Hugo Chavez, fiery Venezuelan leader, dies at 58

[liturgyluver]

It’s precisely those U.S. military bases around the world that’s protected you and the rest of Europe since WWII. And it’s precisely why Britain and the rest of Europe doesn’t spend much on their Armed Forces. Because the U.S. IS their military.

Who do you think protected Western Europe from the Soviets during the cold war? The Europeans? LOL:extrahappy:

Thank you. Your highly amusing posts have made me and my German, Polish and Brazillian friends laugh our heads off. Clearly in your eyes the US is perfect - rest under that illusion. Oh…and learn how to chill out.Op

 

[Walcot]

Are you suggesting that that wasn’t the primary point of the conflict?

Yes.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Thank you. Your highly amusing posts have made me and my German, Polish and Brazillian friends laugh our heads off. Clearly in your eyes the US is perfect - rest under that illusion. Oh…and learn how to chill out.Op

You know, speaking for myself and numerous friends and colleagues, when we were growing up we always had an overall favorable and generally admirable opinion of most Europeans, especially the British.

That is, until we actually met them. It was only then that we discovered that the British had grown up with a decidedly unfavorable opinion of us.

Imagine the shock and disappointment when you meet someone from a distant country that you have always admired, only to find that they have been indoctrinated with the opinion that your country is predominantly a self-centered greedy collection of hypocritical Bible-beating inbred cowboys obsessed with big cars, sex, guns, oil, Hollywood, and money money money.

Oh and, tell your German and Polish friends that there is no need to repay the American efforts in WWII. We did it free of charge. And tell your Brazilian friend ‘Thank You’ for those evil oil imports from his country. We very much appreciate it. Spend that evil American money wisely. Oh and, thanks to the anti-capitalist socialist dictator in our White House, more and more of us Americans will be headed down to Brazil to make some of that greedy money for ourselves.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cor Cordis;10494237:

Are you suggesting that that wasn’t the primary point of the conflict?

Yes.

Please. Do enlighten us Americans with your version of the “real” history of the American Civil War.

I can’t wait to hear this European revisionist version of history. I have no doubt that you are about to prove true everything I suspected about your nihilistic socialist upbringing.

Go ahead, tell me how dishonest Abraham Lincoln really was.

 

[Walcot]

Are you suggesting that that wasn’t the primary point of the conflict?

Well let’s see, the HHS Mandate dictated by ObamaCare specifically targeted the Roman Catholic Church in America by forcing the Church to violate her timeless moral doctrines.

And all traditional Christian Churches (Especially the Catholic Church) have been attacked with legislature that has allowed same-sex marriage advocates to file an array of lawsuits against them. In fact, in my state and several others, the Catholic Church was forced out of the adoption business by state legislation. Because the Church refused to adopt children to same-sex couples.

Oh and… no such legislative action has been taken against the Islamic faith in this country. Funny that.

St. Thomas Aquinas said, true Christian love of others means to “love the other as other”.

And to that end, how exactly does one keep the peace and protect his neighbors and loved ones from those who would do them harm, especially when seconds count and the police are minutes away - at best?

Allow me to quote an incomparably great Catholic Englishman on the topic of ‘peace makers’:

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K.Chesterton

You haven’t answered my question. If you had your government of choice, would you extend religious tolerance to Muslims and other religions? What would happen when one their beliefs came up against yours?
Since when did G K Chesterton’s quotes top those of Jesus?
(That quote is equally relevant for either side of any conflict, religious or not.

 

[JackyB]

Our country was specifically born out of Revolution against the British Crown. And we have an inherent understanding of the innate nature of personal freedom. And unlike most of Europe, we never depended upon the nanny-state to provide our personal success.

Or at least we didn’t before the socialists took over.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You haven’t answered my question. If you had your government of choice, would you extend religious tolerance to Muslims and other religions?

Not tolerance. But rather ‘Rights’.

As in Constitutional Rights of Religious Liberty.

“Tolerance” is a misnomer and has become the verbal engineering of socialists who want to turn the Constitutional Republic into a simple democracy dictated by the popular mob rule of anti-Christian secularists instigated by the elite political class of the Left.

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” - G.K.Chesterton

Currently Islam clearly enjoys special and unequal privileges in this country.

What would happen when one their beliefs came up against yours?

In what context do you mean?

As a personal matter? I would openly disagree.

Since when did G K Chesterton’s quotes top those of Jesus?

Chesterton’s words do not “top” the Gospels. But rather, just like Aquinas, his words help us to discern a more complete understanding of Our Lords words.

It never ceases to amaze me when I discover that most American Catholics have a far greater appreciation for English Catholics (like Chesterton and Newman) than the vast majority of British do. IF they’ve even heard of them.

