An Extraordinary Icon

Chiesa: "Olympics of the Faith: China Disqualifies the Virgin of Sheshan," by Sandro Magister

Pilgrimages banned to the most important Chinese Marian shrine – on the day of prayer established by the pope. A book by the sinologist Bernardo Cervellera lays bare the contradictions of the regime, on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

During this month of May, in two days, the first of the annual days of prayer for the Church in China will be held, established by Benedict XVI in his letter to Chinese Catholics one year ago.

Traditionally, each May 24, thousands of Catholics from all over China go on pilgrimage to the shrine of Sheshan, dedicated to Mary "help of Christians," located on a lush green hill 30 miles south of Shanghai (see photo in Chiesa site).

Heavier attendance had been expected for the celebration this year, of at least 200 thousand faithful. But it's not to be. And not only because of the terrifying earthquake that in recent days has made countless victims in Sichuan and has created difficulties all over the country.

The main obstacles to the pilgrimage have been deliberately set up by the Chinese authorities, and in particular by the Patriotic Association that regulates religious life. (...) >>>

- Caption: "Our Lady of China" - Hat Tip: In Defense of the Cross -

- Filed on Articles in "China Chill" -

Christian Heritage

Chiesa: "How to Paint a Homily, with the Brush of Luke, Evangelist and Painter", by Sandro Magister

A book by Timothy Verdon comments on the readings for the Mass with the masterpieces of Christian art. It is a "preaching through images" that blossomed for centuries in the Church. And the current pontificate wants to revive it. (...)


From the sixth century on, the lectionaries that collected the Gospel and Epistle readings for the Mass did not need any separate commentaries. They were, in themselves, an illustration of the pages of the Sacred Scriptures, a visual guide to understanding them.

These lectionaries explained the Scriptures with images that were placed alongside the texts – for example, the splendid miniatures of the medieval codices. These images served as guides and commentaries for a clergy and a people already accustomed to seeing the events and personalities of the Sacred Scriptures depicted upon the walls of their churches.

And now, just before the first Sunday of Advent, a book has been published in Italy that gives new life to this tradition. It is a commentary on the lectionary of the Sunday and feast day Masses of year A – the volumes for years B and C will follow – made up of images from great Christian art. Images more eloquent than many words.

The author is Timothy Verdon, a priest and art historian, professor at Stanford University and the director of Florence's diocesan office for catechesis through art. He is also the author of important books on Christian art and on the role of art in the Church's life. >>>

The book is planned for translation into other languages: Timothy Verdon, "La bellezza nella parola. L'arte a commento delle letture festive. Anno A", Edizioni San Paolo, Cinisello Balsamo, 2007, pp. 378, EUR 43,00.

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

The Betrayal of God: Destruction from Within!

Today, 15th August - the Celebration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - departing Bishop Muskens of the provincial Diocese of Breda in the southern Netherlands - is shocking us with a proposal for non Muslims to use the name of 'Allah' for God.

I have to give the reader fair warning: this is an interesting story if you're into it, but there are no abbreviations or short-cuts here.

The cleric's proposal is an education on a number of levels. At first sight his proposal isn't a contribution to 'the multicultural society' or a shot at syncretism, but rather a further step in the mono-cultural and mono-religious direction - of Islam, that is: a proposal to voluntarily give up the single most essential principle of Western culture, our name of God and all what that entails, presumably in exchange for .... what?

On an intellectual level the proposal is a typical Postmodern one: truth does not exist, all cultures/beliefs are equally valid. This ridiculous Marxist lie gives birth to the further fallacy, that everything under God's sky that shares a generic term, is by consequence 'the same'.

We touched on that yesterday, when we educated the Dutch in relation to the new Robert Spencer book "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn't", that not all religions are 'the same'. Departing Bishop Muskens falls into the same trap with his proposal, which entails that Allah and God are fully synonymous and readily interchangeable.

Not being a theologian, it doesn't befit me to go into this very far, but obvious differences are that the Christian God is a threefold principle, who loves man, whom He created in His image, and - not without significance - is knowable, intelligible, which brings Natural Philosophy so far as to posit: the more Intelligible, the more Being.

Until Marxism taught us better by blessing us with minorities, this idea gave rise to the equality of all men - and by extension to human rights and democracy, to scientific enquiry (investigations into nature and the universe), and the idea - simply abhorred by Muslims and Postmoderns alike - that humanity progresses towards a teleological, predestined end game.

Allah on the other hand, is One and transcendental, flighty and chaotic, and is basically unknowable to us poor humans, who are His playthings, to dispose over as He sees fit.

An investigative short cut to Bishop Muskens relevant Wikipedia entry learns he didn't attend seminary. Well, it figures - also in relation to a number of things he has said in the past - he does seem to suffer from an intellectual lacuna which plays tricks on him at crucial times.

A few years ago the Red Bishop gave us the first shock, in admitting - in reference to wars and genocide - he has a problem with Christianity, stemming from the apparent existence of evil and injustice in the world. To him it doesn't follow that Goodness cannot even exist in the absence of Evil.

Catholic Scholasticism, which gave us Natural Philosophy (or Moral Law - Pope Benedict XVI is at present working on a popular re-introduction) is taught at seminaries, and teaches human voluntarism or free will, rendering such miseries not mischievous Acts of God, but simply the result of human action.

If men hadn't free will, how can we possibly come to any moral decisions? This lays the basis for the idea, that the only natural environment for man, is liberty. This being the reason why mentally and emotionally mature people prefer freedom over Statism and Collectivism.

Those ideas obviously aren't part of the Red Bishop's theological tool kit. The cleric has made a habit out of transmitting the wrong message. A few years back, at the time of an economic downturn, he came up with the morally deplorable missive that it is "okay for the poor to steal a loaf of bread".

That was probably not what he literally said - and apparently it is part of Catholic morality provided the choice is misappropriation or starvation - but in a rich country like the Netherlands where dying of hunger isn't an issue, his words in practice meant that it was acceptable to defraud the state, if that could get you a social security benefit.

So now we are faced with the Bishop's proposal of dhimmitude. Reactions to his words are mixed, but it figures that the chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council "has no problem with it" and that the difference between the two is "in the details"; I dare say that - seen from the perspective of a sterile religion, the scientific approach to Creation, liberty and human rights, might seem mere details - they are however the essential substance of Western existence!

That bastion of Marxist Catholicism, the peace movement Pax Christi, thinks the proposal is 'worth further deliberation in such polarizing times' (that's probably after they've gotten over the regret, they haven't thought of it themselves!).

