Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml

DOHA, February, 15 2006, (IslamOnline.net) – The Norwegian parliament has amended the Penal Code to criminalize blasphemy in the wake of the republication of Danish cartoons that lampooned Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by a Norwegian magazine, Christian and Muslim leaders in Norway said on Tuesday, February 14.

"Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs," Norway's Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika told reporters after a meeting in Doha with Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

Howika was among a Norwegian delegation that also included the chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Norway, Mohamed Hamdan.

"Under the new law, the crime of blasphemy will be punished either by a fine or imprisonment," Howika said, promising Qaradawi to fax him a copy of the law after being published in the country's official gazette.

Hamdan regretted the burning of the Norwegian embassy in the Syrian capital Damascus, but said the government had blamed the magazine for the violent reaction.

"The Norwegian government made it clear more than one time that it would not condone blasphemy," he said.

Last September, Denmark's mass circulation daily Jyllands-Posten ran 12 cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). One of the photos showed the prophet as wearing a bomb-shaped turban and another showing him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by shrouded women.

Many European newspapers, including the Norwegian Magazinet, reprinted the drawings, triggering an outcry across the Muslim world and calls to boycott Danish products and Norwegian products.

Any image of the Prophet -- let alone biting caricatures -- is considered blasphemous under Islam.

The editor of the Norwegian magazine at issue apologized to Muslims on February 10, for publishing the cartoons.

Vebjoern Selbekk, who initially defended his January 10 publication of the cartoons in his magazine as an expression of press freedom, appeared before TV cameras shaking hands after his apology with Muslim leaders.

The delegation distributed copies of the magazine's apology note to the Muslim minority after the meeting with the prominent Muslim scholar as well as an apology translated into Arabic from the minister of labor.

"We accepted the apology in principle," Qaradawi said. "We do appreciate the Norwegian stance which is different from that taken [initially] by Denmark. The Norwegian prime minister has condemned the cartoons at the very outset."

The Danish newspaper has apologized for offending Muslims, although not for printing the drawings.

Four months after the publication, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Monday, February 13, met with a Muslim group to discuss the fallout from the cartoons crisis. He initially refused to meet ambassadors of Muslim countries to contain the crisis under the pretext of free speech.

"Muslims want all people to live in peace, cooperation and love. We don't call for strife. All people are created by God, so there was no need for this strife," Qaradawi told reporters..

"We were deeply hurt by the cartoons. The Danish newspaper could have defused the crisis by offering an immediate apology to the Muslims. Had it apologized, the issue would have been resolved," he said.

He pointed out that there is a difference between "freedom of expression" and freedom of insulting"

"Freedom of expression is all about expressing an opinion. In the cartoons case, there is no opinion or counter-opinion," he said.

Qaradawi called anew on the United Nations to adopt a resolution banning blasphemy to head off similar incidents in the future. He also urged the European Union to criminalize blasphemy against any religion, including pagan religions.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is pressing for a ban on religious intolerance to be part of the bedrock of a planned new United Nations human rights body.

According to the text of an OIC proposal, the new UN body should state clearly that the "defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression" and that states, organizations and the media have a "responsibility in promoting tolerance and respect for religious and cultural values."

[Kodos]

Goddamn goddamn I said goddamn.

[SteamshipTime]

Eddy acted flabbergasted when I said multicultural societies must conclude that all cultures are worthy of protection.

[Nordicist]

A multicultural society is incompatible with a modern, Western democracy. On the contrary, such a society must enact obscurantist and tyrannical laws in order to survive.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy

Bullshit! :mad:

[Kodos]

Eddy acted flabbergasted when I said multicultural societies must conclude that all cultures are worthy of protection.

Edana's a cosmopolitan not so much a multiculturalist there is a distinction...

[SteamshipTime]

Edana's a cosmopolitan not so much a multiculturalist there is a distinction...

Whether or not she actually is a "cosmopolitan" or a "multiculturalist" has zero to do with my post.

[Kodos]

Whether or not she actually is a "cosmopolitan" or a "multiculturalist" has zero to do with my post.

Since it was a personal attack it does...

[SteamshipTime]

That she could not follow the point has nothing whatsoever to do with whether, in fact, she is a "cosmopolitan" or a "multiculturalist." You really need some gingko bilboa.

[Kodos]

That she could not follow the point has nothing whatsoever to do with whether, in fact, she is a "cosmopolitan" or a "multiculturalist." You really need some gingko bilboa.

You gonna offer me some low interest home refinancing too or perhaps millions of dollars in Nigerian money for a limited amount of personal information...

[Crowley]

Yet another sign that Islam as religion is more vital in Europe than Europe's own Christianity. Vitality will make converts. Christianity is very stupid in its passivity.

[SteamshipTime]

You gonna offer me some low interest home refinancing too or perhaps millions of dollars in Nigerian money for a limited amount of personal information...

It can't hurt, and it might help.

[Felix the Cat]

Yet another sign that Islam as religion is more vital in Europe than Europe's own Christianity. Vitality will make converts. Christianity is very stupid in its passivity.
Christianity is a passive religion by nature.

[Crowley]

Christianity is a passive religion by nature.

By doctrine? Yes, but it hasn't always been so in practise.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Un-fucking-believable. The weakness this shows will be seen throughout the world.

[Vindex]

This just shows what I have thought for awhile the problem is not the jews, there just maggots feasting on the decaying West, the problem is and has been the weak and corrupt leadership in the White Race. I would take a Pend-Dragon for a leader, but not 99.9999999% of the current ruling class.

[Jimbo Gomez]

This just shows what I have thought for awhile the problem is not the jews, there just maggots feasting on the decaying West, the problem is and has been the weak and corrupt leadership in the White Race. I would take a Pend-Dragon for a leader, but not 99.9999999% of the current ruling class.

Apart from that weird satanism thing you put in there, I pretty much agree with you.

That's quite rare, come to think of it.

[jcs]

Cowardice on Norway's part.

In related news: Norway officially declared the death of Black Metal.

[Fade the Butcher]

Eddy acted flabbergasted when I said multicultural societies must conclude that all cultures are worthy of protection.

Liberalism is going to die one way or the other.

[Nordicist]

Let's keep in mind that Norway is a country that mandates by law that at least 40 % of corprate boards be female. We're talking here about private companies.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2312/context/archive

[Fade the Butcher]

But the U.N. Human Development Index says Norway is one of the best places on earth to live!

[Donny the Punk]

This couldn't possibly be because Norwegians are a bunch of quislings who know how to do nothing but bend over and bite their pillows. :p If it isn't psychotic Nazis, it's psychotic imams, I guess. Same shit, different pile.