But here’s a quote from Our Lord for you to ponder:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." - Matthew 10:34-36

Now riddle me the “tolerance” in that. Will you?

That quote is equally relevant for either side of any conflict, religious or not.

That depends upon the motives of the respective sides.

“True” Soldiers fight to protect their loved ones. But who were the Nazi’s truly “protecting” when they invaded their neighbors?

Hitler may have sold some of his people a lie, but Germany’s conquests were primarily motivated by revenge, scapegoating, and a false sense of entitlement.

So what “love” is the criminal protecting?

 

[Walcot]

Walcot;10494427:

Please. Do enlighten us Americans with your version of the “real” history of the American Civil War.

I can’t wait to hear this European revisionist version of history. I have no doubt that you are about to prove true everything I suspected about your nihilistic socialist upbringing.

Go ahead, tell me how dishonest Abraham Lincoln really was.

It wasn’t the primary cause of the conflict…that’s what I took you to mean. Apologies if that’s not what you meant.
historylearningsite.co.uk/causes-american-civil-war.htm

On September 6, the president responded in a public letter which appeared in Harper’s Weekly.[6] Lincoln asserted that his only goal was to save the Union. Furthermore, Lincoln divorced the issue of slavery from the entire purpose of the war. He said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”[6] Only until Lincoln released his Emancipation Proclamation did it become clear that this war was being fought not only for the sake of the Union, but also on behalf of all the enslaved people of America.

Lincoln was indeed a great man. (Good film too wasn’t it?)

As for my upbringing, don’t be so rude! I was brought up a Catholic actually!! I don’t make rude comments or wild guesses about your upbringing. I’m trying very hard NOT to be rude and keep this to a debate instead of a slanging match…

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cor Cordis;10494461:

It wasn’t the primary cause

of the conflict…that’s what I took you to mean. Apologies if that’s not what you meant.
historylearningsite.co.uk/causes-american-civil-war.htm

On September 6, the president responded in a public letter which appeared in Harper’s Weekly.[6] Lincoln asserted that his only goal was to save the Union. Furthermore, Lincoln divorced the issue of slavery from the entire purpose of the war. He said “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”[6] Only until Lincoln released his Emancipation Proclamation did it become clear that this war was being fought not only for the sake of the Union, but also on behalf of all the enslaved people of America.

Lincoln was indeed a great man. (Good film too wasn’t it?)

Well first of all, you’re confusing Lincoln’s personal political motives early on with the actual collective events that actually led to the war.

John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry was an attempt by the white abolitionist to start an armed slave revolt in 1859 which was one of numerous incidents that finally led the abolitionist movement towards war.

Lincoln soon realized that abolition and war were inevitable regardless of his personal desires and beliefs. But he certainly did rise to the greatness of the challenge.

But alas:

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them". William Shakespeare (Twelfth Night Act II, Scene V)

(As for my upbringing, don’t be so rude! I was brought up a Catholic actually!! I don’t make rude comments or wild guesses about your upbringing. I’m trying very hard NOT to be rude and keep this to a debate instead of a slanging match…)

The offense is yours to take as you see fit.

Still, you have displayed an incomplete and myopic understanding of Catholicism that I suspect is formed more by your upbringing in a socialistic secular society than it is anything else. Christ was not a peacenik, nor does Christianity teach unconditional tolerance for the sake of tolerance. And if you truly knew Chesterton - you would have known that.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Let’s just ‘put our cards on the table’ shall we Walcot?

Let’s be perfectly open and honest with one another now.

Tell the truth,

your true opinion of Americans for the most part is that most of us non-liberal types, are in reality; naive, uninformed, and blindly optimistic in our simple-minded shallowness. And that the vast majority of the country in between New York and Los Angeles is mostly hilly-billy redneck simple-hick Bible Belt territory.

Be honest now.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Oh and, slavery had already been abolished in new territories with Jefferson’s Northwest Ordinance of 1787, making the trajectory towards a civil conflict an almost certainty.

The Founding Fathers (even though most of them were slave owners at the time) knew that it was only a matter of time before the inevitable freedom of ALL men would have to be recognized on a Constitutional basis. Even though numerous compromises were sought to delay this, especially since the colonies needed to remain unified in their revolt against the English Crown, nevertheless, the die was cast and the political course was set.

A nation cannot make a Declaration of Independence that states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

and possibly hope to deny forever that ALL humans should have an equal recognition of their God-given rights.

The Founders were not stupid.

 

[Walcot]

Not tolerance. But rather ‘Rights’.

As in Constitutional Rights of Religious Liberty.

“Tolerance” is a misnomer and has become the verbal engineering of socialists who want to turn the Constitutional Republic into a simple democracy dictated by the popular mob rule of anti-Christian secularists instigated by the elite political class of the Left.

