessed by an ever consuming - but ultimately destructive - fire, as mentioned elsewhere). Because it is a fait accompli before it even starts. If the elected members, the upholders of the Constitution are held at ransom by more of the same, then that Constitution is reduced to a reconstituted sickly joke. What a bind!! What a piece of bondage!!
@ Kenneth Cassar: "2. You need a level playing field for the "game" to be fair."
I can understand what prompted you to present that particular scenario to Fr. Joe, but if I may, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Malta is still predominantly Catholic and that certain rules are part and parcel of our society, therefore, one cannot expect a drastic transformation such as you would prefer. Co-operation with the larger social group in a common search for satisfactory ways of dealing with the practical difficulties which hinder the best functioning of society is what makes for democracy – a system of social organization designed to evolve, to meet change and to adapt to new developments.
To find common ground is not as difficult as you would have us believe unless there is resistance.
@ Stefan Vella. "Would your wish mean that the local church will accept a government that represents all of its citizens equally or still force the government to LEGISLATE according to the Catholic Church's moral code?" The Church does wish for a Government that represents all of its citizens and does not want to force government to do anything.
@ Kenneth Cassar. There is nothing in the Constitution which says that Malta "is a Catholic club, so anything that does not follow Catholic teaching is inadmissible and automatically ruled out". THERE IS ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING STATING THAT. If you think otherwise produce evidence.
http://translate.google.com/#mt|tr|tfal
Twas only this morning that I discovered: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100110/interview/in-the-name-of-my-father Wonderful stuff to anyone unhindered by blackmail and fear of eternal damnation , and therefore, free to analyse.
Ephesus, some years back. A searingly hot afternoon with young tourists fainting. There were plots of archaeological digs marked 'destroyed by Christians'. I also learned that when Paul walked among the shops, the bath-houses, the markets, the brothels of that magnificent city, he was given short-shrift and was run out of town. So none of this nonsense about Paul doing the rounds converting people and writing letters and missives - the reality was rather different.
D.Attard. If I understand you correctly, 'do those who are blessed by the fire of the holy spirit have any option but to unilateraly go forth and gift one and all with the singular knowledge bestowed upon them? st paul did upset so many an applecart and risked his life to gift us the faith...of course the shipwreck and salvation from the deadly, swirling waters is seen by many as a blessing in disguise. I beg to differ. Strike that out. I don't beg.
Joseph A. Borg asked the the following question a few posts back. I apologise for not bringing anything new to the discussion but I am actually really interested in your reply. Question as follows:-
Would your wish mean that the local church will accept a government that represents all of its citizens equally or still force the government to LEGISLATE according to the Catholic Church's moral code?
Let me make my point clearer. Imagine 5 persons in a committee - 3 Catholics, 1 Protestant and 1 atheist.
One of the Catholics stands up and says: "Dear committee members, we are all for dialogue and seeking a common ground or compromise. But remember: our statute says that this club is a Catholic club, so anything that does not follow Catholic teaching is inadmissible and automatically ruled out".
That's the situation in Malta. That is why all talk about mutual respect and seeking common ground or compromise is just bull****. Talk is cheap.
"Why do you want to eliminate them? What is there in those articles which can hinder the kind of attitude i adovocated?".
1. Why NOT eliminate them?
2. You need a level playing field for the "game" to be fair.
3. One cannot expect mutual respect when one side agrees with a constitution that suggests that non-Catholics are second-class citizens.
Let's start by eliminating Chapter 1 Article 2 (1) and (3) from the constitution, shall we? No? Thought so.
i find this to be quite an extraordinary statement.
Paul turned on its head all that the Jerusalem leadership, headed by the Lord's brother, James, stood for.
One can easily follow the schism that had its roots in anthioc (Acts 15) where representatives of the jerusalem leadership accuse paul of laxity.
Paul's stance on the relevance of judaic law, to which jesus adhered rigorously, became significantly divorced from the jerusalem leadership's stance on the law.... 'this (paul) is the man who preaches to everyone, everywhere,...against the law - acts 21:28ff as a riot ensues that saw the romans save his skin before dispatching him to the safety of rome (via malta)where he could preach without fear (acts' concluding verse) ...paul was full of the fire of the holy spirit that guided him in bringing christianity to us gentiles...
do those who are blessed by the fire of the holy spirit have any option but to unilateraly go forth and gift one and all with the singular knowledge bestowed upon them? st paul did upset so many an applecart and risked his life to gift us the faith...