[Anima Eternae]

But the U.N. Human Development Index says Norway is one of the best places on earth to live!

It is, compared to 90% of the other countries in the world.

[Fade the Butcher]

It is, compared to 90% of the other countries in the world.

What criteria does the U.N. Human Development Index use?

[The Retard]

I'd be pissed off if I lived in Norway, but I don't, so I don't care.

[Generator]

Come on, Fade - Norway vs Equatorial guinea?

I'd favour a democracy with imperfect trimmings (such as the ridiculousness of illegalising "blasphemy") than out and out cesspools.

[Fade the Butcher]

Come on, Fade - Norway vs Equatorial guinea?

I'm assuming here that Norway is such a high ranked nation because of the material standard of living its citizens. Is that accurate?

I'd favour a democracy with imperfect trimmings (such as the ridiculousness of illegalising "blasphemy") than out and out cesspools.

I would disagree since I am not much of a materialist.

[Donny the Punk]

Note that the article has been replaced with:

DOHA, February 15, 2006 (IslamOnline.net) – A Norwegian on Tuesday, February 15, offered renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi an apology from the Norwegian magazine that has reprinted the Danish cartoons lampooning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him).

...

Qaradawi called anew on the United Nations to adopt a resolution banning blasphemy to head off similar incidents in the future.

Looks like Chicken Little and his racist friends were hoodwinked by Muslim propaganda. :rofl:

[Generator]

I'm assuming here that Norway is such a high ranked nation because of the material standard of living its citizens. Is that accurate?
.

The index is an algorithm compounded from basic demographic indicators such as child mortality, GDP and population density; those deemed to be accurate indicators of a nation's wellbeing. In this respect, Norway is justifiably atop the list, as are most Western democracies (I use the term loosely:p )

[Dan Dare]

I'm assuming here that Norway is such a high ranked nation because of the material standard of living its citizens. Is that accurate?

Come on Fade, you already know everything you need to know about Norway.

It's right next door to the birthplace of your old nemesis, Gunnar Myrdal.:p

[Fade the Butcher]

The index is an algorithm compounded from basic demographic indicators such as child mortality, GDP and population density; those deemed to be accurate indicators of a nation's wellbeing. In this respect, Norway is justifiably atop the list, as are most Western democracies (I use the term loosely:p )

That's weird. It seems to suggest that a nation can be judged as healthy or sick on the basis of whether or not extant individual citizens live longer lives, have greater purchasing power, own a significant amount of material objects and so on.

[Generator]

That's weird. It seems to suggest that a nation can be judged as healthy or sick on the basis of whether or not extant individual citizens live longer lives, have greater purchasing power, own a significant amount of material objects and so on.

It is an unapologetically objective and pragmatic measure – based on the eminently observable and that which is able to be documented and audited. Universally, it may not be as complete as it could, but it is one which is comprehensible at a basic level.

I know of other indices which account for “softer” factors such as spiritual and intellectual wellbeing, and it is these which you seem to allude to as more complete measures of a nation’s salubriousness. I’ll see if I can dig any of these up.

[Sinclair]

I would disagree since I am not much of a materialist.

Which is easy, when you don't lack much for materials...

[Fade the Butcher]

I know of other indices which account for “softer” factors such as spiritual and intellectual wellbeing, and it is these which you seem to allude to as more complete measures of a nation’s salubriousness. I’ll see if I can dig any of these up.

I would say that it is possible for a nation, like an individual, to be materially wealthy, but spiritually impoverished. Consider for moment the scion of a rich man. He has enormous purchasing power, access to the best medical care, and all sorts of fanciful material possessions. But he lacks the old virtues of his ancestors that allowed them to accumulate such wealth. He has no use for good character any longer because he comes to take his wealth for granted. He thus adopts a feel good expressionist ethic to complement his cosmopolitan lifestyle of indulging every extravagant whim, desire, and caprice whenever it suits him. In the process, he piddles away his inheritance and incurs vast debts to others which he cannot hope to repay. Thus, his own progeny become the servants of those that once served him; the material wealth of the family having been lost through the immorality of one man.

[Fade the Butcher]

Which is easy, when you don't lack much for materials...

It is actually harder not to care so much for material goods when you possess them.

[1-800]

I'll rephrase that to sound not so whiny later...

:o

[Sinclair]

It is actually harder not to care so much for material goods when you possess them.

I think that a starving peasant in Africa would very much like to live in Norway, spineless government destroying traditional society or not.

[Fade the Butcher]

I think that a starving peasant in Africa would very much like to live in Norway, spineless government destroying traditional society or not.

And I wouldn't doubt that obsequious liberal Norwegians would be willing to give away their country to starving Africans (without so much of a thought about future generations of Norwegians).

[Crowley]

I would say that it is possible for a nation, like an individual, to be materially wealthy, but spiritually impoverished. Consider for moment the scion of a rich man. He has enormous purchasing power, access to the best medical care, and all sorts of fanciful material possessions. But he lacks the old virtues of his ancestors that allowed them to accumulate such wealth. He has no use for good character any longer because he comes to take his wealth for granted. He thus adopts a feel good expressionist ethic to complement his cosmopolitan lifestyle of indulging every extravagant whim, desire, and caprice whenever it suits him. In the process, he piddles away his inheritance and incurs vast debts to others which he cannot hope to repay. Thus, his own progeny become the servants of those that once served him; the material wealth of the family having been lost through the immorality of one man.

The problem of white societies: Because of our virtues our nations always eventually become rich and then, sure as water flows downhill, decadent.
Perhaps the solution to good white government is to ensure that we don't become rich, but simply comfortable, by ridding ourselves of empire, returning businesses to family ownership by law, breaking up corporate farms into small family holdings of 100 acres or so, encouraging single incomes for families, increased tariffs on most foreign goods. We could take a long look at deficit financing to help decrease material wealth in the country as well. It could be fun thinking of ways to decrease the national wealth and thus create healthier environments for the future of our race.

[Anima Eternae]

That's weird. It seems to suggest that a nation can be judged as healthy or sick on the basis of whether or not extant individual citizens live longer lives, have greater purchasing power, own a significant amount of material objects and so on.

So what's your criteria?

[Niko Bellic]

Goddamn goddamn I said goddamn.

As much as I'm against this, I can also see how it can be easily turned into a weapon against Islam.