The site of the Diocese of Breda goes into historical, linguistic and cultural detail [1] and it is of course very reassuring to read that 'Allah' has really very little to do with Muslims, Islam or the Koran, as this name of God already existed before the Islamic conquest. But that explanation begs the question, what then - for crying out loud - is the meaning of the proposal in the first place?

To placate the Copts and other 'oriental Christians' so that they don't take to the Arab streets, shouting Hell and Brimstone over some perceived grievances, while committing arson and murder in the process? What a load of BS!

The poison has been in the bloodstream for decades: after Red Catholicism and Liberation Theology, thank Heaven! we've got dhimmitude as a vehicle to destroy the Roman Church from within (see Chart II: the Subversion Program).

Red Bishop Muskens is about to join a monastery to spend the last days of his activist life growing giant cauliflowers, or brewing monastic ale, or perhaps playing a significant role in the production of traditional monastic cheese, but I dare say - for Catholicism his goodbye doesn't come a moment too soon. At least Pope Benedict XVI will have one relativist element less to deal with.

The clarification on the site of the Diocese of Breda concludes with the assertion that if Muslims and Christians address God with the same name, "this contributes to harmonious living together." I posit that quite the opposite is the case, and that it would be far better if - instead of proposals to merge - we would engage in actions of mutuality and respect.

Bees Pee Upon Them All!

E Pluribus Unum, All of Them Together (II)

Apart from the simplicity of the fallacy, it also underscores a lamentable and potentially fatal lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam. How ever does one explain to postmoderns that any Christian clergyman is not the equivalent of every Muslim imam, and that Jihad isn't any war that somehow involves religion? The concept of Jihad is based on Islamic dogma alone. Within Christianity there isn't anything even remotely resembling it.

Even the much vilified Crusades were wars to reconquer Christian holy lands that had fallen under the terror campaigns of the Prophet's armies and as such don't qualify for Jihad.

Another bee in the postmodern bonnet - the discovery of the Americas and the subsequent conversion of the native Indians - was originally a quest of exploration for a shorter route to the Indies, and as such doesn't qualify either. Social wrongs by the way, were addressed by the totally innovative Laws of Burgos (1512), Valladolid (1513) and the New Laws of 1542, instituted on the initiatives of Dominican Friar Antonio de Montesinos and Father Francisco de Vitoria. These Acts are considered the birth of international law.

For a shortcut, reading the Politically Incorrect Guide (PIG) to Islam would help towards a better understanding of the concept of Jihad, but for the time being our Hindu friends can help out. The Editorial to "The Next World Conflict" on The Naimisha Journal (Volume 2, Number 1, 2002) warns us that Jihad's principle tactical tool is terror sanctioned by religion ... it cannot be treated as ordinary war ... "terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved."

This makes instructive reading for the aficionados of hotchpotch! The Journal goes on quoting a book, 'The Quranic Concept of War' written by a brigadier in the Pakistani army. The tome carries a prologue by one of Pakistan's former presidents, another military strongman known as General Zia Ul Haq. "The source of this ideology is the Quran, and the doctrine of total war ... of the military campaigns of the Prophet. More than mere military campaigns and battles, the Holy Prophet's operations ... are an integral and inseparable part of the divine message revealed to us in the Holy Quran ... The war he planned and carried out was total to the infinite degree. It was waged on all fronts: internal and external, political and diplomatic, spiritual and psychological, economic and military."

I kept this link to the BBC news article "Islamabad faces suicide bomb call" for which the Biblical quote "as you sow, so shall you reap" could have been invented. Pakistan's President Musharraf may be having tea and sharing jokes with John Stewart, but I can't help feeling - as with the Saudi's - he's playing two tableaux at once, since duplicity towards infidels is entirely considered a done thing. Let's not forget that Taliban Afghanistan was Made in Pakistan: hanging rape victims in football pitches and banning general education, as well as wrecking the entire local entertainment industry seemed at the time preferable over chaos. Getting the genie back into the bottle in another matter.

It also sheds light on the breathtaking way in which Islamists always seem able to turn the tables. It leaves one half of the audience reeling with astonishment, while the other fifty percent or so, blindly repeats the irrationality. Although Al Qa'ida's attacks on the US/S Cole, the Twin Towers and the African Embassies to name but a few, all happened prior to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, which were a reaction to 9/11 (yesss they were!), in their view it is Islam that was first attacked; they are the defenders and it is the West that is the aggressor, as the anti war crowd doesn't stop reminding us.

Naimisha Journal contributor N.S. Rajaram in 'Background: Jihad as Threat to Civilization' explains this triumphantry of unreason as follows: "The central theme behind the causes of war ... was the cause of Allah ... In the pursuit of this cause, the Muslims were first permitted to fight, but were later commanded to fight the Way of God as a matter of religious obligation and duty. As a result, those who resist it are the aggressors, and it becomes necessary to fight a 'defensive' war to overcome them in their own territory! But this Jihad doctrine does not stop here; it goes on to encompass the whole world ... It is a universal doctrine, to be applied to all of us, and not just the believers."

You can see and hear the doctrine in action here. Islamists deal wholesale in these unreasons (no wonder they are admired by postmodernism). Note for example that suicide bombing isn't considered suicide - which is Haram in Islam; since however the deed causes the actor to be dispatched to 'paradise' forthwith, it cannot be considered suicide. This is also the reason why Muslims killing Muslims isn't murder: the victims go straight to their inevitable and ultimate destination in paradise, so it's just sending them on their way a little earlier. By this rationality, killing them is actually doing them a favour.

Which is all very well, as far as the alarmist and the 'cynical exploitation of an obvious lie to crassly enhance neocon c.q. Republican political power' is concerned. On the contrary according to some, nothing particularly epic or existential is at hand. As far as they are concerned "the great secular triumph of (more or less) free markets, a world economy, democracy, individual rights, socialized economic security, and their management by merit-based technocrats will be an inevitable continuity in human affairs", comments Tony Blankley in 'Is there Writing on the Wall' yesterday on Townhall.com.

"Our nation and Europe seem to have hardened in their divisions on those topics ... a sense of futility is increasingly hard to resist." It would seem the discourse isn't going anywhere, any time soon. The age of reason was in another epoque.

Of Rats and Inner Voices, mainly

Humanity's inability to resist the temptation to push things to their extreme seems to be our curse! Take the following hot news items.

Lost our way?
I see this isn't going to be a pleasant post, but - as we know - reality must be faced. With about half America, I've had it with Hilary and all these other hysterical women's libbers about 'a woman's right to choose'! I think it's terribly moronic to get accidentally pregnant in the first place, rape cases evidently excluded. Yesterday I registered some female peawit whining that "... all these prophylactics are so terribly unreliable, aren't they?"

