“BO we’ll see you at the polls.”
Where will they see Obama?
“BO we’ll see you at the polls.” I clearly remember a newspaper photo in the run-up to the 1971 general elections of a man carrying a poster with those words. That man was taking part in a rally organized by trade unions which had some industrial dispute with the Borg Olivier’s government. This poster is not a solitary occurrence. Politicians are all the time faced by this kind of attitude manifested, for example, during mid-term elections, local council elections, one to one meeting, negotiations with trade unions, etc. What should they do? Sometimes it is an easy decision. They can change or mend their ways. However, if what they are doing is, for them, in the best public interest should they choose popularity or principles?
“Let Obama be Obama”
Let us look at this question from the perspective of the mid-term elections that have just been held in the United States. If, for starters, we look overseas and not to the local situation we can perhaps have a calmer and more fruitful introduction for our discussion.
Ambassador Kmiec made interesting comments in an interview with the Times given immediately as the results were known. Kmiec, contrary to the prevailing sentiment of the day suggesting that President Obama change his direction, proposed the opposite. He said that the result of the midterm election was “not very likely to alter US-EU relations or foreign policy, nor should it.” On the domestic side, the Ambassador believed the President, as a man of principle would become more, not less, Obama – that is, a political figure who believes government can be a source for good, and in particular, “the common good.” “Let Obama be Obama,” the Ambassador told Tony Manduca.
He has a point. After all, it should be less important to hold the office of the presidency than to use the presidency for the common good.
Was the outcome the result of Obama being out of touch with the change he promised before the presidential election? His supporters answer in the negative. Obama, they say, has significantly wound down the war in Iraq and secured some semblance of public health care for 32 million people who lack the same. He stabilized a badly fractured set of economic institutions that had betrayed all professional standards and banking and finance; and he was well on his way toward addressing even a complex and politically explosive topic like immigration reform in the United States. From an international perspective, he recognized that the United States needed to be understood not as a superpower but as one country among many responsible countries promoting human rights and human dignity and environmental common sense.
Examination of conscience: people or politicians?
One of the differences between this and the presidential election is that Obama lost the Catholic vote. In the 2008 campaign, Obama won by sizable margins the Catholic vote in, for example, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. In these mid-term elections, the president's party lost badly in each of those states. His supporters argue that from a Catholic social teaching perspective, president Obama's first two years should have merited the confidence and the vote of the Catholic electorate. So why didn’t he get it?
Could it well be that the examination of conscience that is required in the United States is not one that needs to take place in the Oval Office, but in the hearts and minds of those who would elevate narrow, libertarian perspectives over those which seek to find common ground and promote the common good?
It is said: vox popoli, vox dei. Is it always like that? When there are differences between the politicians and the people are the politicians always wrong and the people always right? Could it not be that sometimes the people do not represent the common good but an unholy alliance of sectarian goods just fueled by short-term gains? How should politicians behave when they believe, in conscience, that this is the case? What should one say about politicians that in time of difficulty paint mirages as realities in order to get the people’s vote?
The Catholic moral vision
Let us return to the US mid-term elections.
Did Catholics, for example, vote the way they voted as they were inspired by the Catholic moral vision that privileges the vulnerable or because they were reacting to self-interest and short-termism?
The Catholic moral vision is characterized by its traditional concerns for social issues like the defense of the unborn, support for the poor, welcoming the immigrant, stewardship of the environment, and so forth. Quite naturally, choices are never easy as there is no one party which represents one hundred per cent the Catholic moral vision. Such a scenario puts more responsibility on Catholics to discern whether their voting patterns are more a function of partisanship or belonging to a particular socio-economic group or self-interest than faith.
After all, from a Catholic perspective, it is always less important whether Democrats or Republicans prevail in a given election than whether the politics of the day are advancing civility and tolerance and the common good. The role of the Catholic voter in terms of the Church's teaching is to promote a politics of the common good. Common good politics are not motivated by partisanship or ideology or private self-interest. There are signs that the tea party devotees in the United States are driven more by the latter than the former. Their success in elections is a bad omen for Catholic social teaching. As the American Catholic bishops have thoughtfully pointed out, Catholic voters have an obligation to review their political participation to ensure that their political allegiances reflect the Church's teaching on the common good and how this can be achieved through the compromises that are an essential part of politics, which, after all, is just the art of the possible. True enough, but to make sense of that and to not have a disconnect between a faith dearly held and midterm votes inconsistently cast, Catholic voters ought not succumb to aiding and abetting the worst forms of excessive partisanship or ideological extremism or sectorial self interest or let themselves be blinded by vague and illusionary promises.
Back to Malta
How do you view this argument if we transpose it to the Maltese situation?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
70 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
d.attard
Nov 23rd 2010, 13:50
Patrick Larsson
Agreed on most counts. Censorship is an intrusion on space of individual
Also agree that censorship of ideas (eg I believe that a host is a whatever) is an act of repression. A thin dividing line here would be the stating of an opinion and the stating of an opinion with a view to insult or repressing opinion by claiming offense...here society would need wise administrators...
re monarchy...democracy has today taken over in the west, but monarchy remains a kind of platonic institution that seems to have a needed role in society.