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” - G.K.Chesterton

Currently Islam clearly enjoys special and unequal privileges in this country.

In what context do you mean?

As a personal matter? I would openly disagree.

Chesterton’s words do not “top” the Gospels. But rather, just like Aquinas, his words help us to discern a more complete understanding of Our Lords words.

It never ceases to amaze me when I discover that most American Catholics have a far greater appreciation for English Catholics (like Chesterton and Newman) than the vast majority of British do. IF they’ve even heard of them.

But here’s a quote from Our Lord for you to ponder:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." - Matthew 10:34-36

Now riddle me the “tolerance” in that. Will you?

That depends upon the motives of the respective sides.

“True” Soldiers fight to protect their loved ones. But who were the Nazi’s truly “protecting” when they invaded their neighbors?

Hitler may have sold some of his people a lie, but Germany’s conquests were primarily motivated by revenge, scapegoating, and a false sense of entitlement.

So what “love” is the criminal protecting?

‘Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions’ is a saying which could be equally used by a fundamentalist suicide bomber.

Your quote of Matthew 10 is one of those verse that require much consideration, and attention to translation too. Do you take it literally to mean Jesus is calling for violence?
Augustine said that we should give an allegorical interpretation to any scripture that seems to teach hatred, to make it teach charity.

I don’t think the German population who had to fight for their country had any idea on the whole, of the developing genocidal intentions of the Nazis. I think he really did sell them a lie. But then, if it started to dawn on the German population that Germany was in the wrong ( i don’t think they even knew of the Holocaust) what could they do, as individuals? They were being shot at by the enemy, they wouldn’t want to be shot at by their own side as well. It’s easy for us to judge and see the whole picture after the event.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

‘Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions’ is a saying which could be equally used by a fundamentalist suicide bomber.

True. But what are the “convictions” of a suicide bomber?

And have you seen the Catholic Church condone and encourage any Christian suicide bombers lately?

Your quote of Matthew 10 is one of those verse that require much consideration, and attention to translation too. Do you take it literally to mean Jesus is calling for violence?

Do you think He was calling for submission and tolerance at any cost?

Augustine said that we should give an allegorical interpretation to any scripture that seems to teach hatred, to make it teach charity

Why do you interpret “division” to necessarily mean “hatred”?

One can go to war or protect his loved ones by the sheer motivation of love for the innocent victims WITHOUT hating the assailants. Can he not?

Isn’t that truly one of the most charitable things a person can actually do?

Augustine said that we should give an allegorical interpretation to any scripture that seems to teach hatred, to make it teach charity

Defense of the other FOR the sake of the other IS the most charitable act one can do:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13

St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

I don’t think the German population who had to fight for their country had any idea on the whole, of the developing genocidal intentions of the Nazis. I think he really did sell them a lie. But then, if it started to dawn on the German population that Germany was in the wrong ( i don’t think they even knew of the Holocaust) what could they do, as individuals? They were being shot at by the enemy, they wouldn’t want to be shot at by their own side as well. It’s easy for us to judge and see the whole picture after the event.

Please forgive me if I don’t share your misplaced goodwill and naivety, Walcot.

Funny you should suggest that. How timely is this:

"New research: Nazis ran many more concentration camps, ghettos than thought:

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington…

The documented camps include not only “killing centers” but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named “care” centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel…

The maps the researchers have created to identify the camps and ghettos turn wide sections of wartime Europe into black clusters of death, torture and slavery — centered in Germany and Poland, but reaching in all directions…

The existence of many individual camps and ghettos was previously known only on a fragmented, region-by-region basis. But the researchers, using data from some 400 contributors, have been documenting the entire scale for the first time, studying where they were located, how they were run, and what their purpose was."

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Did you miss this post, Walcot?

Or did you ignore it?

Let’s just ‘put our cards on the table’ shall we Walcot?

Let’s be perfectly open and honest with one another now.

Tell the truth,

your true opinion of Americans for the most part is that most of us non-liberal types, are in reality; naive, uninformed, and blindly optimistic in our simple-minded shallowness. And that the vast majority of the country in between New York and Los Angeles is mostly hilly-billy redneck simple-hick Bible Belt territory.

Be honest now.

 

[Walcot]

Let’s just ‘put our cards on the table’ shall we Walcot?

Let’s be perfectly open and honest with one another now.

Tell the truth,

your true opinion of Americans for the most part is that most of us non-liberal types, are in reality; naive, uninformed, and blindly optimistic in our simple-minded shallowness. And that the vast majority of the country in between New York and Los Angeles is mostly hilly-billy redneck simple-hick Bible Belt territory.

Be honest now.