Let's suppose you are one of those who answered the irresistible call of nature and got unlucky. What's to keep you from getting a 'day after' shot. At present outlook in most Western countries the situation is such, that should you be brainless enough to let that moment pass, there's still a legal period, that number of days worth of opportunities, to make your Personal Choice. We shouldn't be here at all, but let's presume for the sake of argument.

At which point Hilary's libbers have the gall to come and tell us that, still dithering around the 180 days pregnancy mark is still not enough Choice. They also want the 'right to partial birth', which is a gruesome and unnecessary procedure by any one's standards. Even Hillary can't sell us a six months' old fetus for a de-humanized 'cluster of cells' .

Remember yesterday's hierarchy of rights? The disturbing thing in this debate is, that we are talking about human life, but the ethics are lost in the politics of the matter, and the principle of positing a mother's right to choose above a human's number one, basic and absolute right to life.

While beheading your innocent unborn offspring is seen as a right, hanging Saddam Hussein is a big moral 'no no'! Don't let anyone come and tell me we are not hopelessly confused, and not a little disturbed!

Christian values?
Roman Catholics keep telling us about Natural Law, and about a trait we all are supposed to possess. Others explain our natural capacity of a conscience, as an inner voice: after you've done something you oughtn't, it's telling you that it was a bad move on your part? It's all very Victorian ... Christian philosophy and all that, I know ... which is possibly the reason why it isn't much in evidence. I'm also not so sure about this over-all natural capacity of a conscience anyway. Perhaps it's latent, but needs nurture to develop. How else can you explain the above?

What conscience?
Or explain the existence of these rats?
- Dutch former Socialist Party leader and former World Bank Chairman of the Board’s Ethics Committee during mid-2005, who requested Paul Wolfowitz to act as he did, presently denies all knowledge. Those familiar with the Ad Melkert modus operadi, shouldn't be terribly surprised. Didn't I explain that's the sort of institutions Socialists go to die - spending other people's money - after messing things up too much, even for Dutch hyper tolerant standards?
- Deputy says 'quit', Here's the link to all 357 articles
- Well, the whole Wolfowitz affair stands to reason ... he's a neocon, isn't he? As it's open season ...

What? More rats ... ? Yeah ... remember the anti war crowd? This is the lengths some go to in a good cause, in all their rage, rage, rage about rats, rats, rats ...?

Egg on our Face!

New Left Liberal, subjective, morality laws are in the making: people have already been sentenced to fines and it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for inciting hatred under the relativist reasoning: race discrimination is bad, gender discrimination is bad, 'phobias' for Islam, homosexual behavior and abortion are bad and must be banned for violating the subjective rights of unequal minorities (is hatred). In the meantime denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are quite the done thing, resulting in more laws against an objective, basic Classical right: free speech!

Islamic fanaticism and its incompatibility with other religions and ideologies, are leading atheist and anti-theist movements - to whom all faiths, as per above reasoning, are in essence 'the same' - to increasingly view religion as a threat to the Liberal society, rather than as any section of humanity worthy of representation, like anyone else ... (not an subjective, unequal minority ... evidently).

This is leading to what could paradoxically be termed, signs of a Liberal dictatorship in the making. To mind come two recent affairs. One is the matter of the Italian candidate for the European Commission, Professor Buttiglione, who was rejected by the Euro Parliament for being 'too Catholic'. Everyone is welcome to join the democratically elected, freedom loving, European institutions, as long as you underwrite the Liberal ideology which says that gender is race and does not exist, the usurpation of ecclesiastical institutions by secularism is perfectly natural, human rights are fine but feticide is a women's right alone, and ventilation of opinions to the contrary are an incitement to hatred.

At present in The Netherlands there's a question over an M.P. who also happens to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, apparently a criminal organization by Liberal standards. Although it is not altogether clear what the problem exactly is, it is safe to assume that the fear is that she holds politically incorrect views, as per the above, or - worse - that she may be a rejectionist of the Liberal epistemology, called Darwin's Theory of Evolution: journalistic commentators make kindergarten comments - quite normal these days - to the effect that "she's in a creepy sect", and that they wouldn't be surprised if this entails "denying the Theory of Evolution".

Instead of which it would have been more in line with serious Liberal thought, to point out that "yes, we have freedom of conscience in this country" and "yes, the Theory of Evolution is indeed just that, a theory, that after 150 years still hasn't been proved - that the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes". If they'd done so, they should have acted as genuinely open minded, truth-seeking journalists would have done. Instead they explain to the nation in baby-talk that the M.P. has to go as she might be committing crimes against the politically correct. For those not old enough to experience a déjà vue at this point: this happens before political correctness is elevated to law: such was part and parcel of the Soviet Union and perpetrators spent lengthy sentences in Siberian work camps for their dissent.

These are serious and ominous signs. Dissent from the prevailing Liberal thought is sliding from the politically correct suspicious, into full fledged crimes against the ideology. Very slowly but surely we are descending into a society which is tuned to totalitarianism and dictatorship, instead of one that is free, based on Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman principles. We are in danger of losing ourselves.

If we have a cold, hard, objective look at the remedies that have been put to work for better results, it is plain these haven't worked. Often even worked to the contrary. Due to its subjectivism [1] and the departure from Classical Liberal values (see Dr Pat's chart), Left Liberalism is defenseless and self-defeating in the face of upholding basic freedoms against radical Islamism. The multicultural approach is worse than the problem it sets itself to solve: Resistance is Futile, Prepare to be Assimilated! French secularism, laïcité, has failed as well.

International laws, so often invoked in explaining why tougher measures simply aren't on the cards, are not acts of God, but human-made legal edifices, often raised on Utopian grounds. There were reasons for putting them there, there are even more vital reasons for evaluating them. It is of existential importance that the Western world regains the ability to defend its proper values, before there won't be any left to defend.
I think it is high time we take a step back and examine what it is exactly we are forging here.

~ To be continued: Delorme and great number of other Liberals make the mistake to think that Islam is as any other subjective unequal minority group they are dealing with, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought ~

Quick, while it's still legal ...!

Let me write this quickly while it's still legal. A new low watermark in humanity's march backwards has passed virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, except perhaps significantly by a brave little Calvinist newspaper in the Netherlands, Reuters and the Jerusalem Post.

On Friday 30th March the United Nations Human Rights Council - yes, the one which was silently set up last year to replace the Human Rights Commission, which was simply too much disgraced to keep on - adopted a Resolution by 24-14, calling for combating defamation of religion. It was drafted and tabled by the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Conference [1].

