About a fourth [perhaps less; I haven't done a thorough genealogy] of my ancestors are/were Orangemen [Scots-Irish]. Current Orangemen thumping the Roman Catholics is counter-productive. I was in favor of letting the Nazis march in Skokie, Illinois though because if you shut down the various sects and groups from being able to make their political statements even via marching and can't just refute them with sounder logic, you end up with Martin NiemÃ¶ller's "First they came for the Communists... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Wednesday at 8:37pm • Like •
Just to be clear here, if I were there, I would not be an Orangeman marching as such through a Roman Catholic neighborhood, not because I'm not a "Protestant," per se (I'm not), but because even if I were, it's just wrong to thump people. We don't need angry yelling either. We need intelligent, exhaustive exposure of facts and reason. I would tell the Orangemen not to be aggressive. Make peace, atone. That said, if people march right by my house as anti-Christs, so be it. You won't see me physically blocking the public streets over that.
I'm not surprised that you viewed the Nazi march the same way I did, Commentator #2. Everything worked out in the end though.
A quick aside if you don't mind: The Nazi leader turned out to be a Jewish pedophile. Lot's of them turn out to be crypto-Jews for some reason. Sometimes they are put up by the Zionists themselves. We've seen it with Jews pretending to be Muslims too. It can be done so poorly that it's comically unprofessional too — worse then the special effects in an old B-grade movie from the early 1950's — fakie we called it.
Wednesday at 10:41pm • Like •
1 person •
Tom, I'm not sure we can understand the dynamics there. Apparently, for hundreds of years this has been going on. From what I read, Orangemen repeatedly refused to even talk to the Irish Catholic organizations prior to the march, despite repeated requests. I agree violence and anger are so needless. We look around, and see similar situations, like the Palestinian suffering, where we see the same situation of many years of unswerving aggression.
Thursday at 9:01am •
Hi Commentator #1,
Without God's perspective, one can't understand in-full the dynamics between one's next door neighbors; so I won't argue with you there.
Yes, it's been going on for hundreds of years. It has its roots in basic imperialism and religious strife. It's local but international and even global in scope.
The two most basic concepts involved in the biggest way in my view are the impact of the Norman invasion and the Reformation. Those are huge topics, but the Norman invasion of England brought over feudalism that is a local and regional imperialism. That feudalism also spilled all over Ireland in various seesawing ways. The Reformation, of course, concerns the schism that broke off a large part of what had been the Roman Catholic Church that before had been, with the exception primarily of the Eastern Orthodox, the global Church. The fight between the "Catholics" and "Protestants" was, for all intents and purposes, all over the place. Ireland was swept up in that as well.
Why there are still holdovers from before Sinn FÃ©in made peace is a common phenomenon in most "former" hot-conflict zones.
My view is that the general elevation of violence in the world has shortened tempers even while people are often trying harder to do things peacefully, insisting that they are, as in the video with the "Peaceful Protest" chant.
Since this is a Catholic/Protestant conflict still, isn't it ironic that their genetic tribalism trumps their Christianity, on both sides I might add. The side that turns the other cheek will win by the way.
If the Irish Catholics want to win, then invite the Orangemen to march, make the way straight and clear and clean, offer them refreshments, invite them in to supper, pick them up when they fall down, bless them, bid them to go on in peace and love as they pass by and through and leave. Do you see how that would work?
In such matters, you don't stop to think about how complicated things are. You just do it.
18 hours ago • Like •
Hello Tom Usher:
I can't say I know what would work to bring peace. I'm sure far greater minds than mine have tried to ascertain that.
I do think if they know the world is watching, they might clean up their act a bit. And, I do think one function of government is to ensure just civil order, without regard to religion or creed.
My problem is why the Orange still, after all these years, need to lord it over on people obviously at at disadvantage. That I perceive to be a character flaw. The Catholics got nowhere seeking peace or justice all those years until the violence of the IRA persisted. Relations on that level are now the norm. This is, of course, not what either religion teaches. So, religion is not the motivator or cause.
Do the Catholics want to "win" or do they just want a decent life in Belfast?
My son did a research paper on the unrest in N. Ireland for his degree some years back. He has a different view from either of us. He inserted government form, socialism and other factors as the cause of continuing lack of peace.
I also think the old saying "when you are up to your a_s in alligators, you forget your mission was to drain the swamp" applies. It is harder to see things for what they are when you are right in the middle of the conflict. A truly neutral party devising a Bill of Rights type document, to which all laws must conform might be an answer.
Peace Be With You.