The day when I meet a Maltese person who can speak/write half-good Maltese @ Cafe` Premier or thereabouts, I will be jubilant, like someone whose life's work is done. You're in good company but I discovered the goodle distionaries - dozens of them - only yesterday having read a letter by a Bro. Oscar Mifsud, a linguist by the sounds of it, a man after my own heart. Enjoy the dictionaries. I preferred them - and phrase-books - to comics when I was a little boy. Some things one is born to, nudge! nudge! I think.
Must rush (that chat-room style - oops!! - it's getting to me too). I am just getting over two major surgical operations and I'm alone and in pain. But I can still type. As long as I can do that, I am grateful. It's OK, you don't have to pray for me. But thanks anyway.
Glad you brought to my attention how atrocious my Maltese spelling is!
I must make sure to remember never to use it again. :-)
http://translate.google.com/#mt|en|moghza
An alternative is meghza, one goat. Moghoz (the 'ogho' there, yes) is the plural. Meghziet is the dual plural.
Having a near-perfect grasp of English is all very well. But to misspell a word as basic as goat is worrying. I would be very worried. A thinking goat. How very surreal! In a desert scape. Rummaging among its own 'redus' (animal droppings, particularly rabbits and goats). How very Salvador Dali! With a squashed watch going nowhere fast.
I don't do 'positive' for the sake of being positive. I do tough love. Anybody looking at me for easy answers is wasting their time. What am I, a comfort blanket to be dragged behind like a filthy rag? the way some treat their life, for all to see (nod here to Konstantine |Kavafy, the Greek poet - let it not be said I steal anyone's thunder).
I make no apologies if some of this is intelligible and the rest sounds sarcastic.
There is no particular density there (especially for art aficionados). Just read it and read it again. Invest in a magnifying glass if needs be. Mind the redus.
I was debating - as one does - with a fellow atheist only yesterday. He as telling me that we need to find an alternative to the comfort afforded believers. Look no more I said. It exists. Here in front of you. What do you mean? he retorded, all excited. I told him that maybe he was not ready (because in any case, believer or not, life is a solo journey, one has to find one's level. On one's lonesome).
cont./
If so, why do you even bother to write, and if you really cannot stay away, why don’t you offer some positive suggestions.
There must be something positive you can contribute, even to this blog, notwithstanding that you start off with the premise that the “stumbling block” this “veritable hot potatoes” will always be in the way.
As Fr. Joe said “We are a Mediterranean people, easy to ignite and explode.”, and besides people operate according to different principles and habits, but that does not mean that we have to accept it as our fate that we can never find common ground.
If we succumb to skepticism with an attitude that is critical and generally destructive, because, granted, we are dissatisfied with the world we live in, we cannot just sit back and bear it. There must be something that can be done. For sure we are not going to be the ones to change the world, but then again, any stone (big or small) dropped in the water, creates a ripple.
No, I have not suddenly started to ready holy books. I just looked up Jonathan Sacks, who I have known to be controversial in the past, and found this quotation. Like the orchestrated, scripted pieces by the likes of Nichols, Obama, the whole strung together by the very orchestrally(?) scripted ramblings of our very own Fr. Joe Borg - I find the whole column just a load of piffle, totally unconvincing, just talking about plausible solutions to millennial problems, if only, if only we..........quite! And this is why we never get anywhere. There is a stumbling block as big as a meteor in Meteora in all these discussions that nobody has the guts to look at never mind handle. Veritable hot potatoes. And not unlike some 'important' meetings I have attended where half the time is devoted to discussing who is going to make the tea during the tea-break.
Joe Borg's quote: 'I guess you get the drift of my argument'. I do indeed. Only too well. Every damn time I do.
Plus another quote: 'We are all guilty'. Really?! How exquisitely humble.
Back to the article: Would your wish mean that the local church will accept a government that represents all of its citizens equally or still force the government to LEGISLATE according to the Catholic Church's moral code?
I'm asking because the church is usually FOR many things, except when it's AGAINST them…
(FUTURE TENSE, Hodder & Stoughton 2009, p 196)