Superficially this may seem beneficial for humanity as a whole - except perhaps for those radical enlighteners that like to bring trumped up charges to bear on Christianity, as if a giant autocratic theocracy headed by Benedict XVI or Bartholomew I is just a matter of days, not months. This Resolution however is almost exclusively drafted in defence of Islam at the expense of basic human rights.

The Resolution was an initiative of Pakistan's President Musharaf. Since he is not a democratically elected head of state and sits at the pleasure of radical elements in the army and elsewhere, it may be assumed his initiative primarily serves a domestic purpose. As a 'friend of the West' he is in a perpetual balancing act, playing two boards at once.

The telling lack of media interest perhaps stems from the fact that such politically motivated Resolutions are passed quite regularly and have no teeth to speak of. This new U.N. body for human rights is rapidly going the same way as its predecessor, as we shall see. Still, a trend has been already set, and bit by bit inroads are made towards exchanging Western inspired universal human rights for less enlightened ones, with the help and assistance of indigenous crypto-totalitarians who have declared war on occidental ethnocentricity in the name of multiculturalism.

The Resolution also sheds light on the Danish Mohammed cartoon hysterics of last year. It has been estabished that this was a carefully choreographed piece of agit-prop in the best Marxist-Leninist tradition, the Islamist's revolutionary model of choice. It was thought at the time that the ulterior motives of the riots of hate were, well ... the riots of hate. It is now becoming clear they may have been concerted to provide a context and excuse for tabling and pushing this U.N. sponsored ban on the freedom of expression where 'the good name of Islam' is concerned. Here's another suggestion.

It should however not be confused with blasphemy, the defamation of God. Rather, it is towards a ban on insulting the religion of Islam and its Prophet, a crime for which many people are rotting away in prison cells, at best: just recently an Egyptian blogger was jailed for four years.

This text on the contrary has nothing to do with anyone's God. It astonishingly speaks of "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations, the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001" and "urges states to provide protection and take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas and material".

In Eurabian style it even goes on to urge supposedly democratic states "to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided ... on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights". I'm sure there are some Purple [2] dominated governments to be found that are more than happy to oblige.

The full text can be read here: minutes of the entire session at the UN site. As it's a bit of a stretch and a puzzle, here's the digest on this particular Resolution.

As a genetically determined Roman Catholic I heartily thank the Organization of Islamic Conference for speaking on my behalf. But still I'd rather they didn't, for the following reasons:

As multiculturalists well know - reason why they want to abolish them as ethnocentric - the universal human rights as mentioned in the Resolution, are based on Christian teaching. As long as Christians are prevented from freely practicing their faith in Islamic countries, indeed are killed and prosecuted, this reads as hypocrisy.

The liberally used designation, especially in tuition text books, of Jews and Christians as pigs and monkeys, is not consistent with peaceful coexistence and are parts of Islam that for starters might hit the religious antiquities and curiosa cellar, just as a gesture of good will.

The text of the Resolution is specifically addressing the West, the source and vessel of universal human rights. There is not a country in the West however in which the rights are Muslims are not upheld, even to the point of positive action at the expense of the indigenous populations and at the detriment of social cohesion.

This Resolution should be addressed instead to the Governments of those Islamic countries that violate human rights on a daily basis - primarily because such rights are not rooted in their religion - as some Islamic radicals do not stop to point out.

Moreover, it is an attempt to curtail the freedom of expression that is also a basic right in Western societies. In fact, this is the reason the OIC is able to draft this Resolution and bring it to bear in an international forum, in the first place.

Furthermore it has the undesired effect, of confirming radical and assertive seculars in their belief that religion as a whole is against freedom, is dictatorial, undemocratic, backward, obscurantist, and a danger to those same human rights they portent not to believe in as occidental hegemonism. It thus provides these secular ignoramuses with a stick to beat Christianity in particular and religion as a whole: they see it as a matter of "freedom of speech versus religion". Islam is spared because of its socially constructed victimhood, while religion gets a bad name.

Implementation of laws against religious defamation will either lead us up the path of semi-Soviet or French style secularism (laïcité), the banning of all religious expressions to the fringes of society and seclusion within the home, the state and public space being thus religiously neutralized; or the Anglo-Saxon variety will breed a Hobbesian, sectarian, multicultural wasteland of perpetual tribal war, of all against all. We could call that also the Balkan, or Yugoslav model. Either way, it leads to a totalitarian dictatorship.

A failed state, on a world-wide scale (II)

The point Pascal Bruckner is making in his article "Enlightenment: Fundamentalism or Racism of the Anti-racists" is actually shocking in its clarity: multi-culti advocates propagate legal Apartheid, display a neo-colonial attitude towards 'the natives':

"We bear the burdens of liberty, of self-invention, of sexual equality; you have the joys of archaism, of abuse as ancestral custom, of sacred prescriptions, forced marriage, the headscarf and polygamy. The members of these minorities are put under a preservation order, protected from the fanaticism of the Enlightenment and the "calamities" of progress."

What's lost on Bruckner is that multi-culturalism is a branch of relativism: the pseudo-philosophy that denies objective truth! He seems to labour under the impression that multi-culturalists are presenting us with a solid message: their point is however, is that there is no point! He's not alone in this. Many commentators still take relativism seriously as an ideology and as a consequence loose sight of its inherent fallacies. And as its still considered a progressive idea, they presuppose kinship to Liberalism, while - as we shall see - it is totalitarianism's ugly little cousin.

Bruckner does expose the symptoms of the relativist error, the inherent paradoxymora [2]: " This is the paradox of multi-culturalism: it accords the same treatment to all communities, but not to the people who form them, denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. Instead: recognition of the group, oppression of the individual ... Multi-culturalism is a racism of the anti-racists: it chains people to their roots ... Yet this segregation has the full backing of Europe's most prominent progressives!" (my emphasis).

I was just going to pencil this paradox in as error number 13 on my list of Post-Modernist Fallacies, the PMF, when I realised this isn't a paradox at all! One of the aims of multi-culturalism is peaceful cohabitation of different groups on the same territory. Multi-culturalism isn't concerned with individual rights, on the contrary! Its premise is the submission of the individual to the group. It has no place for dissidents! Hence the irritation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an icon of individualism. Multi-culturalism's totalitarian and dictatorial character is merely shining through here!

Bruckner goes on to denounce the Anglo-Saxon form of multi-culturalism (U.K. variety), a social model based on communitarianism and separatism, that "on the government's own avowal ... doesn't work ... many people scoffed at French authoritarianism when parliament voted to forbid women and young girls from wearing headscarves in (public areas) ... yet now political leaders in Great Britain, The Netherlands and Germany, shocked by the spread of hijab and burqa, are considering passing laws against them."