16 hours ago • Like
Well, interestingly enough, I was tagged by my International Organizations and Law professor to take up the cause of the Orangemen in the mock UN because no one would volunteer. He was very demanding, made many promises, and kept none. The highest grade in two courses with him yielded me two B's, ruining my 4.0, because I was anti-(are you ready?) Zionist and had also unintentionally embarrassed him on one occasion by informing him before the class that he was mistaken that Khrushchev was still alive. That was in Soviet and East European Politics (a 400-level course). In the International class, I had the effrontery to announce that Israel never should have been allowed to come into existence as it had. That was the straw that broke the neocon's back. For answering that way on an essay exam in great detail, I received a big zero. That was coming off the highest grade on every exam up to that point. [It wasn't enough to lower my grade for the whole course though. He had to have done that arbitrarily at the end of the term and for both classes.]
Needless to say, he became more demanding. I reluctantly complied with his desire that I debate for the Protestants. I built my presentation around the "Protestant Work Ethic." I started with about four hundred years ago and tied it all in with the overarching religious/political issues to which I alluded in my previous comment. He loved it. I can't say for sure; but because he often called the French "Frogs," I believe he was anti-Catholic and probably a Calvinist-Christian-Zionist.
So, the way the revisionist New Historians of Israel, such as Ilan Pappe, wear their "anti-Semite" label, falsely given them by the Zionists, as a badge of honor, I too wear my B's as a sign that truth-telling even where academic freedom (freedom of inquiry and expression) should matter most, they don't yet. Of course, that particular neocon was fond of reminding all of us that "this isn't a democracy" about his classrooms.
That guy cost me more than I am willing to share here. He was sent from Hell to punish me. What he started sank my career, literally. [I want to say that I'm not bitter toward this fellow. He had issues. We've all had them. I don't even raise this old info but for the Zionists connection and how political correctness has nothing to do with plain correctness, for my essay answer laid out in no uncertain terms why Israel was and is illegitimate under International Law, which was what the course was supposed to be all about afterall.]
Of course, your son was completely correct that government is at the heart of it, as any in-depth study of political science will yield the fact to an astute observer that everything is politics. It's just a matter of the degree of perception.
As for winning, a win is win-win in my book. The Catholics will win when the Protestants win. That will only be when they both are Christlike toward each other. Someone, some side, has to go first with that initiative and stick with it.
14 hours ago • Like •
Tom, it is much too much to ask the Catholics to invite the Orangemen to march. Commentator #1 wrote that the Catholics tried to speak to the Orangemen and were rejected. The Orangemen are celebrating death of the Irish Catholics. To allow this is to condone these deaths and murders.
14 hours ago • Like
Read the following in an upbeat tone of voice:
Think of the Jews having said "come on, march" rather than letting the Neo Nazis under the crypto-Jew get them all worked up.
The Protestants are messing with the Catholic's heads. Of course the Catholics could choose to react differently.
If we expect the status quo from people, how in the world are we ever going to feel, think, say, or do anything that will help to even budge them? If we had all taken this attitude concerning the Vietnam War and Apartheid South Africa, there would have been no dramatic changes in US foreign policy. There would be no Gaza Freedom Flotilla or convoys.
The Catholics most certainly could do everything I suggested and should. Saying that it's too much to ask of them ends up being a self-fulfilling/unfulfilling prophecy. Why always go down the pessimistic road? Let's raise the expectations for people: raise the standards. We reap what we sow. So, let's sow the idea that people be better — much, much better. If we can't do that, why are we even trying?
The Protestants ignored the Catholics because the Catholics didn't want them to march. It was the same-old, same-old – stuck in a rut. Break out of the defeatist mentality. Try a different approach.
Everybody says Jesus's way won't work before anybody even tries it. What's really sad is that it's not an experiment. It works. I've seen it on the microcosmic level many, many times. I've seen it work on groups too. Fight off the pessimism. We did change the world. We ended a war.
9 hours ago • Like •
Tom: They aren't just messing with their heads. Please study this. Because of this recent Belfast Orangemen issue, I recalled conversations with my son years ago while he was researching and writing his paper. In one conversation in particular, I remembered him describing the horrific manner the Catholics were living because of the Protestants' laws and abuse.
The Belfast Catholics are such a beaten down people, they didn't even object to the march. They just didn't want them marching down the streets where they lived.
You are wrong.
3 hours ago • Like •
Tom, these are the Orangemen coming to a Catholic neighborhood. The Nazis were marching in downtown Chicago or wherever it was, but it was downtown of a large city. Didn't know that the Jews owned all of Chicago,.
3 hours ago • Like
Commentator #1 and Commentator #2,
I don't understand where the connections are breaking down in the language, but I'll make a brief attempt to clarify but won't beat this to death.
First, messing with people's heads doesn't preclude doing other things to them. The torturers in Abu Ghraib were messing with minds, bodies, souls, etc. They were doing so in a horrific and sometimes deliberately physically fatal manner. Please don't limit the terminology to be dismissive of what I'm saying or my knowledge or views on these matters.