[Starr]

And to think I was just saying a couple of days ago, that I am surprised something along these lines has not happened yet. The cartoons(made by a jew) were in bad taste, possibly, but this makes the Europeans, once again, look extremely weak and pathetic. While the Muslims come through with a different image, altogether. Not good.

Muslims want all people to live in peace, cooperation and love. We don't call for strife. All people are created by God, so there was no need for this strife," Qaradawi told reporters..

Spare me the bullshit dramatics.:rolleyes: Where is that damn violin smilie?

[Fade the Butcher]

So what's your criteria?

I believe spiritual/moral criteria warrant more consideration than material ones (i.e., home ownership, car ownership, life expectency etc).

[Donny the Punk]

I believe spiritual/moral criteria warrant more consideration than material ones (i.e., home ownership, car ownership, life expectency etc).
Name some of these criteria, then describe and rank them.

[Fade the Butcher]

Modern liberals have progressed far beyond their ancestors.

http://www.wga.hu/detail/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/4/4virtue.jpg

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/4/4virtue.html

"The lunette containing the Cardinal Virtues (which represent "Good ") is built around an allegorical theme. The volumetric modelling of the figures suggests the influence of Michelangelo. The relationship that binds the three figures together is clear and harmonic. Fortitude, dressed in armor, sits in the shade of an oak tree. Prudence is placed on the highest step of the base. She has two faces: one of a young woman who looks at her reflection in a mirror handed to her by a winged putto; the other, of an old man, the symbol of old age, of which prudence is the chief quality. Finally, Temperance is represented holding a pair of reins.

The allegory was intended to include the figure of Justice as well. But Justice, being considered superior to the other virtues from a hierarchical point of view, is represented separately in one of the medallions of the vault. Three winged genii symbolize the theological virtues (Charity, gathering the fruits of the oak; Hope, in the centre with a flaming torch; and Faith, at the extreme right, pointing toward the sky). Two additional putti complete the composition, giving the whole scene a free and graceful movement."

[Donny the Punk]

Modern liberals have progressed far beyond their ancestors.

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/raphael/4stanze/1segnatu/4/4virtue.html

"The lunette containing the Cardinal Virtues (which represent "Good ") is built around an allegorical theme. The volumetric modelling of the figures suggests the influence of Michelangelo. The relationship that binds the three figures together is clear and harmonic. Fortitude, dressed in armor, sits in the shade of an oak tree. Prudence is placed on the highest step of the base. She has two faces: one of a young woman who looks at her reflection in a mirror handed to her by a winged putto; the other, of an old man, the symbol of old age, of which prudence is the chief quality. Finally, Temperance is represented holding a pair of reins.

The allegory was intended to include the figure of Justice as well. But Justice, being considered superior to the other virtues from a hierarchical point of view, is represented separately in one of the medallions of the vault. Three winged genii symbolize the theological virtues (Charity, gathering the fruits of the oak; Hope, in the centre with a flaming torch; and Faith, at the extreme right, pointing toward the sky). Two additional putti complete the composition, giving the whole scene a free and graceful movement."
A yes, I can see why you'd lament this loss as a Godless pagan/athiest (no one is sure which).

[Slavic Enforcer]

A good answer to what happened in the Islamic world during the last weeks would be to forbid radical Islamism officially.

[Fade the Butcher]

A yes, I can see why you'd lament this loss as a Godless pagan/athiest (no one is sure which).

Yes. As a liberal (of what variety I am not sure), I can see how you can come to develop such an appreciation of all the modern virtues embodied in liberal societies: license, insolence, indifference, obsequiousness, vanity, pride, lust, avarice and so on.

[Ahknaton]

Looks like Chicken Little and his racist friends were hoodwinked by Muslim propaganda. :rofl:For all intents and purposes, there may as well be such a law. The Norwegians passed an anti-hate speech law last year that all-but-prohibits the mocking of religious minorities. Also, the editor of one the few newspapers in Norway to have printed the Mohammed cartoons has issued a craven apology after receiving death threats from your pet minority:

http://www.sappho.dk/Nr.%201%20Okt.2005/Bawer.htm

February 15, 2006: In a 2005 book, Eurabia, a scholar who goes by the nom de plume Bat Ye’or wrote illuminatingly about what she called "dhimmitude" – the relegation of non-Muslims, in the Muslim world, to the subordinate social position of "dhimmis," individuals who have no rights and who are tolerated as long as they behave obsequiously and accept their inferior status. Ye’or warned that many European leaders were assuming an increasingly dhimmi-like posture in relation to radical Muslim leaders both in Europe and beyond, reflexively overlooking the more unpleasant aspects of Muslim culture and the widespread resistance to integration. Ye’or noted that if this dhimmitude persisted, and if present immigration and birth rates held up, Europe would soon fall under the sway of Koranic law – sharia.

To many, this sounded outrageous. But on February 10, in Oslo, came a dramatic capitulation that seemed a classic case of sharia in action. For days, Velbjørn Selbekk, editor of the tiny Christian periodical Magazinet – the first publication to reprint the now-famous Muhammed cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten – had firmly resisted pressure by Muslim extremists (who made death threats) and by the Norwegian establishment (which urged him to give in). But then, on that morning – the day before a planned mass demonstration against the cartoons – Norway’s Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion, Bjarne Håkon Hanssen, hastily called a press conference at a major government office building in Oslo.

There, to the astonishment of his supporters, Selbekk issued an abject apology for reprinting the cartoons. At his side, accepting his act of contrition on behalf of 46 Muslim organizations and asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, head of Norway’s Islamic Council. In attendance were members of the Norwegian cabinet and the largest assemblage of imams in Norway's history. It was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom: the dhimmi prostrating himself before the Muslim leader, and the leader pardoning him – and, for good measure, declaring Selbekk to be henceforth under his protection, as if it were he, Hamdan, and not the Norwegian police, that held in his hands the security of citizens in Norway.

Selbekk, in his prepared remarks, leaned heavily on the usual soothing multicultural language, including the word "understanding." It was clear that Selbekk had indeed come to an understanding: he understood that if he didn't relent, he risked physical harm. He also spoke of "respect" – a word that in this context must surely have been understood by the imams to refer not to a volitional regard for a social equal but to the obligatory deference of a repentant infidel. As for Handam, he noted that "Selbekk has children the same age as my own. I want my children and his children to grow up together, live together in peace, and be friends." This was rather chilling, given that Selbekk’s family, too, had been under threat.