In some cases a state has replaced royalty with a President, yet the Presidency is a very poor substitute. France/to a lesser extent italy remain nostalgic for their royal dimension and borrow the uk monarchy to fill the gap...from an antropological point of view, a similar role was fullfilled in our villages by parish churches. These were decorated to such extreems as to compensate for the lack of a home to be proud of. The royal life style seems to compensate for a desired dream-life...realists would of course not feel this need so much as they would need religion much less than the emotionally vulnerable.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 22nd 2010, 17:37
Part 2 of 2
A few years ago an African man was sentenced for vilifying the Catholic Church for saying the host was just a cracker. Where is the reason behind that? More curiously, I would have loved to be there in the courtroom when the prosecutor proved to the jury that the host actually is more than what he claimed it to be (unleavened bread is perhaps closer to the truth).
You're spot on when you mention a campaign on how to communicate. Why isn't that enough? Why should we need oppressive laws to hinder free speech?
The problem with a monarchy is still that it by definition is anti-democratic, hence a democratic nation stands at a cultural divide where they have to choose between disposing of an archaic tradition in the name of democracy, or continue because something happen to make them feel good. Very close to prostitution in my eyes.
The only decent arguments I can think of FOR monarchies are their separation from political allegience, and the fact that they serve a country for a lifetime, rather than a set time. Either argument has its merits, but not enough to justify it.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 22nd 2010, 17:34
d.attard:
Part 1 of 2
Appreciate the discussion.
Yes, I can see the analogy, but there are some vital differences. Littering is after all an abuse of property, not just something which might offend someone. You litter on someone's property you spoil their property. You litter on public property you spoil what is the property of the people. There is a rationale behind why it's wrong.
Not being exposed to anything you might take offense to is not a right. There are of course a public benefit from restricting, for example, offensive behaviour in media where children are the main target. But I see no value in restricting content (within the confines of non-extremity) to adults, as long as they can avoid it should they wish so.
d.attard
Nov 22nd 2010, 16:07
@Patrick Larsson
You state your points clearly and I subscribe to the principles you promote.
Allow me to react to the detail.
I see the following time-line in so far as Blasphemy laws are concerned:
Some people blaspheme making it a social nuisance just as street littering (hence blaspheming is a culture)
Laws are introduced to eliminate blaspheming as an integral part of communication by some(yes clergy may have seen some religious corollary in the process or actually prooted the laws)
Laws failed to cascade into culture
Result – blaspheming remains an integral part of the way some of us communicate, the laws remain in place. I am sure that a campaign on 'how to comunicate' will solve the problem without the need for any laws.
Monarchies - A monarchy symbolizes national unity and satisfies psychological needs of ‘subjects’ so one may argue that even if a monarchy has become a ceremonial entity, its culture can still have an important role in society. I myself am indeed a Royalist in the uk and a Republican in Malta because the floods of history may have flowed in such directions.
d.attard
Nov 22nd 2010, 15:26
hello kenneth, by my book, the backdop to laws is human nature.
Laws that do not seek to promote a sound culture and environment will in practice promote immoral behaviour.
Take Gambling. Gambling is immoral because it drains the power to create wealth, it undermines with its fantasy the work ethic , it exploits the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, Quoting Mark Abrahamson "The same state that urges people to stay in school, seek job training, and persevere through hard work and sacrifice, also encourages the fatalistic belief that people's lives can change dramatically, if their numbers come up in the lottery. The state is selling one message with its right hand and another with its left."
Gambling promotes irrationality, it attracts the undisciplined and pushes them deeper and deeper into difficulty, it is built on materialism greed, exploitation. It pries on the human inclination for the lazy lust for entertainment, it distrusts God (love), is built on disdain for careful planning and work to achieve objectives;
do not just look at our laws, but also at Government-sponsored monopolies, incentives and ensuing tax revenue streams... Now remember that we are here discussing morals not economy...regards
Jason Fenech
Nov 22nd 2010, 08:39
@Mr. Andrew Farrugia
This comes kind of late but for what it's worth, if you think I have proved you correct please feel free to believe so. People tend to believe in many things which of course don’t make them necessarily true.
As far as I'm concerned, you issued a challenge to which I replied for lack of better things to occupy myself with during break time.
Once again, referring to religious faith, Hitchens wrote "For this reason, I WOULD NOT PROHIBIT IT even if I thought I could" which is crystal clear for anyone not lacking basic reading and reasoning skills.
I also quoted a paragraph late in the book containing the infamous “banish all religions from the discourse … ” reference. Of course if you read it in its entirety one would realize that Hitchens is referring to specific topics which can’t be tackled reasonably once you introduce religion in the equation.
I’m pretty sure there was no need for me to spell it out.
So no, I have not proven you correct.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 21st 2010, 17:16
@ d.attard:
Thanks for your comment. However, you will appreciate the difference between having laws that promote immoral actions (I can't think of any in Malta's case), and not having laws that prohibit immoral actions.