Commentator #1, I was speaking directly to the objection that they march down the very street where the Catholic's live. I mentioned people marching right by my own house to make the point clear.
Commentator #2, the march ended up in Chicago as a compromise. The Nazi leader backed down under pressure. The original march was planned for Skokie. The ACLU and others tried to assure the dreaded Nazis the right to express their obnoxious ideology right in Skokie so that other ideologies wouldn't likewise be precluded in other areas. Anti-Zionism is technically illegal in Europe. Check it out. It is that sort of thing that the ACLU was fighting against. Of course, the Nazis would not be allowed to carry out violence against Jews or anyone else under the same law that the ACLU was seeking to uphold. I don't agree with every official position of the ACLU, but shutting down all political speech that is offensive to whomever is highly coercive, fraught with hypocrisy, and necessarily logically impossible. It is ripe for abuse, as the Zionists in Europe have clearly shown. They are attempting to import their censorship into the US. They've already made inroads by convincing (lobbying and paying; buying) politicians to make boycotting Israel a crime in the US. Your position here against my position makes that creeping fascism easier for them.
Look, if you two can't bring your minds to the place were you would not physically fight people or physically block them (by means of the police, army, etc.) who oppress you and offend you (I am not saying that I would not understand if the police were called if a Protestant were clubbing a Catholic or vice versa, which has happened often in history in both directions), well, it doesn't render my position wrong. I'm a Christian and saying to you what Jesus says to me. If that offends you and you think I'm wrong and shouldn't be telling people, including you, well that's how people reacted to Jesus when he said and did the things he said and did. I'm not going to cave into the idea that I should revert to being violent. I've overcome that and plan to remain that way because if everyone were as I am, there wouldn't be any problem in Northern Ireland or Palestine or anywhere else on the planet. That's a fact.
Peace is the only way to itself. There is no path to peace by violence. The little peace the Northern Irish have obtained has not been by means of violence. Violence didn't bring peace and won't. Separating minds from violence will. Separating the violent from the peaceful will bring it for the peaceful. That's Jesus's message; and I agree with him, stand with him, and will continue to do so. Why you can't is a question you'll have to ask your conscience.
I hope God will bless you with the whole answer.
2 minutes ago • Like •
Tom: You are a sincere person. And, there is always more than one way to look at anything if we will have an open mind. And, this issue kind of has been beaten to death....but,
The Irish Catholics and Irish in general never had much of an army or resources for military action. They were farmers, weavers, etc, and for most part, not rich people. Their current (Repub of Ireland) government does not allow separatism and a Protestant has been it's head, although they are predominately Catholic.
The were "easy pickings" for the Brits, and Catholics land was taken from them, as well as any form of human rights. They were an oppressed people for over 800 yrs, compliments of the Brtis.
The IRA and (other similar factions ) is the only reason they climbed out of any oppression. They had all they could stand and did cause havoc to their occupiers. And, the Brits could not make them stop by their own admission. They couldn't be cruel enough to them to make them stop. " Life without freedom is no life at" all was their motto. In later years, we were led to believe by the Brits they were bombing just for the sake of bombing. I doubt it. By that point, the Brits were willing to come to the table to work out a compromise for peace....this was just recently.
Do you think if we had just turned the other check and not fought the Brits during the Revolutionary war, we would not still be subjects of England? How were we so different from the IRA? Our goals were the same, and we, too, fought them any way we could. One of the reasons we won our freedom during the war was we had a new country full of Irish and Scots Irish who came here due to England's oppression. Those Irish and Scots had a reason to want to annihilate the English. They finally wanted to be free of them and their oppressive control.
We had some honorable, well educated people in the colonies, so a form of government free of oppression was devised. Thanks be to God or whatever entity you worship. We were free to worship as we pleased. Those under control of England were not.
Do you think we should have hugged the KKK or reached out a hand of friendship as they were hanging blacks, Jews and Catholics in the South? We must agree to disagree.
All the KKK really wanted was control of those people, too. hat goal.
Yesterday at 1:49pm •
Well, I didn't reply. It was obvious to me that the Word wasn't registering.
I also have an upcoming post about a recent piece in the New York Times on the issue. Please watch for it. It will be at least partially entitled, "Political Rifts Reappear in Northern Ireland Riots."
My main thought right now though is that Northern Ireland had been up until recently more than a bit of a shining example to the Palestinian Gazans and Zionists especially. They had shown the way to where peace negotiations could begin before the Irish Catholics had disarmed or agreed to anything in advance.
The recent violence in Northern Ireland is unfortunately partly on account of all the other violence in the world that is revving people up, contrary to the assertions of certain "libertarians" that the people are docile. I'm not for people being docile anyway. I'm for them being radically actively peaceful. There's a huge difference, and it's based on evil versus righteousness.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)