The Norwegian government hailed this "reconciliation." Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who had faced off with Selbekk in several TV debates when the latter had been defending free speech, now congratulated him for his apology, which he characterized, grotesquely, as an act of "responsibility" that displayed "integrity and courage." Norway’s imams were ecstatic: one said that "the fact that Norwegians have apologized gives Norway…a higher status than before." And Aftenposten, Norway’s newspaper of record, cheered Selbekk’s action, while denying that it constituted an admission that he had no right to publish the cartoons. Alas, Selbekk’s surrender plainly represented a giant step toward a purely theoretical "freedom of speech" – a "freedom" of which fewer and fewer Norwegians, after this officially sanctioned act of national humiliation, will dare to avail themselves.

On Tuesday, as if Norway hadn't already been disgraced enough, an official Norwegian delegation met in Qatar with Muslim leader Yusuf al Qaradawi (who has defended suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish women and children) and implored him to accept Selbekk's apology for the cartoons. Lucky them: he did. "To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances," the Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi told Aftenposten yesterday, "is tantamount to granting extreme Islamists and defenders of terror a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed." Yep.

Then again, at least Norway had its brief, shining moment of resistance. Not Sweden. Among the European leaders who have insisted firmly in recent days that their nations enjoyed free speech – only to insist even more firmly that that right must be exercised "responsibly" – was Swedish foreign minister Laila Freivalds, who, responding on February 9 to a Muhammed cartoon in the newspaper of the right-wing Swedish Democratic Party, didn’t just call for "responsibility" but enforced it, sending the Security Police to close down the party website. "It is frightful," she sniffed, "that a small group of Swedish extremists can expose Swedes to a clear danger" – as if it were the Swedish Democrats, and not Islamic extremists, who were threatening violence. Lately, many Europeans have sought to explain to enraged Muslims that democratic states cannot silence the free expression of ideas; Freivalds appeared determined to show that in Sweden, at least, this is no longer the case.

In recent days, these acts of dhimmitude by Norway and Sweden have had their counterparts in the corridors of international power. On February 9, Franco Frattini, EU Commissioner of Justice, Freedom, and Security, promised to take steps to "regulate" speech (though he later denied this); Kofi Annan, in a February 12 interview on Danish TV, said "You don’t joke about other people’s religion, and you must respect what is holy for other people." Since when do the EU and UN tell supposedly free people what to respect and what not to respect? Since now, apparently.

Many Islamists do not hide the fact that their long-term goal is to turn Europe, step by step, into a Muslim caliphate ruled by sharia law. Alas, it looks at present as if the cartoon controversy may turn out to have been a significant step on the way to that goal. One thing is clear, at any rate: these have been the darkest days for European freedom in many a decade.

[Donny the Punk]

Yes. As a liberal (of what variety I am not sure), I can see how you can come to develop such an appreciation of all the modern virtues embodied in liberal societies: license, insolence, indifference, obsequiousness, vanity, pride, lust, avarice and so on.
You have no idea what I appreciate, and given your sexual history, you're not one to talk about licence. :)

Moreover, the supreme irony of this situation is that Fade is alluding to Catholicism's vital role in some of the greatest of European triumphs and yet he (athiest) is trying to lecture me (Catholic) about the west's lack of spiritual and moral qualities. :rofl: What spiritual qualities do you possess that we should all be emulating?

Also, answer the question this time: Name some of these criteria, then describe and rank them.

[Donny the Punk]

For all intents and purposes, there may as well be such a law. The Norwegians passed an anti-hate speech law last year that all-but-prohibits the mocking of religious minorities. Also, the editor of one the few newspapers in Norway to have printed the Mohammed cartoons has issued a craven apology after receiving death threats from your pet minority:

http://www.sappho.dk/Nr.%201%20Okt.2005/Bawer.htm
My pet minority? You seem to have missed the joke. Starr above all others started foaming at the mouth about the degeneracy of liberal democracy and multiculturalism after reading a LIE printed in the rag of her mortal racial enemies. That would be what Shakespeare calls being hoisted by one's own petard.

[Björn]

It's ironic how liberalism has become a parody of itself. In the same vein Im going to miss norwegian black metal. I hope your satisfied rag-heads!:mad:

[Fade the Butcher]

You have no idea what I appreciate, and given your sexual history, you're not one to talk about licence. :)

I'm losing my patience with your childish insults and taunts in thread after thread. If you can't make your points by addressing the subject being discussed, then don't reply at all.

Moreover, the supreme irony of this situation is that Fade is alluding to Catholicism's vital role in some of the greatest of European triumphs

It's absurd to argue that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic virtues or an atheist to appreciate Greek philosophy.

and yet he (athiest) is trying to lecture me (Catholic) about the west's lack of spiritual and moral qualities. :rofl:

I'm not the one holding up liberal democracies where tens of millions of children have been aborted in the last few decades as governments worthy of emulation and respect.

What spiritual qualities do you possess that we should all be emulating?

See above.

Also, answer the question this time: Name some of these criteria, then describe and rank them.

I have already answered your question and it would be redundant on my part to respond to it a second time. I'm not going to waste my time in the future responding to you.

[Ahknaton]

My pet minority? You seem to have missed the joke. Starr above all others started foaming at the mouth about the degeneracy of liberal democracy and multiculturalism after reading a LIE printed in the rag of her mortal racial enemies.Who says Muslims are our mortal racial enemies? As long as they're not in Western countries I say "live and let live".

[Donny the Punk]

I'm losing my patience with your childish insults and taunts in thread after thread. If you can't make your points by addressing the subject being discussed, then don't reply at all.
Mmm, you want it both ways. To pretend to be a beacon of immaculacy (witout suffering anyone to contest it) and to shower calumnies on others (without suffering that they defend themselves). Sorry, but the hand in the cookie jar gets slapped.


It's absurd to argue that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic virtues or an atheist to appreciate Greek philosophy.
Of course, but this wasn't a point on its own; it was a lead-in to the point that followed. You need to respond to ideas instead of words just for the sake of increasing post length.


I'm not the one holding up liberal democracies where tens of millions of children have been aborted in the last few decades as governments worthy of emulation and respect.
Do I support abortion? Or have I rather spoken out against it on this very board in the last couple of days? See, the problem with you Fade is that you criticise and you criticise but you refuse to offer any concrete alternatives, the reason being that you know very well that once you do you will be trapped defending a set position instead of some spectre which can shift all the easier the more it refuses to qualify itself. That you would be beaten.


See above.
The only 'virtues' I saw you list were "license, insolence, indifference, obsequiousness, vanity, pride, lust, avarice and so on." :p However, the question has been dodged. I asked what virtues do you possess that we should be emulating? Obviously, if you are not a Catholic, it is ridiculous and hypocritical for you to argue that Catholicism is a goal towards which we should aspire in order to better our society without your having done so first.