Let's take the case of part time employment you mention. It is true that, as you mention, that option can be "abused" (although this is not at all too clear - no one has the obligation to employ anyone else, and it is not that certain that choosing more than one part-timer instead of a full-timer is immoral. We're speaking of private employment and what people do with their own investment here).
What government could do is to create incentives for employers employing full-time workers. But no government in a democracy can prohibit employers from employing part-time workers if they so choose.
However, regarding the particular case you mentioned, a case could be made for illegal dismissal (after all, if there were no other reasons for her dismissal, it cannot be a case of redundancy). But this can only be determined in the law courts.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 20th 2010, 17:02
d. attard:
I'm going to let most of your statement stand, as it was quite well defined and a good summary.
The only thing I want to address is your point about underlying values turning law into culture. Law turning into culture is fine, but often it's culture turning to law and that poses many problems. For example, a blasphemy law is jurisdiction almost exclusively based based on what a certain group of people feel, rather than what makes moral sense. It's a specific culture which have been turned into law, not for it's rational or reasonal value, but because a group of people have defined it as such.
Same can be said about monarchies (speaking as someone who actually grew up in one). There is no reason behind laws enabling people to be born into a certain position. It is enabled only by culture. It's a system where dna is put above merit in terms of selecting representatives.
If I were a bit bolder I would quote Voltaire on priests and kings, but I have a good feeling I would be taken literally by certain people if I did.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 20th 2010, 14:12
Kenneth Cassar:
The phrase "there is no God" is mentioned over a dozen times actually (King James version). Makes it an easy target for the average quote miner.
d.attard
Nov 19th 2010, 17:40
@ Patrick Larson. Thanks for your interesting viewpoint. There is a thin dividing line between law, its application and regulation. i have no idea if Maltese law allows it. There are many grey areas in this case; was she laid off, dismissed or just pushed off etc? could she rely on anyone for help?
In the final analysis it is about the underlying values that translate law into culture. I feel that lip service by politicians re, for example, family values are often diametrically opposed to actual culture that places unnecessary strain on family structure.
This seems to be underpinned by a media eager to discuss IVF, divorce, lads dressed up as monks, condoms, to bursting point yet shy away from many key issues.
I know that chatter keeps people entertained but surely there must be some space where ‘greyenergetic’ topics could be discussed.
@ Kenneth Cassar hi, our representatives promote laws. Laws that promote ‘immoral’ actions are therefore a reflection on those we elect to Parliament. It is equally immoral to seek to channel votes in any particular direction on the pretext of pseudo moral indignation, ignoring bread and butter issues bearing the real strong moral content that matters.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 17:36
Just in case Patrik Larsson's promise needs spelling out, by the same method of Andrew Farrugia:
"there is no God" Psalm 14.1
But does the Bible really say there is no God? Not unless we quote mine.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 19th 2010, 16:25
Can I further make the suggestion that we leave the "Ditchkins" discussion aside, or else continue it in the previous post where it started. I think there has been some points raised by posters that are worth discussing and not to be covered by this noise.
So, if you want to continue, come back with some facts and post it in the original post as linked below.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20101031/fr-joe-borg/work-will-set-you-free
Patrik Larsson
Nov 19th 2010, 16:22
Andrew Farrugia:
To illustrate your point, I can promise you that the bible says there is no God, in the same manner as you claim Hitchens prohibit religious arguments in the public sphere.
That is what quote mining is all about, finding a quote saying one thing, removing a part of it and use it to make a point. It is an incredibly dubious mode of discourse and, I have to say, very dishonest.
So again, if you want to prove a point, do it with honest means and back up your "facts".
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 15:18
@ Andrew Farrugia:
"Unlike some people i am consistent and coherent in whatever i write (evidence: i never say i am wasting my time only to retract this statement some time later)".
"Now it is time for me to stop wasting my time".
Now let's see how consistent you are.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 15:13
@ Andrew Farrugia:
The full quotation is:
"Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse".
Therefore Christopher Hitchens is only suggesting the banishment of religion from that particular topic, and nothing else.
Therefore, the claim that Christopher Hitchens wrote about banishing religion from public discourse is a big lie.
Mr Joseph Fenech has actually proven me correct and shown you to be at best gravely mistaken.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 15:06
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Quote mining will only fool the guillable. Now it is time for you to stop wasting our time.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 19th 2010, 14:30
"on the sole condition that we banish all religion from the discourse" C. Hitchens
" he insisted that all religions need to eliminated from any sphere of public discourse" Andrew Farrugia.
Only spin, manipulation and intellectual dishonesty can differentiate the essence of these two statements. Now it is time for me to stop wasting my time.
Alex Ellul
Nov 19th 2010, 14:29
It is opportune to remind ourselves here, that this blog is about Mr. Obama's recent 'fall from grace' (which is different from 'fall from power'). Fr. Borg tries to give weight to the US Catholic vote. I tend to partially agree, partially because it was not only the Catholics who originally voted for and supported him that have that turned against him, but practically every sector of US society.