You’re being silly again Cor Cordis
You seem to be goading me to agree with your ludicrous description of the vast population of a section of the US by getting me irritated. It’s not worthy of a reply really and you know it.
I repeat… Debate is good, slanging is not good.
(If you weren’t meaning to be rude, I hate to think what you say when you are!)

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You’re being silly again Cor Cordis
You seem to be goading me to agree with your ludicrous description of the vast population of a section of the US by getting me irritated. It’s not worthy of a reply really and you know it.
I repeat… Debate is good, slanging is not good.
(If you weren’t meaning to be rude, I hate to think what you say when you are!)

Why do you always interpret veracity as “slanging” or insulting in some sort of hateful way?

I’m Catholic, I understand the concept of confession for the liberating psychological and spiritual effects that it entails.

You can state your beliefs as gently and as politely as you wish, I’m simply looking for honest clarity of your mindset. I’ve already shared mine. I have nothing to hide. I’m not trying to goad you into anything I have not already revealed.

If you truly want an honest and open dialogue, then you came to the right guy. I’m actually a former liberal progressive atheist. I know most of your arguments better than you do, I’m sure.

Don’t be so uptight and defensive.

 

[Walcot]

**

True. But what are the “convictions” of a suicide bomber?

Suicide bombers have videos FULL of convictions.

I thought the word used in Matthew was ‘sword’…which is a bit more war-like. I know it’s division in Luke. Yes, lots of study material there…
And why ask me if I’ve heard of any Catholic suicide bombers? I just said that anyone can have convictions, and held blindly, they can be dangerous, so I don’t think it’s a very good saying.
If you think most Germans were evil and went along in full knowledge of atrocities, then I guess I’ve learnt now that you will stick to that belief as you seem determined to believe the worst of any European. As I said, I believe it’s not as simple as that and it’s easier to judge from this distance in time.

**

 

[Walcot]

Why do you always interpret veracity as “slanging” or insulting in some sort of hateful way?

I’m Catholic, I understand the concept of confession for the liberating psychological and spiritual effects that it entails.

You can state your beliefs as gently and as politely as you wish, I’m simply looking for honest clarity of your mindset. I’ve already shared mine. I have nothing to hide. I’m not trying to goad you into anything I have not already revealed.

If you truly want an honest and open dialogue, then you came to the right guy. I’m actually a former liberal progressive atheist. I know most of your arguments better than you do, I’m sure.

Don’t be so uptight and defensive.

---

I don’t call veracity slanging or insulting. Why do you call slanging or insulting veracity?

Not sure why you’re bringing confession into this…unless you enjoy going to confession after you’ve been rude to someone.
You haven’t revealed my contempt for half a country’s population because I don’t have it. I might harbour a teeny bit of contempt for some individuals though…

 

[Cor_Cordis]

**
Cor Cordis;10494966:

True. But what are the “convictions” of a suicide bomber?

Suicide bombers have videos FULL of convictions.

**

Yeah. I never said they didn’t. But what exactly ARE those “convictions”?

And why ask me if I’ve heard of any Catholic suicide bombers? I just said that anyone can have convictions, and held blindly, they can be dangerous, so I don’t think it’s a very good saying.

Bad convictions are still bad.

Tolerating bad convictions is even worse.

If you think most Germans were evil and went along in full knowledge of atrocities, then I guess I’ve learnt now that you will stick to that belief as you seem determined to believe the worst of any European. As I said, I believe it’s not as simple as that and it’s easier to judge from this distance in time.

Well, I’m not determining that most Germans were necessarily evil.

However, given the overwhelming evidence, it is quite clear that most Germans tolerated evil.

And I’m not making that determination simply as a third party who is far removed by time. I have personally known several war veterans who saw the concentration camps up close and personal, complete with all the nauseating sights, sounds, and smells. It is virtually impossible to keep such horrendous nightmares a confined secret. I’ll say it again, impossible.

And as those veterans recalled after they breathed in the smoke and ash of human corpses in the gas ovens:

“How exactly do the people in the nearby towns NOT hear about this? Not to mention, how do they not SMELL this?”

Impossible.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

---

I don’t call veracity slanging or insulting. Why do you call slanging or insulting veracity?

It’s not merely “slanging” and “insulting” for the sake of slanging and insulting, it’s truth that happens to cause you insult that you interpret as slanging.

But you’re free to correct it by explaining your impression of Americans.

Not sure why you’re bringing confession into this…unless you enjoy going to confession after you’ve been rude to someone.

I certainly enjoy the aftereffects of Confession after I have sinned. So in that sense, yes I do “enjoy” the Sacrament Of Reconciliation. And yes, I have sinned against you. I’m sorry.

You haven’t revealed my contempt for half a country’s population because I don’t have it. I might harbour a teeny bit of contempt for some individuals though…

It’s your story to tell.