With typical French assertiveness Bruckner goes on to propagate the superiority of the French model of laïcité, whereby the entire public domain is 'neutralized' of religious expressions, even to the point where jewelry can become an offensive item. It doesn't particularly breed tolerance or understanding of 'the other' either! And he doesn't seem willing to explain the random and widespread violence, and the states within the state, that exist in the French banlieues.

Our French commentator doesn't think much of the Dutch system either; nor does he display much understanding of it: "Thus ... (the) mayor of Amsterdam ... demands that one accept "the conscious discrimination of women by certain groups of orthodox Muslims" on the basis that we need a 'new glue' to 'hold society together'. In the name of social cohesion, we are invited to give our roaring applause for the intolerance that these groups show for our laws".

One wonders why the Dutch system, whereby the government guarantees freedom of conscience and faith - and religions and secular ideologies have a limited form of 'sovereignty within their particular circle' worked so well for Christians, Jews, and the various seculars, but doesn't for Muslims? The answer seems to lie in their 'too much otherness', the incompatibility of our values and their inherent intolerance of infidels (in practice, all that isn't Islam).

Considering Bruckner's rubbishing of "our Jihad collaborators [sic] on the extreme left as on the right: at the time of the Muhammad cartoon affair last year, deputies of the UMP proposed to institute blasphemy laws that would have taken us back to the Ancien Regime", he does seem to be a staunch atheist who wouldn't be having trouble leaving his rosary at home.

Neither does he realize, that the supposed secular neutrality can easily develop into an oppressive dictatorship as well! The dominant feature in today's Radical Liberalism is that it sees itself as the single guarantor of freedom for all, and considers all theism as its opposite and the surest way to obscurantism and oppression in the name of God. Bruckner displays the same attitude, but he is willing to acknowledge that "secularism ... is written into the Gospels".

Pascal Bruckner is in favour of fostering an enlightened European Islam along the lines of Vatican II, provided we speak to the right audience; not "styling the fundamentalists as friends of tolerance, while in fact they practise dissimulation and use the left or the intelligentsia to make their moves for them, sparing themselves the challenge of secularism."

The author leaves us to ponder the words of Kant, and a word of warning from his side that I can heartily ratify: "Kant defined the Enlightenment with the motto: Sapere aude - dare to know. A culture of courage is perhaps what is most lacking among today's directors of conscience. They are the symptoms of a fatigued, self-doubting Europe, one that is only too ready to acquiesce at the slightest alarm. Yet their good-willed rhetorical molasses covers a different tune: that of capitulation!" Amen.

A Papist Revival in the Secular Heartland

I thought it would be a nice idea to do a post from time to time with a digest of news from the Low Countries. That is, if there is anything remarkable to share. On the whole the media there express the same obsession with trivia as the rest of the MSM in the Western world. Anybody with good suggestions where that sociological phenomenon may be coming from, I'd be grateful if you let me know. If I may venture a guess: might it be another consequence of the relativistic world view that is common among the journalists; one that denies the existence of objective news, and considers it impolite and unfashionable to foist a personal opinion on others? Unless it happens to be the Bush Lied, Children Died repetitions, of which by now everybody has become sick and tired. What rests, is the trivial.

But in The Netherlands there are one or two things that stand out. For one, a new government is on the verge of hatching, one that will include a small but tenacious Bible-based party (with a left-leaning interpretation of same).

There's more. The Netherlands is a self-appointed "guide-land". There's no good translation, but the word means to convey something like "an international socio-economic trend setter", or something such. This is an illusion, since the Dutch haven't produced an original thought between them since Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536 Anno Domini), the scholar who ruined Greek pronunciation.

The Batavian tribes-men and woman are born conformists and as such faithful followers of fashion (often with dire results), rather then avant-gardists. But they have something else what every international marketeer can attest to: as children of Calvin they know instinctively that fashions are fickle and aren't likely to stand the test of time: they see the relativity of it, if you will. As a consequence they are always open to trash the old and go for some new product or service.

But this time the shoe is on the other foot and we are having a real papist revival on our hands! And that in a country where even the vicars are self-confessed atheists. A Protestant newspaper on 2nd February reported on a recent book presentation by a Catholic umbrella organization, of a tome called "Onderstroom" (Under-current) in which seven young Catholics give "an open and personal testimony of their faith" [1]. Noteworthy in the report is the "coming out" language that is being used - the need to openly come out of the closet - which just shows how oppressive anti-theism has become.

Striking was the repeated call for more inspiration in respect of the tradition and the faith. "The time has come to snatch something back of what we have shamelessly let go", said the chairman of the Scientific Council for Government Policy, a public think tank that recently published a surprising report [2] about the state of religion in The Netherlands. He added: "The rise of Islam forces Christians to express their belief more clearly and with more fire".

Americans in the midst of their culture war might be pleased to know that Dr Antoine Bodar pleaded to start the days on Catholic schools with the sign of the cross or a short prayer. He warned not to confuse openness [3] with a diluted identity. Dr Bodar is critical of the tendency highlighted in the report, to be religious without necessarily carrying a membership card of the Church.

During the last decades there has been a tendency in the Church to adapt to post-modernity and changing life-styles by conforming the liturgy to tastes, instead of the faithfull following the Church as a source of religious leadership. This started in the seventies of the last century with the so-called beat Mass, a sad effort to get the first post WWII generation out of the cafeterias, back into the Church. It never worked.

But if signs are not deceiving us, if not for anything else, it seems we may have to thank Islam for the tentative beginnings of a Christian revival. There's a call for a sharper contrast and a clearer, stricter morality. Well, it stands to reason: it has become so murky of late it's become hard to distinguish reality from the daemons it has created.

Against a Dictatorship of Relativism

Yesterday I promised you evidence that Ann Coulter was right and that Relativism - like its parent, Liberalism - is a real faith with missionaries and all, putting Jehovah's Witnesses to shame when it comes to proselytising.

The other day I stumbled upon a blog that, for the title "Against a Dictatorship of Relativism" could have been my own. It is however published by an young man of Indian descent who studies Medicine in South Carolina. After serious investigation and study - not just a bit of browsing between the covers of Das Kapital, or virtually hanging out a bit on The Daily Dross - but real, dedicated study of the kind that takes time and effort, he decided to convert to Catholicism!

His serious attitude is borne out by his brushing up on Sanskrit (the Indian version of Latin) and re-reading the Bhagavad Gita and parts of other tough Hindu Scripture. He is proud to state that he studied Hinduism of course, his own culture and source of a religious belief system that developed over millennia. He rightly states that it has given the world a lot to be proud of. Dev is living testimony to PMF number 2. Down-talking is degrading and PMF number 4. Goodness is unlimited!