Now Mr. Obama has two options:
1. Change course in the hope of being re-elected in two years time
2. Bury his head, go against the grain of Joe the plumber's expressed wishes, use his executive power and be damned. Of course this will make him a sort of a dictator for two years, but that's as far as he will go.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 19th 2010, 14:20
Thank you Mr Jason Fenech; for you have proved me correct and others wrong; no amount of spin, manipulation and twisting will erase that FACT (see Mr Fenech's third paragraph; similarly no number of capitals are going to erase that sentence). Thanks once again.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 19th 2010, 14:17
Unlike some people i am consistent and coherent in whatever i write (evidence: i never say i am wasting my time only to retract this statement some time later), others spin and weave around issues, manipulate what others write, and issue puerile challenges and threats; besides regularly and arrogantly resorting to personal insults and offensive epithets. I will leave it to readers of this thread to decide about who is credible or not; after all i am known (on a personal level) to quite a few people who read this column and i imagine others are as well; i will humbly accept the objective/ neutral reader's judgement.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 19th 2010, 14:06
Check also Christopher Hitchens - David Berlinsky debate.
Jason Fenech
Nov 19th 2010, 13:18
Chapter 1 ending of said book;
"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I WOULD NOT PROHIBIT IT even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence?"
Concluding he writes "Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse." but goes on by saying "However, only the most naive Utopian can believe that this new humane civilization will develop, like some dream of progress, in a straight line."
Google "filetype:pdf god is not great" for an online version. I'd be happy to lend my original hard back.
An entertaining read indeed and if one can stomach "The passion of the Christ" by an ultra-traditionalist catholic turned actor, I'm sure this read will be digested just fine.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 13:10
"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could".
Christopher Hitchens in "God is not Great".
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 12:54
@ Andrew Farrugia:
How about a single quote, dear Andrew. I have read the book twice. Nothing about banishing religion from public discourse there.
Come on...prove me wrong...just one verifiable quote.
Alex Ellul
Nov 19th 2010, 12:52
Patrick, it's not anarchy, it's liberty. Anarchy is a form of tyranny. Let me repeat what I wrote: "The Tea Party took up that part of the conservative vote that believes in the basic tenet of democracy, that is, no government controls on the life and liberty of human beings. The name TEA PARTY refers to the BOSTON TEA PARTY, that protest by the colony’s citizens against the British Crown which was controlling every aspect of life and taxing people as if they were slaves. The Boston Tea Party precipitated the American colonies’ war of Independence."
The Americans did not want anarchy but freedom from the British Crown. In fact they firmulated the best democratic constitution on the planet which has been emulated in many countries.
Regarding Holdren, you come up with your stupid claim that I have not read the book. I did. Fact is that Holdren (Obama's choice scientist), together with Ehrlich&Ehlrich co-wrote that infamous book which you try to label as an exageration. It is not an exageration and I recommend to you to read that book and see for yourself what these leftist/greens mad-men have in store for us, through world domination.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 19th 2010, 12:45
Andrew Farrugia:
I have read it and there is simply nothing in there about banishing religion from public discourse. Now unfortunately it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, so if you are so sure there are those statements in there feel free to repost them.
Kenneth already shown a statement by Hitchens that goes against what you are saying about him.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 19th 2010, 12:08
I invite bona fide readers to read through Hitchens' "God is not Great" ( provided they are willing to stomach it) and to decide for themselves about who is LYING, and therefore a LIAR, about removing, banishing all religion from public discourse.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 12:04
"Every time you try to silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself your right to hear something".
Christopher Hitchens
http://heliologue.com/2007/02/16/christopher-hitchens-on-free-speech/
Patrik Larsson
Nov 19th 2010, 11:52
m.portelli:
I think the real question should be what you do when you are faced with a party espousing the problems you cited and there is absolutely no valid opposition.
Alex Ellul:
"...the basic tenet of democracy, that is, no government controls on the life and liberty of human beings"
That is in no way a part of democracy, that's anarchy. Everyone left to fend for themselves.
MSM being anti-christian. Are you joking me? I suppose Fox news is out of the mainstream in your book.
About Sarah Palin. No one takes her seriously because she is a nutcase. She thinks the earth was created just shortly before Egyptian civilisation was at its peak and dogs already were domesticated. I think that says it all.
John Holdren's book was about population control and I honestly don't believe that half of what you claim of him is true. The book was about a real and imminent problem and from what I've gathered (I haven't read it and, I guess, neither have you) I don't agree with him, but your points seem insanely over-exaggerated.
I'm no Obama fan, but thank goodness for no Bush or Palin.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 11:26
@ Andrew Farrugia:
You might also wish to note that when someone claims someone else said something, the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it, not the person who disputes the claim. Otherwise, we might as well invent anything about anybody.
Care to prove that Hitchens said what you say he did, or are you lying for Jesus?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 11:22
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Truth is one. Nobody has a monopoly on truth but truth itself. As for honesty and perception of honesty, I never claimed that I (or anyone else) has a monopoly on those either.
Regarding whether Hitchens actually insisted that all religions need to be eliminated from any sphere of public discourse (which would be strange, seeing that he actually willingly participated in several public debates with religious people), frankly I'm not interested. I'm not Hitchens.
