Letters to the Editor
-
@ David
As I say, I'm not defending the Catholic church, I'm defending historical method.
If we, as liberals, say education matters, then it should matter.
Muddled thinking, prejudice, and the like should be checked.
Many of us bemoan the fact that Americans suffer from historical amnesia or worse, have no grasp of history in the first place and that this leads to poor political decisions.
I'm just saying that making facile assertions about the CAtholic church's historical role is an ignorant thing to do. It's grounded in prejudice and a very superficial understanding of history.
Ok, that's enough from me. I don't mean to preach, but honestly, it's hard not to. History should not be peddled as snake oil is my only point.
-
Moyers' Wright interview
I have just seen a rebroadcast of a considerable portion of Bill Moyers' interview with Rev. Wright. Not very surprisningly, I found Wright to be sympathetic, intelligent, well-informed and sensible. Why should anyone expect otherwise? He has been the pastor for many years of a very large congregation, he is widely respected in Chicago, among other members of his denomination, the United Church of Christ, and elsewhere. When Hillary Clinton and others suggest that Obama is at fault for remaining in the church, this condemns not just Obama but considerable numbers of other people as well. But I have little confidence that this interview will change any minds. The only piece of it that is shown on other programs is a small clip in which Rev Wright says that Obama was speaking as a politician in Philadelphia (although elsewhere in the interview Wright praised Obama's Philadelphia address on race.) The clip has been used to embarrass Obama and to get him to once again repudiate the clips of Rev Wright that have been already shown ad nauseam. I think instead that those who, seeking to score points off a political candidate, have insulted not just Rev Wright but many good people in Chicago and elsewhere, actually are the ones who ought to be embarrassed.
-
@weeping ok, historical method
the vatican kept meticulous records. this question could be answered easily if the vatican would allow those records to be examined. but they won't. even pius XII (i think) the one during the nazi period. naturally people expect the worst. what jews know is that every good friday they had to hide. depending on the pope, the bishop, the times, there would be more or less violence towards the jews. how to apportion responsibility? it's hard when you ask me, who is involved emotionally so lets pick something smaller and not directly related. the extermination of the indian tribes of the northeast. the puritans had religious explanations, motives. braddock once, when he burned an entire village killing 300 men women and children said in his diary, "i declare this day a thanksgiving day. i have this day sent three hundred heathen souls to hell without losing a single man.". this is religious justification but is it motivation? (to kill women, children, the old - difficult "subjects") or was it land? or fear of retaliation? all i can say is that from the indian's point of view it is not important at all what the exact apportion of motivation was. to a historian (of the WINNERS) it is, for the basic reason of absolving them of as much guilt as possible (after all the land on which the university sits is that very same land). talking about land. the arabs from algeria to iraq threw the jews out after the birth of modern israel. they don't suffer criticism. however when the jews throw out the palestinians after the arabs in '67 waged a (stated) war of extermination, somehow different rules apply. to me, a jew, it seems that we have to obey rules that you won't. we have to be better. we have to be christ. to die for your sins. that's how i see it - and it causes big fights on other threads here.
-
jesus
I wonder how Jesus would do in this campaign for being a radical ... saying love your enemy
'... woe to you you hypocrites ... and being soft on crime for woman at the well thing. These are only a few issues and there are lots more where he would be viciously attacked by the religious right. I think Barak should distance himself a bit more from him.
-
The Double Talk Express
John McCain takes every opportunity to masquerade as a maverick, the Corporate Media takes every opportunity to give him a pass.
McCain builds his image on illusion and myth. The straight talk express is nothing but double talk.
This article, fortunately bucks the trend and rightly reveals the hypocrisy.
Glenn Greenwald today, also penetrates the myth in his piece on McCain's treachery in his support of the infamous Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The more attention that is paid to McCain's treachery, the better informed the American electorate will be.
McCain is a candidate of duplicity.
-
@ David
Thank you, David. I have nothing really to say other than to thank you for paying homage to the complexity of things.
That's all I'm asking for.
-
Rupert C read your history
Not even a million people died in the Inquisition, let alone "millions." When you throw around numbers like that, it pretty much shows you don't know what you're talking about. And it completely invalidates your argument.
-
@weeping - that was actually the Perfect Answer
naturally i was hoping for an argument, but really, anything that involves masses of humans and points of view and memory and the mixings of memory, hope, and fear cannot be BUT "complex". (that "complex" to me meant, "you have your point of view and i have mine". well we're both voting for the same guy. in that respect we are on the same side of that history (and i DO believe this election is historic))
-
Christopher1988 and weeping are right rupert
about 2000 died in the spanish inquisition. it was puffed up by the british who (if you remember the dates for the armada) had a problem with them at the time. when you want some group to seem BAD you censure them for beating up on their jews. since christ we've been useful that way.