I have already answered your question and it would be redundant on my part to respond to it a second time. I'm not going to waste my time in the future responding to you.
No, you have not answered my question in the least, and the gallery knows it. Let's recap all that you have said detailing these qualities you so cherish:

"But he lacks the old virtues of his ancestors that allowed them to accumulate such wealth." (Such as?)
"I believe spiritual/moral criteria warrant more consideration than material ones (i.e., home ownership, car ownership, life expectency etc)." (Such as?)

That's all I could find. Perhaps you can point out where you've bothered to be specific. :rolleyes: So, for the third time, Name some of these criteria, then describe and rank them.

[Donny the Punk]

Who says Muslims are our mortal racial enemies? As long as they're not in Western countries I say "live and let live".
They're not mine nor perhaps yours, but Starr's vituperation had led me to assume they were hers.

[Kodos]

Who says Muslims are our mortal racial enemies?

In the age when shitty 3rd world countries can get nuclear weapons we can't suffer people rioting over a cartoon 1000s of miles away to live.

[Fade the Butcher]

Mmm, you want it both ways. To pretend to be a beacon of immaculacy (witout suffering anyone to contest it) and to shower calumnies on others (without suffering that they defend themselves). Sorry, but the hand in the cookie jar gets slapped.

I have grown weary of how you drag down discussions time and time again away from their subject matter and into the muck of character assassination. My personal life has nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments or the subject being discussed in this thread. It is not incumbent upon me (or anyone else) to respond to such ad hominem either. I'm glad to see you back here posting again because I consider you to be a valuable and insightful contributor who provides a much needed balance to this forum, but you are entirely capable of making your case in a more thoughtful way without resorting to such cheap shots. Chew on that.

Of course, but this wasn't a point on its own; it was a lead-in to the point that followed. You need to respond to ideas instead of words just for the same of increasing post length.

Potyondi doesn't dispute the point I was making. Moving on.

Do I support abortion? Or have I rather spoken out against it on this very board in the last couple of days?

I honestly have no idea. I haven't seen you make any posts about abortion here. Maybe you have. I just haven't read them.

See, the problem with you Fade is that you criticise and you criticise but you refuse to offer any concrete alternatives, the reason being that you know very well that once you do you will be trapped defending a set position instead of some spectre which can shift all the easier the more it refuses to qualify itself. That you would be beaten.

This is simply false. I have made such proposals all across this this board, as I am sure Shane and Ymir amongst others will tell you.

The only 'virtues' I saw you list were "license, insolence, indifference, obsequiousness, vanity, pride, lust, avarice and so on."

I was being sarcastic, as you well know. I don't consider any of these traits to be virtues. They are all vices common to liberal societies.

However, the question has been dodged. I asked what virtues do you possess that we should be emulating?

I never dodged the question. In fact, I directly answered it above in my response to Anima Eternae (which prompted your response above).

Obviously, if you are not a Catholic, it is ridiculous and hypocritical for you to argue that Catholicism is a goal towards which ew should aspire in order to better our society without your having done so first.

We agreed above that one doesn't have to be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic virtues. If you are a Catholic, then you have no grounds to dispute the virtues I cited above. Furthermore, many of these virtues, notably justice and temperance, are hardly specific to Catholicism and stem from Classical Greek philosophy. There are many others that could be listed that haven't been.

No, you have not answered my question in the least, and the gallery knows it. Let's recap all that you have said detailing these qualities you so cherish

The gallery can clearly see that I cited Raphael's The Cardinal Virtues in response to Anima Eternae who asked that very question.

That's all I could find.

Then you should reread my posts in this thread.

Perhaps you can point out where you've bothered to be specific. :rolleyes: So, for the third time, Name some of these criteria, then describe and rank them.

See above.

[President Camacho]

In the age when shitty 3rd world countries can get nuclear weapons we can't suffer people rioting over a cartoon 1000s of miles away to live.Yo weik check out this t-shirt:

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=490

:D

I posted this in some thread earlier but got deleted by Sulla the Sambo as being "offtopic" or something.

[Kodos]

If I weren't cheap as hell I'd order a few of those for the "Islamic Society" mosque in Boston.

[Starr]

They're not mine nor perhaps yours, but Starr's vituperation had led me to assume they were hers.


I agree with Ahknaton. I do not have an issue with Arabs or Muslims who stay in their own lands. I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters among others. Don't confuse me with Lenny or emperor(bomb mecca) Palpatine.

I have an issue with turd world invaders nonstop pouring into white nations. It has almost nothing to do with them being Muslims.

what was I foaming at the mouth about? If I recall correctly you told me that people like me were ill. Who is the one foaming at the mouth?:rolleyes:

Starr above all others started foaming at the mouth about the degeneracy of liberal democracy and multiculturalism after reading a LIE printed in the rag of her mortal racial enemies.

And what in the world is this? Is this a take on how you believe I think(possibly because of the use of the word "her" instead or "our") or are you(who I had figured for a troll or bleeding heart anti-racist) saying it is all about the Jews?:confused:

[Kodos]

I agree with Ahknaton. I do not have an issue with Arabs or Muslims who stay in their own lands. I have a great deal of respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters among others. Don't confuse me with Lenny or emperor(bomb mecca) Palpatine.

I'm think of doing a Cato the Elder thing ending all my post with from now on( except when i'm feeling lazy)...

Mecca must be destroyed

[Donny the Punk]

I honestly have no idea. I haven't seen you make any posts about abortion here. Maybe you have. I just haven't read them.
What, you mean you honestly have no idea about my views on abortion and yet you imply that because I approve of liberal democracies I also approve of killing babies? If I were sensitive about such things, I'd call them "ad hominems." As I'm not, I'm tired of this tactic not so much because it "drags down discussions time and time again away from their subject matter and into the muck of character assassination" but because you pontificate self-righteously about personal attacks at the same time. See below.
I have grown weary of how you drag down discussions time and time again away from their subject matter and into the muck of character assassination. My personal life has nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments or the subject being discussed in this thread. It is not incumbent upon me (or anyone else) to respond to such ad hominem either. I'm glad to see you back here posting again because I consider you to be a valuable and insightful contributor who provides a much needed balance to this forum, but you are entirely capable of making your case in a more thoughtful way without resorting to such cheap shots. Chew on that.