That said, I do expect you to substantiate all your claims about me. Otherwise, I am very well entitled to say that you are lying for Jesus.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2010, 11:15
@ Jessica DeBattista:
I didn't put words in your mouth. However, you can't blame me for thinking you were referring to something else when all you said was "Regarding a later comment of yours, I can only say that I am amazed at how deviously you work around an argument". You neither specified the comment, nor the argument (we had several), nor how I supposedly "deviously" worked around it.
As for the argument being "my fixation with a particular phrase in another blog", that was neither an argument, nor a phrase. It was a question. No wonder I misunderstood you.
Yes, we may close this if you like. And yes, it is truly becoming ridiculous.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 19th 2010, 11:13
Andrew Farrugia:
"Now can some wiseacre prove to me - FACTS and EVIDENCE - that i am LYING for Jesus about Hitchens?"
Easy. You just did.
"No wonder Hitchens insisted that all religions need to be eliminated from any sphere of public discourse."
He have never said such a thing. Hitchens is undiscriminately defending free speech and always have. He has made it clear that if someone have a stupid idea, they should be allowed to express it, just as we have a right to respond to it.
There you go.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 18th 2010, 18:41
Just remembered: "we" also have a monopoly on truth, honesty and perception of honesty; always according to "us". All else is the figment of someone's imagination or downright lies and fabrications. No wonder Hitchens insisted that all religions need to be eliminated from any sphere of public discourse. Now can some wiseacre prove to me - FACTS and EVIDENCE - that i am LYING for Jesus about Hitchens?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 18:19
@ Fr Joe Borg:
It would be helpful for commenters, and help the discussion, if you would define exactly what you mean by "common good". After all, even the most extreme individualists claim that individualism is for the common good.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 17:58
@ Andrew Farrugia (Part 2):
You also claim that "we" decide whether a comment is ad hominem or not, where ad-hominem has a clear and specific definition. If you believe I have used it improperly in a specific case, point it out and we'll look at the evidence. Of course, as usual, you won't take the challenge. You're just hot air.
You also say "we" decide when something is logical or not, when all we can do, and actually do, is express our opinion on what we see as logical or not, and give our reasons for it. When I say we, I don't include you, since you always resort to insults and when challenged to substantiate, you move on to other insults.
You say "we" decide who should be vilified or not. That's a total fabrication which needs no further comment except to say that we are so used to your fabrications that we have come to expect them.
Now, who is arrogant? Who do creationists and evolution deniers think they are?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 17:58
@ Andrew Farrugia (Part 1):
I'll take back what I have said (if my previous comment gets published) and reply to one of your posts, if anything, to show that you clearly have no idea on most of what you are writing about.
You sarcastically say you find it interesting that we decide what is ethical or unethical, when all that can be asserted is that we decide what we believe is ethical or unethical. You do it all the time.
You also find it interesting that we decide on the definition of freedom of expression, when I personally gave no such definition, but only expressed my beliefs on freedom of expression. You are always free to argue against my views, although considering your record, that's highly unlikely. Frankly, you made it clear you're not up to the task.
Cont...
Alex Ellul
Nov 18th 2010, 16:18
Part 4
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
This same man is today holding the position of Science Czar under Obama’s presidency. That is, the USA have an extremist left-wing green scientist holding the top-most Presidential scientific adviser, appointed by Obama himself.
However, you will not hear or read this in the MSM because these are in cahoots with Obama’s plan to sinisterise, permit me coining a word, the planet. What more can the left have: Communist China the most powerful nation n earth, Russia playing a dirty power game both inside and outside its borders, The USA turning into a socialist state and the EU being neither here not there.
But for all the MSM, its Palin who is wrong and its Palin whom they demonise and ridicule.
Need I say more?
Alex Ellul
Nov 18th 2010, 16:17
Part 3
Fr. Borg, you have to realise, both as a Christian priest and as a journalist, that today’s MSM is dominated by the anti-Christians and that leftism that was left orphaned and homeless following the collapse of that evil Soviet Empire. The leftists, having lost their dream philosophy, had to seek some sort of refuge and they managed to find it in the MSM and green movement. Today these are indistinguishable from each other, with the greens being more interested in red than in doing the right thing. Obama is in the same camp. Consider just one man: John Holdren, that man who wrote a book on the human race, preaching forced abortions and:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
Alex Ellul
Nov 18th 2010, 16:17
Part 2
The Tea Party took up that part of the conservative vote that believes in the basic tenet of democracy, that is, no government controls on the life and liberty of human beings. The name TEA PARTY refers to the BOSTON TEA PARTY, that protest by the colony’s citizens against the British Crown which was controlling every aspect of life and taxing people as if they were slaves. The Boston Tea Party precipitated the American colonies’ war of Independence.
Of course, the left-controlled main stream media are still supporting the left-wing president, their favourite political baby. Fact is, if this presidency was one a Republican one, the MSM would be lambasting it no end, reporting on each presidential slip, big, minor or insignificant, killing him with a thousand cuts. But not Obama. Obama is considered as their idol, icon, and must be protected by the MSM at all costs. If Obama falls, the leftism that the MSM has been pushing for the last decade will lose credibility and collapse. But, Tea Party or no Tea Party, the inevitable will materialise. Obama is,for all intents and purposes, finished.