Then he turned to the Bible and read Christian apologetics. As usual he made some work of it. His decision to convert didn't come overnight. He ads: "I can't count how many books and articles I read each week. But for some reason, I kept coming back to the Catholic claims. They made the most sense, and they were the most intellectually satisfying. One day I had to tell myself: Dev, you now believe everything that the Catholic Church claims to be true. If you don't go join the Church, you'll be a hypocrite. So I joined!". Good for Dev! In a rather touching account he states he hopes to be psychiatrist one day.

At this point it becomes Sunday morning and enter the relativist version of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Drrrring", goes the bell.
- "Good morning, Sir, I am from the Union for the Suppression of the Metaphysical and would like to bring you the good news of the coming of Enlightened man as God. Sir, I see you are of Indian descent and have converted to Catholicism. Very interesting, as is your sign here stating that you are against the dictatorship of relativism. But really, relativism is the only way that makes any sense. Consider this: I don't know you, but I could get an idea who you are. I'm sure your friends and family also have an idea who you are. But yet we may have made different images of you. This is how people also get different ideas about God and who the @&*ck is the Pope to think that he knows for all and eternity? I could understand you if you said you were a Catholic but weren't so sure about it. The inherent violence of the Catholic position is really no different from Islam's."
- "Well, you really seem to be convinced of the truth of your case, but thank you, you just made my point about relativism. But now I'd like to go and attend Mass if you don't mind. Your foot, please, could you remove it, please? Thank you ... foot please, toes ..."
- "A relatively good day to you too, Sir".

And so we see that the pseudo-philosophy that denies the existence of truth is soliciting converts to the truth that says there is no truth. Some of the adherents obviously seem to have deluded themselves into thinking they've found a profound piece of truth in relativism ... at which point I feel a bit of a headache coming on ... I'm off to bed with an aspirin.

God in the Gutter, Allah at the Altar

Despite objections from the Liberal parties and requests not to go ahead with the exclusive meeting of the eighteen "Friends of the EU Constitution", called for by Luxemburg and Spain - the latter currently led by the political and cultural equivalent of Attila The Hun - in an opening speech in Madrid, Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos argued that any revised Constitution should be extended to include more European objectives (?), rather than pared down to just institutional reforms.

Delegates from the eighteen countries that have ratified the EU constitution, plus its strong supporters - Ireland and Portugal - gathered in Madrid to outline their positions on the future of the European treaty and to "help the German presidency to collect the positions, to help finding a way out" of the current limbo. In line with the motto of the meeting and the key idea to be highlighted in the forthcoming statement - "Por una Europa Mejor", for a better Europe - Mr Moratinos reiterated that the current treaty is an "excellent document".

Apart from the usual underhanded way of conducting EU business, the "excellent document" is a re-hash of the existing treaties and charters, plus lots of wool produced by a committee of political has-beens, minus the good proposals and ideas. How the EU deals with its own values is exemplified by the extra-curricular "meeting of the friends" and how they run roughshod over the French and Dutch vetoes. In an EU Observer article the word vetoes is indicated between inverted commas, as if these were not real, but only a sort of constructed coincidence, having no real value in the legal sense. But the contrary is the case and these attempts at invalidating it are an indication of the legal relativism that is current in Brussels politics. I'm still wondering what part of "Non" and "Nee" they did not quite understand.

The vetoes are what the Constitution would make impossible, if adopted: for any one country to obstruct the deals the others make, and an end to (mostly Thatcherite) opt-outs. It is also at this point that the negative side of the EU would start to outweigh the positive: it would no longer be a benign, voluntary "occupation" by foreign powers offset by economic benefits, but a dictatorship by the majority, violating members' principle right to self-determination and sovereignty: it will prove to be self-defeating and its adoption will mark the end of the European Union and its efforts for peace in the absence of power politics on the continent.

The proposed Constitution is also an effort of creating a future in which moral truth has no role in governance. Like the VVD Dutch Liberal Party, it doesn't pass moral judgement, equating Christianity with cannibalism and Colin Powell with Robert Mugabe. It will impose a anti-theist French style laïcité [1] on public life, thereby violating its own declared moral commitment to tolerance.

The single thing that the patch-work of member countries have in common - a culture based on the Judeo-Christian civilizational enterprise built on the ruins of classical Greco-Roman values, is being denied to the point of stretching science to prove a rather immature purpose. The question can be asked: are a people who deny their own history worthy of a future? This isn't a time for wisdom and visions, but for polarization and transition. That is why the desert call to shelve the constitutional project for the moment, is wasted on "the friends". European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's EU 50th anniversary birthday list calls for all but roots, although he does invoke the Catholic founding fathers, who we may wonder cover their heads in disappointment over such cultural barbarism.

Thanks to the relativist Christophobia of the anti-theist state [1] and in consideration of a comment yesterday on Dr Sanity's blog: "By all means, accept reality ... your grandchildren will be Muslim. Allahu akbar!" (yes, the gloves are off), the future is likely to be characterised by "God in the Gutter and Allah at the Altar". But we shouldn't despair: salvation may yet come in the guise of two former communist countries and new P.C. irritants, the Czech Republic and Poland. Perhaps after the last Western baby-boomer has packed it in, the New Europe may yet be able to snatch some of the bankrupt assets away from the Gates of Vienna.

I specifically would like to hear the views of new Europeans. They are heartily invited to post their comments.

Today I started posting news items for Blogger News Network (BNN)

Today I started posting news items at BNN, being the Blogger News Network (not BNN of Dutch disrepute) under call sign trojan0505. I debuted with Saddam's second trial, which seemed a worthy cause for the occasion.
The marines are no longer angry at me (cheers!).
I've been half the day off line due to Greek technology still being wonky (perhaps those infamous copper cables again), which I must admit feels strangely cut off from the rest of humanity. Winter has finally arrived in Greece, just before Christmas. Not nearly as bad as the U.K. though, which is reporting fog (once again poor continent cut off!) and Colorado has vast masses of snow to celebrate a white Christmas in style; but apparently it's not nearly as pleasant as you might think when you're snowed in and nowhere to go. This may still happen in Greece too - well, it happened last year anyway - there's no saying. So much for the trivialities (my cousin, who's doing some artwork for the Ad Swap for me (?), is going to love this item).