If you want to reset the score and leave it at that, I'm content. :p

This is simply false. I have made such proposals all across this this board, as I am sure Shane and Ymir amongst others will tell you.
I've not noticed any. Since Ymir's quit and I don't know anyone named Shane, why don't you point some out so I can go investigate the threads. Or reiterate them here and I'll start new ones.

I was being sarcastic, as you well know. I don't consider any of these traits to be virtues. They are all vices common to liberal societies.

They are vices common to all societies. :p

I never dodged the question. In fact, I directly answered it above in my response to Anima Eternae (which prompted your response above).

The gallery can clearly see that I cited Raphael's The Cardinal Virtues in response to Anima Eternae who asked that very question.

Although it is perfectly clear that you did not mean your cut and paste as a response to his question but rather as an attack on "modern liberals", as you put it, let us assume that this is in fact your position.

Let's examine the seven Heavenly virtues. First and foremost, prudence: 'the practical reason to discern, in every circumstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it.'[ccc 1835] Our true good being the two greatest commandments: "...and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. The seconds is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these." Mk 12:29-31

Next, justice: 'the firm and constant will to give God and neighbor their due.'[1836]

Fortitude: 'firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good.'[1837]

Temperance: 'moderating the attraction of the pleasures of the senses and provides balance in the use of created goods.'[1838]

The four moral virtues exist but for the life breathed into them by the three theological virtues, which inform them and reflect an individual's relationship with the trinity. They embody the actions and expressions of the Holy Spirit residing inside all Christian souls. Their purpose is to enable one to believe in God, to seek hope in him, and to love him. They were so called because it was believed by the apostles that man was born without them and they were conferred only through baptism. Love: to love God and one another; faith: faith in the power of divine salvation and to act accordingly; charity: the greatest of all virtues, without which we are nothing and whereby we commend ourselves as anodyne to the least among us.

So we shall notice a few things. Firstly, one can neither separate and parcel out these ideals piecemeal nor bereave them from their specific Christian context without robbing your so lauded painting of all meaning. By extension, the Classical antecedents of the virtues are not equivalent and so are not here under discussion.

The other thing that one might notice is that you possess absolutely none of them, principally because your definition of good (whatever that may be) is utterly apart from its meaning here. Thirdly, I see no charity, justice or love in "C'mon. You must admit that I have never had any interest in saving the world. It has always been the white part of it that has interested in me. I have always left the sleepless nights over starvation in Guinea or cholera in Thailand to you."

So it won't wash. You don't actually respect these mores, you just like the pretty pictures they produce.


We agreed above that one doesn't have to be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic virtues. If you are a Catholic, then you have no grounds to dispute the virtues I cited above. Furthermore, many of these virtues, notably justice and temperance, are hardly specific to Catholicism and stem from Classical Greek philosophy. There are many others that could be listed that haven't been.
I do not dispute the four cardinal and three theological virtues, I dispute your using them as an example of what makes a society valuable when you do not share them. That is hypocrisy. Moreover, if we are to take the post not merely as an implicit endorsement of the morals contained therein but also as an approbation of the artwork, we must discuss its motivation. In this and in the case of nearly every other artist from 4 A.D. to the Enlightenment, Christianity and specifically Catholism was what compelled them all. As such, you cannot deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it. That is also hypocrisy.

Finally, you've yet to provide a rubric for evaluating the presence of these seven things in a society as well as their extents. How exactly are you going to rank all these nations?

[Fade the Butcher]

What, you mean you honestly have no idea about my views on abortion and yet you imply that because I approve of liberal democracies I also approve of killing babies? If I were sensitive about such things, I'd call them "ad hominems."

I never made that argument. I did suggest that you endorse and admire the Western liberal democracies that practice abortion on demand. Is that not true? Seeing how you have flaunted your Catholic credentials in this thread, I have a hard time understanding how you reconcile your morals with your politics.

As I'm not, I'm tired of this tactic because it "drags down discussions time and time again away from their subject matter and into the muck of character assassination" while you pontificate self-righteously about personal attacks. See below.

Hey. You started it. :p

If you want to reset the score and leave it at that, I'm content. :p

Let's discuss the subject in the future instead of the person.

I've not noticed any.

I'm guessing that is because you started posting here less than a week ago.

Since Ymir's quit and I don't know anyone named Shane, why don't you point some out so I can go investigate the threads.

Hell. If you haven't figured out who Shane is by now, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that you haven't browsed those old discussions.

Or reiterate them here and I'll start new ones.

It would make sense for us to first establish some common ground, as such a political discussion would otherwise be pointless, as we would just be reasoning back to our own irreconcilable premises.

They are vices common to all societies. :p

All societies, as you well know, do not sanction or glorify such vices.

Although it is perfectly clear that you did not mean your cut and paste as a response to his question but rather as an attack on "modern liberals", as you put it, let us assume that this is in fact your position.

It would seem reasonable to assume here that I am the best judge of my actual stated position.

Let's examine the seven Heavenly virtues.

Let's do that.

The four moral virtues exist but for the life breathed into them by the three theological virtues, which inform them and reflect an individual's relationship with the trinity.

This is false. The virtues of temperance, justice, fortitude, and prudence were discussed and identified by Classical Greek philosophers centuries before they were rehabilitated in a Christian framework.

So we shall notice a few things. Firstly, one can neither separate and parcel out these ideals piecemeal nor bereave them from their specific Christian context without robbing your so lauded painting of all meaning.

This does not follow. In fact, the four virtues that I listed above, as you well know, were stripped out of their original context by Christian theologians and were reinterpreted in accordance with Christian dogma. Thus, I could well ask you how you could value justice as a Christian, but that would be pointless, as we already established above that one doesn't have to be an atheist or a Christian to appreciate such virtues.

By extension, the Classical antecedents of the virtues are not equivalent and so are not here under discussion.

They are entirely pertinent to this discussion, as you have argued that such virtues cannot be detached from their theological context, in spite of the fact that you freely acknowledge that such virtues have pagan antecedents.

The other thing that one might notice is that you possess absolutely none of them, principally because your definition of good (whatever that may be) is utterly apart from its meaning here.

I thought we established above that we were going to refrain from such personal attacks, but since you seem unable to help yourself, I will point out that you are without a doubt the most pompous, proud, arrogant, and vain Catholic who has ever posted on this forum. :p

Secondly because I see no charity, justice or love in
So it won't wash.

You seem to be a little confused here. I didn't know that charity was prodigality, justice was equality, or that hope was love.

I do not dispute the four cardinal and three theological virtues, I dispute your using them as an example of what makes a society valuable when you do not share them. That is hypocrisy.