Alex Ellul
Nov 18th 2010, 16:16
Part 1
I had been following as best as I could the USA's mid term elections. What, IMHO, destroyed Obama at the mid-term polls was the fact that he had promised a lot and delivered practically nothing. If one were to superimpose the USA of today on the USA as George Bush left it, one would not find any real difference at all, except the gap of two years and an economyin shambles. Lets mention some:
-Iraq is still there
-Afghanistan too
-The economy is in tatters
-The citizens are now taxed more than under Bush's administration
-The Chinese head of government is considered as more powerful than the US president since last week, meaning that the most powerful person on earth is a now dictator and not a democratic person.
-The Cap-and-Trade Carbon tax got stuck in the Senate on the premise that this would have been the last straw that would have broken the economy's back.
m.portelli
Nov 18th 2010, 15:52
@ Fr. Joe
Which Catholic value should I give most weight to, social justice or the indissolubility of marriage?
How does a good Catholic cast his/her vote faced with a political party that :
a) disregards the exploitation of part-time workers and refuses to change the law to put a stop to this,
b) limits social mobility by sluggish implementation of educational reform
c) knowingly puts thousands of its citizens lives at risk through upholding bad environmental policies and procrastinating for years on investigating physical evidence of pollution.
d) refuses to acknowledge new forms of poverty
e) makes deals with dictators that will put at risk the lives of thousands of poor sub-saharan immigrants
but nevertheless upholds the Catholic value of the indissolubility of marriage
Indeed what is one's conscience to do ?
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 18th 2010, 15:39
@ Kenneth Cassar: “The "argument" (if you can even call it that), was "goodwill among mankind". I gave you a clear example why that is not possible. Of course, you have every right to disagree.”
Kenneth I hate to keep going back and forth reviewing each others’ posts to see why certain claims you make regarding my posts do not make sense to me. You seem to reply to my post by putting words in my mouth, where they never were.
For one: the argument/issue was not about goodwill but about your fixation with a particular phrase in another blog.
As regards goodwill; I believe my previous post can be taken as a reply to your comment above.
Can we close this please?
It’s becoming ridiculous!
ftheuma
Nov 18th 2010, 15:33
"as there is no one party which represents one hundred per cent the Catholic moral vision" and what a relief that is.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 15:32
@ d. attard:
I don't see how the (legal, even if arguably immoral) actions of a private employer (provided he is not a politician) should determine your vote.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 14:47
@ Andrew Farrugia:
When you start addressing the several challenges put forward to you, I will start taking you seriously. Until then, I'll ignore you.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 18th 2010, 14:45
D. Attard:
I don't like to comment on individual cases, as I would not presume to know all intrinsic details of the case mentioned, but in general I think there is a very strong case to be made for employment laws offering a higher protection for workers. Lay-offs should be made for economical reasons, but in the sense that the position is removed, not to be replaced by someone else.
In fact, that is pretty much the system in place in Sweden. If you are employed at a certain position you can only be laid off in case the position vanishes and if the position is to be filled again you always have first rights on it. There is the obvious backside of some workers taking advantage of the system and, once receiving a full time position, proceeds to simply make a joke of their job, not contributing, which of course is highly unfair both on the employer and co-workers.
To replace a full-time position with two half-time positions would be untennable in Sweden though and I'm quite surprised there are no such safety mechanisms in place here.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 14:44
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 3):
I agree with you about your view on human nature. Being "self-centred" is a "survival instinct". Our ancestors (millions of years ago) wouldn't have survived were the survival instinct not developed in them.
Of course, strict individualism is not evolutionarily stable, and some form of co-operation is advantageous to both society and the individual. Thus, humans (or their ancestors) developed kin altruism, then tribe altruism, than altruism with even larger groups, until nowadays this altruism is being extended to other species. Of course, individualistic self-centred traits are, to a lesser or greater extent, found in each one of us. I would actually be surprised if it were otherwise.
I have to say that I agree with everything you said in your reply on altruism and human nature. See? There is hope for both of us, yet ;)
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 14:30
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 2):
Regarding the "later comment of mine", please explain how you deduce that I have "deviously worked around an argument". The "argument" (if you can even call it that), was "goodwill among mankind". I gave you a clear example why that is not possible. Of course, you have every right to disagree.
I have not "detracted from the real issue". In fact, I had not even commented on "the real issue" until you addressed your comment to me.
Regarding who started going off-topic, please be honest. If my reply to Fr Joe's questions was off-topic, the person who started it must have been Fr Joe. After all, as far as I know, the topic isn't about people not commenting on blogs, or is it?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 14:14
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 1):
Telling someone he replies to the questions he wants while the rest comment on the articles they want, is neither insidious, nor an insinuation. Its clear, unequivocal and straight-forward.
You say you meant that I say its a free world, thereby implying that no one is constrained to do anything against their will. You got that right. However, you fail to get the corollary of that - you can't deny anyone the right to ask questions, even if the recipient, as is his right, refuses to reply.