In between I prepared a piece about higher matters. Seemed atmospheric for Christmas:

Astronomers of Nasa's Spitzer Space Telescope have looked at the first stars that formed after the big bang. They aren't anything like stars known today, nor anything else for that matter. Some are a thousand times larger than our sun and very, very bright. Actually, they may not be stars at all, but early black holes, inhaling gas and exhaling radiation, thus forming the earliest galaxies. The objects are 13 billion light-years away, the time when the events took place, and are clustered in mini-galaxies. Cosmic figures are beyond human imagination ...

Which reminds me of an article on the site of Discovery Institute, "Priest of the Cosmos", a review by Messrs Gonzalez and Richards of the book "The Day without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology". The book touches on the life and work of Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaitre.

It also recalls the sad way in which religion by today's secularists is set apart as lacking in reason and scientific thinking, as if there never were Scholastics and natural philosophy for instance. The book by Thomas Woods "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization", on which I did a review on these pages only few months ago, reminds us of the accomplishments of the Catholic Church in this respect and how much we owe Catholicism. The example of Galilei is often brought forward as a prime example how the church suppressed the advance of science, but it is never explained this trial happened in the first place because Galilei couldn't prove what he said. If that isn't pretty scientific thinking, I don't know what is.

A very active blogosphere indeed!

I have a daily alert with Google . Every morning I find in my email a link list with all hits on "relativism". I get to know friend and foe alike. My foes I won't mention but to state that there is the occasional religion basher and/or quasi intellectual post-modern philosopher with a "weak" head who thinks he has something worthwhile to add to this already quite sufficiently deconstructed world. Sometimes I am even stupid enough to study their cerebral products seriously, thereby committing an offense against time management.
Friends sometimes make it very fast indeed to the list of Friends and Foes, in the column on your left hand side. The pickings were today of a special nature. So outstanding in fact that I feel the urge to mention them here specifically.

On #3., as Blog of Special Interest: Pope Benedict XVI Fan Club, no less! Sign up and make it official now!

Number 2, a post on a matter which remained under the radar I'm ashamed to admit. But some scouts in the spiky field of relativism are on the alert for P.C. bomb shells, multi-culti snipers and deconstructionist contraptions: Colby Willen of Birmingham, Alabama's Vocabuli Blogspot spotted it sure enough: Time's choice of Person of the Year is Relativism Personified!

Top of the pops, the uncontested number 1 is ..... Archbishop Cranmer's Blog on the Examination of Religio-Political Agendas with Religio-Politican Objectives. You'd be excused for thinking the archbishop is long history, but some clever foot-soldier has reincarnated him in the fight against halal meat for all faiths and denominations alike, and other such abominations! A well deserved laurel for a job well done!

I've also been active, posing rhetorical questions on the Uruzgan Blog (Que? ... Uruzgan Blog ...!). That's the Afghan province where the Aussie-Dutch NATO Task Force is rabbit-holing. On my question why it is that some European countries are having trouble fighting terrorists (honest, the Dutch parliament only wanted to send troops if they would be doing the job any government sponsored NGO could do better, namely building schools and hospitals - as if that is where we train our marines for!). I got a long and very diplomatic answer, which ducked the political implication with great agility. Bravo, boys ... athletic in more ways than one. I expressed the hope that attitudes as the Dutch parliament's, wouldn't unduly demoralize them. But after being left holding the politically red hot potato of Srebrenica the Dutch boys and girls are up to anything ghastly the U.N., NATO or the E.U. may throw at them.

This is not a post on Robert Mugabe and his African hell-hole of Zimbabwe.

And the Dutch are perfectly normal, middle of the road Europeans when it comes to fighting crime. In many other respects they're really a bit subnormal, but shshut .. don't tell them ... they think everybody is as they are.

In the next posting some goodies from the Town Hall of the U.S. conservative heartland which has something very intelligent to contribute on tolerance.

I am closing This Daily Cause in the words of G.K. Chesterton, copied from the papal fan club site:

"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man
from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age".

Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: days 3 and 4

Greek public broadcaster ERT, having not reached that level of P.C.-ness as some others in Europe, under the title "A Historic Meeting" and "Visit of Love and Peace" yesterday sang the praises of the papal visit for the opportunity it offers to expose the lamentable situation of Patriarch Bartholomew and his flock to the international press.
The commentators were especially curious about Benedict's message in the guest book, because, as they said "such texts always have a deeper meaning". Alas, we never learnt!
The joint declaration, signed yesterday morning in Hall of the Throne in the Phanari was considered "very important". So there you are!

About the Agia Sophia as a building, I can say only this: it's spooky and it's big! In fact it, and everything in it, is huge, over-sized and made for giants. It doesn't contain much anymore but some menacing Turkish shields with Arabic calligraphy and some other indescribable relics, but what there is outsizes the next in dimension. It may be hypersensitivity on my part, but it gave me the creeps. Till today I've not been able to find the words for what I felt there. It's a culture-clash of gigantic proportions, a sacrilege against a brother religion and a crime against good taste. At some point in time even the Turks seemed to agree and built their own temple in the vicinity, the Blue Mosque, about which I can also be short: it was unmemorable apart from the fact that I can vaguely remember taking off my shoes.

Pope Benedict last night prayed at the Blue Mosque "like a Muslim, towards the east", about which the Turkish press and Al-Jazeera were very excited. What's more he didn't pray at the Agia Sophia, which was even more cause for praise as that would have constituted an embarrassment for the government.
The Dutch press are also their usual diminutive self, describing the Church of the Holy Wisdom as the "Sinte-Sofie", as if it were the local village pastorial.

Last night the Pope also joined with the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch Mesrob II in a prayer service at the Armenian cathedral. He brought up the sensitive topic of the Armenian genocide, albeit not explicitly. EWTN today apologised for not having any video material made available, which indeed makes you wonder. Is the world not to be made aware of the Armenian presence, or does their low profile not permit any media exposure?

Later in the evening Pope Benedict met with the grand rabbi and concluded the third day of his visit at a dinner with the Catholic bishops of Turkey.

Yesterday the demonstrations against the Pope were also back. As a measure of democracy and civil rights in Turkey it is a positive thing. In terms of toleration of other faiths and a measure of maturity or ability to absorb criticism, it's not. And then there are the demonstrations by the organization calling itself The Grey Wolves, who have persuaded themselves that Bartholomew wants to establish in Istanbul a Vatican-style state, reminiscent of the Byzantine Empire. Looks to me something of the Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, but what do I know! I mean, membership of an organization by that name must be only one jot worse than holding a membership card of the Club of the Black Hand. Brrrrr ....

A measure of how far off we are from the required E.U. levels is illustrated by the following, reported by The Independent Online: the Turkish government warned the Pope against describing the Orthodox Patriarchate as "ecumenical", saying the use of that ancient title (meaning universal in Greek) has political overtones that could undermine Turkish sovereignty.