This is an ad hominem.

Moreover, if we are to take the post not merely as an implicit endorsement of the morals contained therein but also as an approbation of the artwork, we must discuss its motivation.

Sure. Was Raphael inspired by Christian themes? Of course. Who denies this? What relevance does this have? You acknowledged above that one did not have to be a Christian to appreciate such virtues.

In this, and in nearly ever other case involving artists from 4 A.D. to the Enlightenment, Christianity and specifically Catholism were the impetuses behind them all.

This is partially true.

As such, you cannot deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it. That is also hypocrisy.

This is another ad hominem. I would love to see you explain how Catholicism is compatible with liberalism; how a philosophy that rests on the premise that no individual can ascertain the nature of good life is reconcilable with a religion that states the good life is Christianity.

[Kodos]

I would love to see you explain how Catholicism is compatible with liberalism

It is if their king in the pointy hat in Rome says its okay, anyway it won't matter when they're all burning in hell :D.

Mecca must be destroyed.

[Fade the Butcher]

It is if their king in the pointy hat in Rome says its okay, anyway it won't matter when they're all burning in hell :D.

That would seem to defeat the whole point of democracy. What is the point of such a utilitarian calculating machine of individual preferences when the good as such can be identified and known?

[Kodos]

That would seem to defeat the whole point of democracy. What is the point of such a utilitarian calculating machine of individual preferences when the good as such can be identified and known?

I like freedom I've never said anything good about Democracy...

Mecca must be destroyed.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I posted this in some thread earlier but got deleted by Sulla the Sambo as being "offtopic" or something.

The illusion that I have ever had anything to do with you is important to your sense of self, but none the less non-existant.

[Donny the Punk]

I never made that argument. I did suggest that you endorse and admire the Western liberal democracies that practice abortion on demand. Is that not true? Seeing how you have flaunted your Catholic credentials in this thread, I have a hard time understanding how you reconcile your morals with your politics.
You don't have a hard time at all, since you're winking furiously at the joke that abortion is a necessary condition of democracy. Prevarication is as boring as cutting and pasting. :(

All societies, as you well know, do not sanction or glorify such vices.

Vices, however perceived publically, always have existed. I refer you to the masturbation thread in the lounge.


It would seem reasonable to assume here that I am the best judge of my actual stated position.
Not when you have something to gain by dissembling.

Let's do that.
"Let's do that" and then you ignore them all? Funny. :p

This is false. The virtues of temperance, justice, fortitude, and prudence were discussed and identified by Classical Greek philosophers centuries before they were rehabilitated in a Christian framework.

This does not follow. In fact, the four virtues that I listed above, as you well know, were stripped out of their original context by Christian theologians and were reinterpreted in accordance with Christian dogma. Thus, I could well ask you how you could value justice as a Christian, but that would be pointless, as we already established above that one doesn't have to be an atheist or a Christian to appreciate such virtues.

They are entirely pertinent to this discussion, as you have argued that such virtues cannot be detached from their theological context, in spite of the fact that you freely acknowledge that such virtues have pagan antecedents.

Here's the rub. The virtues you so tacitly panegyrised are Catholic Renaissance ideals. The explanations I provided were both catechismal and biblical, specific historical instances of more generalised notions of propriety. Now you want to swap them for their Classical antecedents, shifting positions once again. I'm not playing this game with you. If you want to discuss Renaissance art, you had better be ready to discuss Renaissance mores. Until then, I'm not interested in humouring pedantic stuttering.


I thought we established above that we were going to refrain from such personal attacks, but since you seem unable to help yourself, I will point out that you are without a doubt the most pompous, proud, arrogant, and vain Catholic who has ever posted on this forum. :p
But I am honest and consistent. Would that you were also.

You seem to be a little confused here. I didn't know that charity was prodigality, justice was equality, or that hope was love.
I'm not confused at all; in fact, I've got my sources strengthening me. It's you who hasn't provided any definitions for the above, making them meaningless from our point of view.

Sure. Was Raphael inspired by Christian themes? Of course. Who denies this? What relevance does this have? You acknowledged above that one did not have to be a Christian to appreciate such virtues.
My God Fade, you're not thick, why act like it? As such, you cannot deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it. That is also hypocrisy. Later you tried to dodge this by calling it an ad hominem; perhaps you need to brush up on your get-out-of-jail-free buzzwords, since it's clearly not. I shall rephrase it as a question since you persist in affecting obtuseness:

How can you deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it?

I would love to see you explain how Catholicism is compatible with liberalism; how a philosophy that rests on the premise that no individual can ascertain the nature of good life is reconcilable with a religion that states the good life is Christianity.
This is not any kind of response to what I wrote, but because I am not so discourteous as you, I shall reply to it without having the same done to my questions.

I shall simply point out two things:
a) I have never described myself as a proponent of liberalism nor have I ever mentioned the ideology, so it would seem you are talking to yourself.
b) The dictionary.com definition, A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority, is self-evidently compatible with Catholicism since they profess the same things so far as these three or four individual aspects are concerned.

You're thinking of this: Postmodernism is a term describing a wide-ranging change in thinking beginning in the early 20th century. Although a difficult term to pin down, "postmodern" generally refers to the criticism of absolute truths or identities and "grand narratives." - Wikipedia.com

You are aware that I've denounced such a philosophy in threads speaking directly to you. Why the casuistry?

[Nordicist]

Apparently this story is just another hoax.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=0758

[Fade the Butcher]

You don't have a hard time at all, since you're winking furiously at the joke that abortion is a necessary condition of democracy. Prevarication is as boring as cutting and pasting. :(

I said above that I would avoid discussing personalities as opposed to the subject. Moving on.

Vices, however perceived publically, always have existed. I refer you to the masturbation thread in the lounge.

That's irrelevant. All philosophies and the political systems based upon them do not sanction such vices on the grounds of individual freedom, tolerance, or ethical agnosticism.

Not when you have something to gain by dissembling.

I didn't know you were a telepath, but . . . :p

"Let's do that" and then you ignore them all? Funny.

I didn't have to waste my time on what was an irrelevancy to my argument.

Here's the rub. The virtues you so tacitly panegyrised are Catholic Renaissance ideals. The explanations I provided were both catechismal and biblical, specific historical instances of more generalised notions of propriety.[/

I pointed out above that these virtues was adopted by Catholic theologians to suit their own purposes. You argued that such virtues cannot be detached from their theological context. That makes no sense as 1.) you have already agreed that you don't have to be a Catholic to appreciate such virtues and 2.) Catholics themselves did exactly that.