You see, dear Jessica, what you fail to understand (or pretend not to) is that the right to express oneself and/or to refuse to express oneself applies to everyone.
No, Fr Joe doesn't "owe" me any reply, even though I must say I believe that, for truth and honesty's sake, he owes it to himself to reply. It is in everyone's interest not only to be honest, but to appear to be honest, particularly if a person is in the public sphere. Of course, you have every right to disagree.
Yes, its a free world, freer than you would like it to be, apparently.
Cont...
d.attard
Nov 18th 2010, 13:38
A woman I know earning Euro800 a month was discharged from her employment.
One month later she was replaced by two persons both engaged on a part time basis and each earning Euro200 per month. (or 204.75c per month to be exact).
The employer saved Euro400 a month plus leave and other ancillaries, making his wage bill more efficient. Government statiscs also look nice because we have more employment (plus2 part tie-1 full time=1 new job 'created').
How should I, as a Catholic, react to this when the time comes for me to cast my vote?
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 18th 2010, 13:15
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Regarding my comment: “human nature is too self-centred.....". I was referring to human nature collectively. We are all tainted by that negative trait - unfortunately some, more than others.
Altruism is such an elevated concept, though some do seem to have the good fortune to be blessed by it, and it almost comes naturally to them, but others have to strive against their very nature to attain it. I would say the latter are more meritorious of praise since they start off at a disadvantage.
Goodwill is the desire to do “good”, and that too is part of our nature but unfortunately we limit its practice to people we have an affiliation with or affection to.
Rising above such limitation is the challenge!
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 18th 2010, 12:36
Highly interesting! We decide what is ethical and unethical; we decide on the definition of freedom of expression; we decide whether a comment is ad hominem or not; we decide when something is logical or not; we decide who should be vilified or not. Once again chop logic at its worst and arrogance which beggars belief. Who the heck do these proponents of humanism, nihilism and atheism think they are?
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 18th 2010, 12:28
How rational and logical! Now we play the emotional card as well, besides the constant incessant manipulation and twisting of what others write (e.g. leaving out "in vain" re the gagging and silencing), as if said character displayed any emotion or human compassion when John Paul II was dying. On the contrary he continued with his barrage of insults.
Richard Curmi
Nov 18th 2010, 12:11
"Quite naturally, choices are never easy as there is no one party which represents one hundred per cent the Catholic moral vision." As you rightly said this put more responsibility on Catholics.
Take for example in a practically two party system one party may be in favour of divorce and the other in favour of legalising abortion. The church is against both of these issues. So what is the catholic supposed to do to be in line with their church? I would think that abstaining from voting would be tantamount as relinquishing one's duty to one's country.
I suppose that in such a situation one has to opt for the lesser evil which many would deem to be the introduction of divorce. I do not think that in such a situation catholics would be sinning because they cannot be put in a position where whatever they do would be morally wrong (sin). On the other hand the 'common good' of society requires them to vote and the church, that promotes 'politics of the common good', cannot encourage them not to vote.
They have to follow their conscience but even then they could be sinning, they were told.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 18th 2010, 11:58
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.
Regarding a later comment of yours, I can only say that I am amazed at how deviously you work around an argument. Why not stick to what we were discussing in a previous blog or do you want to detract attention from the real issue?
And if you think that we are going a little out of topic I can only say that you started it.
I am ready to move on. I had my say!
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 18th 2010, 11:55
@ Kenneth Cassar: “It was just a passing comment, dear Jessica. Lighten up, please. Perhaps we don't share the same sense of humour.
However, I would be interested in knowing in what way I do not practice what I preach. What exactly do you think I preach? And why do you think I don't practice it?”
Part 1.
Oh! So an insidious form of insinuation is a sense of humour to you! Well then I certainly do not share it!
I think you are off mark dear Kenneth, or else pretending not to understand. By my comment I meant that you say it’s a free world, thereby implying that no one is constrained to do anything against his/her will, yet you seem to forget your insistence to get Fr. Joe to answer your barbed question ( in another blog) ….as if he owes you.
Thought you said it’s a free world!
Continued.....
ftheuma
Nov 18th 2010, 08:24
@Jessica DeBattista
'Yes, it’s a free world, but you do not seem to practice what you preach.' you tell Kenneth Cassar. How so? I am intrigued by your apparent lack of logic. Perhaps I am just obtuse.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 07:39
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Perhaps, when you wrote that I don't practice what I preach, you were referring to my belief in freedom of thought and expression. Although this is going a little off-topic, perhaps it is opportune for me to explain (concisely and not comprehensively) my views.
I believe that (with limitations, incitement to violence being one) everyone is entitled to express his views. I also believe that everyone is entitled not to express one's views. However, with the above in mind, everyone is equally entitled to ask questions (provided the questions are not inappropriate and unethical). This, of course does not mean that the recipient of the question has to reply. Its his choice, like its the choice of the questioner to keep asking.