As I am writing this, the Holy Father is on his way back to Rome. On his departure he looked a great deal less tense than when he arrived. I guess that in many respects the papal visit can be called a success. In terms of improved relations with the Christian brothers and Islam and in terms of delivering a few messages in passing, such as the need to unite and renew awareness in Europe of its Christian roots.
This morning's Mass at Istanbul's Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Spirit - due to its Eastern elements - stood out and was more and not a little moving!

It's about time too we wrapped this up, as there are a zillion topics waiting for posting, such as the impending civil wars in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. The latter is engulfed today by Hizbolla mass demos with a view of toppling the government of Fuad Siniora, all with a little help from the friends in Syria and Iran and turn-coats like Michel Aoun.

I'm not there yet but an in depth delivery on the book Without Roots, a joint product of Pope Benedict and Marcello Pera with the tags The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, is underway. It describes my complaints about Europe word for word and we may have the beginnings here of a movement away from the present predicament. Hopefully!

Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: day 3

The reader is advised to sit through this one, as it is long albeit in depth and historically and culturally very instructive should your interest go beyond personal pain or pleasure. Let me start by saying that I have prepared a number of items, some of which are not that pleasant and might spoil the sheer beauty that is today, St Andrew's, the feast of the saint who was the brother of St Peter's and is the patron saint of the Church of Constantinople. So we leave the nasties to last.

I must say I consider myself blessed to be on this day is such a position of vantage, in the middle of the old Eastern empire and close to the Western. This morning I have been watching the liturgical celebration and the reading and signing of the joint declaration on television, switching between Hellenic Radio Television (ERT) and EWTN who broad-casted live from the Vatican. Both commentaries were very positive on the progress towards total communion. Rarely have I seen anything as touching as the two elderly, holy gentlemen on the balcony holding hands and embracing each other. A momentous day indeed! They were looking so handsome and the personal chemistry was palpable! It reminds you of the fact we are looking here at two thousand years of history built on the Roman Empire, of which the last thousand were spent bitterly in opposition of each other. It has given us however great cultural richness and diversity for which we can also be thankful.

On the subject of re-establishing a state of full communion between the two churches it seems that barring a few technical matters according to the Catholic side, and great difficulties reported by the Greek end of the dispute, things are steadily being worked out by a joint commission. Said commission has resumed meetings after a six years interval due to disagreement over the Eastern Rite Churches. But in the face of eternity and considering the time horizon in all matters religious, nobody is at present advised to hold their breath pending full communion. A merging of liturgies, of cultures is best not expected at all till the second coming of Christ. As a footnote: the status of Patriarch Bartholomew is one of primus inter paris, meaning that all this says nothing at all about the relationship between the Vatican and the other autonomous branches of Orthodoxy, which have to be worked out separately. Moscow being the isolationist type, isn't pleasantly disposed.

A thing or two on the words of some American commentators, whom I've heard referring to Patriarch Bartholomew as a Turk. What is actually meant, is that he has a Turkish passport or has Turkish nationality. Greeks have the same particularity that applies to Jewishness. It is a designation of faith as well as of race or ethnicity. The whole of this, together with the other aspects of culture, can be referred to as Hellenism. It is therefore rather alien to refer to a Greek person and the leader of the Greek church, and simultaneously call him a Turk, a German or what have you.
Now that we're on the subject, the Turks have always been envious of the concept of Hellenism and have invented their own variety called Turkishness. However awkward, it is not to be sneezed at, as it can be insulted and carry a stiff penalty as some can attest to, so by all means do so at your peril! At the same time it is luducrous. Hellenism rests on technically 5.000 years of history and more or less 2.800 years of known history. It is the basis of the European civilization on which Rome built its empire. Turkishness is hardly in that league. If ever a bill would be introduced towards the protection of Scotsness you'd be excused for having a laughing fit, yet the Picts have been on the job a lot longer than the Ottoman Turks, or Seljucs for that matter.

Having said that, it is time for a few other observations making the news:

- The boys at Al Qaida also have an opinion about the visit of the Pope to Turkey: despite the fact of the increasing numbers of Muslims in nominally Christian lands, one Holy Father on Muslim territory is too much of unholy infriction. Despite all the tough talk about "crusader campaigns" and other stuff reminiscent of the stable yard, Benedict being from Bavaria, isn't impressed.

- After a joint celebration of Mass at St George's last night Pope Benedict XVI and His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (I am writing his name and title in full for the sake of completeness and aesthetic value), had their first private meeting. Expected subjects of discussion during their meeting were the Patriarchate’s legal entity, its confiscated assets and the reopening of the Halki Seminary, shut by ukase of Turkish government since 1971 in an effort to reduce the leader of a great Christian Church to a village pastor.

- Hellenic Radio and Television (ERT) meanwhile reported that while Pope Benedict was signalling approval, the European Commission announced it recommended the partial suspension of Turkey's E.U. membership talks, due to its refusal to open its ports and airports to the Republic of Cyprus. Talks on 8 of the 35 chapters have been frozen. The Euro Parliament's special rapporteur on the accession of Turkey, Dutch christian-democrat Camiel Eurlings yesterday complained bitterly about all these matters of non-compliance despite the years of preparation. It is of course unreal to expect to become a member of a club while at the same time not recognizing the existance of another; certainly not in Europe. The Turks meanwhile are banking on power politics under the ancient premise, big is better. This isn't the thing at all to go down well with the P.C.s in Brussels who prefer their minorities small; the smaller and the more under threat the better so they can be thoroughly protected. The Turks don't get that yet, as they still have to face and confront their own ghosts of the past. Given the reactions to certain confrontations of late, they are still in a state of denial, let alone be ready for a Truth and Conciliation Committee. Angela Merkel, whose nation has done an excellent job since 1945, perhaps can offer advice.

- The NATO meeting in Latvia has adjourned with handshakes all round, specifically for Croatia, Albania and the country here to the north, that for reasons best known to the Greeks, is referred to by the awful acronym of FIROM. These countries are now all but officially NATO members.
Also it has been decided to loosen the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, as the boys and girls there cannot fight explosive operetics with one hand tight behind their backs.

- Again great news on the Athens metro front: perhaps the Amsterdamned can come over at some stage and have a look how a metro line is built.

It is a bit steep, but the Holy Father is doing some sensitive visits this afternoon at the ancient imperial Church of the Holy Wisdom Agia Sophia and its Islamic rival, the Blue Mosque; having visited the sites myself and given the historical aspects (also it just occurred to me what a security hazard it is) I may be tempted to do a second post today (it's not just the writing and typing, it's also the pinging that drains your energy - try google that neologism!).