Now you want to swap them for their Classical antecedents, shifting positions once again.

I have not shifted my position. Justice doesn't cease to become what it is because Raphael was a Christian whereas Plato was not. One doesn't have to be a Christian to appreciate Catholic virtues or a pagan to appreciate Greek philosophy. Medieval and Renaissance Christians borrowed liberally from Classical sources.

I'm not playing this game with you. If you want to discuss Renaissance art, you had better be ready to discuss Renaissance mores. Until then, I'm not interested in humouring pedantic stuttering.

I would be more than happy to do so. Would you like to discuss the influence of Greek philosophers like Plato upon Catholicism and Renaissance art?

But I am honest and consistent. Would that you were also.

I'm not following here. You said above that one didn't have to be a Catholic to appreciate such virtues. Then you did a 180 and changed your position with your argument that such virtues could not be detached from their Catholic context.

I'm not confused at all; in fact, I've got my sources strengthening me.

What sources do you have that say the virtues listed above are specific to Catholicism; that they were not lifted from Greek philosophy? Would you have us believe that Catholics allovasudden discovered that justice was a virtue and one of the highest ones? :p

It's you who hasn't provided any definitions for the above, making them meaningless from our point of view.

Why should I define such terms? Are you having difficulty understanding them?

My God Fade, you're not thick, why act like it? As such, you cannot deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it. That is also hypocrisy.

This is an ad hominem. I will specifically address it anyway though. You are ignoring the fact that Renaissance art was heavily inspired Classical Greek and Roman themes. The fascination with mathematics and proportion, the representation of ideal forms in human characters, the classical virtues, and so on. The hand of Platonic philosophy can be seen in them all. Modern art, in contrast, is inspired by an alien philosophy, notably liberalism and its various components like utilitarianism and expressivism.

Later you tried to dodge this by calling it an ad hominem; perhaps you need to brush up on your get-out-of-jail-free buzzwords, since it's clearly not.

I don't have to address ad hominem. Saying "you're a hypocrite" is not a valid argument (read: tu quoque), as you are attacking the person not their position.

I shall rephrase it as a question since you persist in affecting obtuseness

Do that.

How can you deplore the modern age for failing to produce works of equal significance because of its lack of Catholic faith when you do not share it?

1.) You are erroneously equating great art with Catholicism and the absence thereof with lack of Catholicism. The very term Renaissance should give you reason to pause. We can look at Raphael's The Cardinal Virtues, for instance, and see how heavily he drew from the Classical tradition, from the virtues themselves and their structure to the victories to his very methodology. You are trying to draw a false distinction between Medieval and Renaissance Catholicism and its Classical antecedents that doesn't wash. Furthermore, Catholicism is alive and well in Europe and America. Catholicism has never had more adherents than it does today.

2.) One doesn't have to be a Catholic to appreciate Catholic virtues or great works of art composed by Catholics anymore than one has to be a pagan to appreciate Classical Greek philosophy and sculpture.

3.) The poverty of modern art is traceable in large part to other sources, as I said above and in other posts.

This is not any kind of response to what I wrote, but because I am not so discourteous as you, I shall reply to it without having the same done to my questions.

I responded to your questions.

I shall simply point out two things:
a) I have never described myself as a proponent of liberalism nor have I ever mentioned the ideology, so it would seem you are talking to yourself.

You ARE NOT a liberal? Is that right?

b) The dictionary.com definition, A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority

The dictionary does nothing more than give the normative usages of the term liberal in everyday parlance. I am referring specifically to liberalism as a philosophy and political theory, its essential premises from its anthropology of human nature to its epistemology, and the moral and political conclusions that liberals justify on account of these premises.

is self-evidently compatible with Catholicism since they profess the same things so far as these three or four individual aspects are concerned.

Liberalism is not compatible with Catholicism. It rubs against Catholicism in countless ways, especially in the manner in which it liberalism is reasoned from the individual to society as opposed to society to the individual. Liberalism also rests upon the premise that the good life is unknowable (something that no sincere Catholic can affirm). This is the basis for the expansive individual freedom, tolerance, expressivism, rights claims, equality, and the limitations upon government power that liberals treasure. The Classical and Catholic virtues are dispensed with in favor of a purely formal ethic that contains no substantial moral content.

You're thinking of this

No. Postmodernism is something entirely different. It is, in fact, a disappointed liberalism and would be inconceivable in the absence of liberalism.

You are aware that I've denounced such a philosophy in threads speaking directly to you. Why the casuistry?

Denounce liberalism and you shall impress me. If you are truly a Catholic, then this should be no problem for you, as you should have no problem agreeing with me that there are higher goods than the individual and his freedom.

[Donny the Punk]

If I patiently coddle you by discussing antiquity, you'll flit to Hammurabi's code and Etruscan tribal law for having informed Greek social values, and so on ad nauseum. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. It may be redeeming for you with one eye always on the mirror, but I find no satisfaction in playing pin the tail on the semantic.

[Fade the Butcher]

If I patiently coddle you by discussing antiquity, you'll flit to Hammurabi's code and Etruscan tribal law for having informed Greek social values, and so on ad nauseum. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. It may be redeeming for you with one eye always on the mirror, but I find no satisfaction in playing pin the tail on the semantic.

I can't upload the Polak pics. :(

[WAM]

Liberalism is going to die one way or the other.







The only good thing about Liberalism is that it is self-negating in the long run.
The liberal West has degenerated about as far as it possibly can into fatuousness,glibness,delusion,narcissism,selling off the future for trifles,defying biological and moral truths,masturbatory navel gazing,mindless pseudo-Christian sloganeering,and the laughable Fukuyaman nonsense that what we live under today is the highpoint of history and that the rest of history will consist of little more than watching tv,shopping for the best Balsamic vinegar and plasma screen tvs,playing the stock market,cheering on the Steelers or Cowboys,sipping $5 Starbucks coffee,while dining on the uber-cosmopolitan conceit that no other mode of existence is possible or likely or desirable.

All this silly bullshit attains today only because a relatively long period of affluence has made most Westerners softheaded and forgetful of life's eternal and brutal truths.Now we face a stark reality:either Whites regrow some backbone and reanimate long dormant instincts of violence,racial/tribal hatred of the "Other'-and tell the jews,traitors,and silly liberal cunts to go fuck themselves,or else the Chinese,Muslims,Niggers,Mexicans and hordes of non-deluded,non-Liberal,non-White masses will put an end to our Liberalism in their own highly unpleasant ways.
Either way the coming decades will be very interesting.