Regarding unethical comments, an example would be, for instance, to persist in hilighting the drinking habits of a person who is suffering of cancer, just because one disagrees with his views. I would stick to discussing his views, and never attack his person. I would also never invent things about that person - for instance saying that that person tries to gag or silence anyone, when that would be clearly untrue (and frankly, impossible).
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 07:23
@ Jessica Debattista:
"This week’s blog is sending out a message that if there were goodwill amongst mankind the world would be a better place but human nature is too self-centred.....".
Read Andrew Farrugia's comment below. Good will amongst mankind? Dream on!
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 07:14
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Who exactly do you have in mind. Names please...be accountable for what you say.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 07:12
@ Jessica DeBattista:
It was just a passing comment, dear Jessica. Lighten up, please. Perhaps we don't share the same sense of humour.
However, I would be interested in knowing in what way I do not practice what I preach. What exactly do you think I preach? And why do you think I don't practice it?
Richard Curmi
Nov 18th 2010, 05:45
"Is the common good what is best for most people, or does it include basic rights for minorities, even if that isn't what is best for the large majority?" I find this question by Mr. Patrik Larrson quite interesting and one that needs some reflection and discussion.
For the time being and for the sake of attempting to start this discussion I shall look at 2 examples:
1. In the issue of divorce one might say that the best for the common good of society is to have strong and stable families. At the same time society can provide a remedy for those whose family is irreparably broken. Thus the 'majority' can still hold fast to their strong families because no one will force them to divorce and the 'minority' can be given a legalised chance of rebuilding a family in a civil and legally organised way.
2. On the other hand the majority e.g. should not be prohibited to mount cribs for christmas because a minority might feel offended. No one will force them to have a crib in their home.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 17th 2010, 18:21
@ Kenneth Cassar: “You reply to the questions you want, and we comment on the articles we want. Its a free world.
What a diehard you are Kenneth - to carry your bone of contention to this blog!
Yes, it’s a free world, but you do not seem to practice what you preach.
This week’s blog is sending out a message that if there were goodwill amongst mankind the world would be a better place but human nature is too self-centred.....
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 17th 2010, 17:21
@ Fr Joe
Just to point out that there are certain sections of humanity whose perverted warped world views, inspired by the hatred of Catholicism as preached by Ditchkins, struggle in vain to silence, gag, vilify, and insult a few of us who are not at all willing to turn the other cheek. We choose the time, the manner and the occasion to respond to their offensive outburts and their puerile threats of court action.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 17th 2010, 11:45
@ Fr Joe Borg:
You reply to the questions you want, and we comment on the articles we want. Its a free world.
m.portelli
Nov 17th 2010, 11:34
There has yet to come an election where any break in the voting pattern is not seen as a traitorous act against the sectorial self-interest of the party in question. There have been sporadic bursts of action in favour of the common good but that intention is usually immolated on the altar of party interest. 'Il partit l-ewwel' is the sacred dictum of the Maltese context. Don't delude yourself that there is any real change in perception it hasn't happened because there is no commitment for real political change. Some politicians are extremely happy with things as they stand and those voters who happily benefit from the culture of party patronage and the s'arrangiarsi mentality do not see the need for the cultural overhaul. One look at the articles after the 2008 election trying to appease disgruntled voters by promising better 'service' and quick 'intervention' should be enough to conclude that the old way of doing politics will not be repudiated. Hence no change in perception precludes any change in habit. Lets face it any discourse analysis of the political speeches of the past 10 years should give you an idea of what the measure is.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 17th 2010, 11:16
To be honest I feel mostly curious to get a proper definition on the "common good". It keeps being touted over and over in most political and moral discussions lately, but how is that really applied?
Is the common good what is best for most people, or does it include basic rights for minorities, even if that isn't what is best for the large majority?
Personally I don't see much use in the term "common good". I'd rather talk about values and rights as a minimum for any policy, as a minimum set of rights has to be established. Those rights should serve as a first filter for any political choice, which illustrates one of the major flaws of a two-party system - not enough diversity in choice.
Fr Joe Borg
Nov 17th 2010, 08:32
@ all. Wow. This has never happened before. Only one comment since Sunday. Wonder why? Any guesses? The subject not interesting enough or not controversial enough? I guess everyone noticed that the item is applicable to Malta as much as it is applicable to the USA.
Richard Curmi
Nov 15th 2010, 08:41
"As Bishops we are not advocating any political party. That is not our role. We do however raise some issues and questions that you may wish to address to the candidates for election in helping inform your decision on whom to vote for." This is taken from a letter addressed to catholics in Victoria - Australia where on 27 Nov. there is the election of the State Government.
It is signed by 4 Bishops. They raise questions in line with the Church's engagement in the community and to urge electors to vote consistent with their values; therefore to vote for representatives who understand and will work for the common good.
The decision is left to the individual. No partisanship. The church rightly claims the right to voice its concerns but stays away from imposing.
In Malta, unfortunately, excessive partisanship still exists. In general my party is always right, your party is always wrong. I doubt whether there will come a day when the Maltese voters will let Gonzi be Gonzi or Muscat be Muscat.
Then there is the issue about who decides what the actual 'common good' is that we should all work for.