Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Two things – first, what you say may be true, but I don't think it means that we have to buy into the status quo forever. After all, there was a point at which there were no feminist studies in academia either, but feminists didn't seem to care about that. Second, I think that a savvy scholar could hypothetically push through a reverse multicultural program of study under the guise of fairness. I don't think liberalism is driven by a set of concrete rules, but one of the guiding forces is that underrepresented people without a voice need to be given a voice; trying to stamp out such voices is unjust. Using this idea, someone could plausibly argue that the views of certain groups of people have not been given explicit attention in historical studies, and any opposition to this research could be rooted in fear, politics of power, or even racism.
Well, in keeping with my gloomy outlook in that other recent thread, I've kind of given up on the mainstream media.
I will not understand why the public is not made more aware of the 800-lb. gorilla when it comes to militant Islam. They seem to demand utter respect for what they value, and if they don't see it, they will undertake utterly disrespectful displays of violence and killing. Yet, the message we hear in the mainstream media is a standard one of political correctness and ignoring the obvious.
I agree with you that Republicans shouldn't be going on the defensive. I hate to bring it back to the media, but I do think that the way words are conveyed is one reason why this is done. A conservative politician isn't fighting on behalf of the objective nature of the world or on behalf of the family, the bedrock of civilized society; instead, he is fighting gay rights; a pro-life politician is not fighting for the lives of the unborn, but is “anti-abortion” or “against reproductive rights”. Not the only reason of course, but it is one.
I think the reasoning is that 95% of the voters are part of the middle class. So basically, it's a way of making one's message sound directly relevant, like the speaker is talking directly to your situation. The difference between the parties is that the Democrats may talk about the middle class while saying that we need to stick it to the wealthy, while Republicans do not.Honestly, I did not watch Rubio's speech. I did hear about the "big thing" of the evening, which involved a water bottle. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.
It is typically the left/socialists who pit class against class. Republicans probably talk about the middle class a lot to keep up with the Joneses.
Peter Turkson will be the next Pope. I have foreseen it.
I am curious - is this something you have also posted over at Tribulation Project? I am pretty sure I know why you are saying this.
I was talking about that story to my office mate yesterday. How absurd. Did you also see the part about the student claiming bias by the teacher because the student “advocated for gay and lesbian rights”? I wonder if that claim is going to be taken seriously at all. If so, could bias against a conservative student by a liberal professor be used as a basis for a suit?
I don't know what I was thinking. You're right, it should have been “first since 1415”. I changed the initial subject line.
Choosing the next Pope is inherently a political act. It is an act of faith but political in it's ramifications as well. Do you really think Benedict will resign without pointing his finger at someone?
I could be wrong, but it just seems like orchestrating your successor as pope seems to indicate a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit and your own cardinals who you helped appoint to get the job done in the first pace. But I agree that there are politics/worldly concerns in the choosing of the successor by the cardinals. They hardly just choose the best theologian available, but instead seem to make a decision based upon how they discern the Church should be guided at the present moment in time.
Well, I did read that Pope Benedict will not play a role in the choosing of the next pope, and I think it might give the wrong impression if it seems like he is guiding the choice of the next pontiff. After all, “…Catholics believe that, once behind the shut doors of the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals are guided to their decision by God directly in the guise of the Holy Spirit. Anything becomes possible.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-benedict-resigned-what-nextI would not be surprised if an African pope were the next chosen, or perhaps a Latin American pope. I would not want to it be seen as an act of political correctness. I would not be surprised, however, if that were the interpretation.
A new book, “The Pope's Jews,” examines previously-unpublished documents and accounts with people on the topic of Pope Pius XII's role during WWII. The author, who is a British Protestant, seems to challenge the John Cornwell book, Hitler's Pope, which vilified Pius XII and was published in 1999.
The Pope's Jews, which will be published next month, details how Pius gave his blessing to the establishment of safe houses in the Vatican and Europe's convents and monasteries. He oversaw a secret operation with code names and fake documents for priests who risked their lives to shelter Jews, some of whom were even made Vatican subjects.
While some of this general information does not seem to be new, what is new are the interviews with victims/families/others who had not previous given their voices beforehand, as well as information in Vatican documents that had not been published. According to the article (linked to above), the negative view of Pius XII originated in the 1960s and has prevailed until this day. Before that time, however, he was viewed favorably as having been a helper of the Jews during the war.
I think he may have been thought to be the “frontrunner”. He was the most visible cardinal, having been head of one of the important offices at the Vatican. I imagine that those who follow news from the Vatican closely would know more about who the frontrunners are this time around, but really – no one knows at this point in time. It will come down to the vote at the conclave (“with key”) when the cardinals meet.
