| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Racism and religious hatred | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 6. April 2009, 14:21 (1,664 Views) | |
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 14:34 Post #211 |
|
I fear we may be going off-topic, despite OSB's wonderful way of discouraging that - but you have asked a fair question, PJD. We need to separate our experience and view of the world as occupants of an island, where 'borders' are fairly obvious. Go across water to continent and things have always been much more fluid. Passports, borders and border controls never existed until quite recently. Currencies were in gold (at, least until Churchill abolished the 'Gold Standard') or barter of whatever form. Abroad, life was much more laissez faire - quite unlike anything we know now. 'Government' was much more to do with controls used by the overlord (prince/duke/king) who happened to control that bit of land that week. Across Europe you could come and go and pass through without 'let or hindrance' - except the occasional highwayman exercising true capitalism! Since (in most of Europe anyway) only the serfs paid tax, with the gentry and Church not being subject by and large (except feudal dues), there was no need for the sort of organisation known by the Romans and Egyptians in millennia past. Set foot outside this island and no-one much cared who you were, where you came from or your intention... just so long as your army didn't come with you! It was only after the Norman Conquest (when my lot turned up) that England was brought under some sort of 'national' control. That never happened on the continent, despite powerful kingdoms like France - it was only Napoleon who caused confusion by creating a real nation, because much of what we call France (Provence - southeast France) was actually papal territory - and even now many areas try objecting to attempts to enforce the official language (try going into a Provencale bakery away from the Med coast and ask for une baggett ("bagget-ter" will come the response!) Italy and Germany are new creations of the nineteenth century. The Scandinavian countries are modern creations - Norway only became a country in 1905! Poland was not where Poland has been since post-WW2! Czech(oslovakia) and Hungary were part of Austria. Much of the Turkish coast we know today was part of Greece until 100 years ago. As for the Balkans, the less said about them the better. Africa had more to do with tribes and their chiefs than with any thought of 'nationhood' - and for those who don't happen to know, Africa had some of the GREAT civilisations till we turned up there complete with slave-traders! Some parts of that continent have reverted to that. As for how the Spanish got control of south America... it wasn't much different! And, for the mods' reference, it is very relevant to religion/Catholicism, because nationhood was largely a concept developed for overlords, princes/kings to wrest temporal power away from from the spiritual (Church). Edited by Anne-Marie, Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 15:24.
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 14:37 Post #212 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Clare, you misunderstand me. I have to go now. For the time, I will just post saying the Victorian suburb where I was born, and had close connections with until recent years, is almost 100% muslim, so I am not talking just as an observer. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 14:46 Post #213 |
|
Had Britain reached a peace agreement with Ireland post-1921 it might not have happened. Until Thatch turned up, the Irish were, effectively, considered British citizens in this country - and legally still are. Which is why, pre-EU creation, the Irish never went through any form of border control, being treated like any other British citizen entering and leaving. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 16:58 Post #214 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Had Britain kept out of Ireland the extent of the emigration to England and the US wouldn't have been so great. Had England not exported ALL of Ireland's wheat, meat and dairy produce the Irish wouldn't have had to survive on a potato diet until the crop failed(the English thought that the exported food was too good for the Irish), leading to the exodus of millions of starving Irish. There was a saying years ago: God provided the Potato Blight, England provided the Famine. The Irish were effectively considered British citizens purely because they had been forced against their will to become English subjects. Funnily enough Mairtin, I seem to remember there being an article in An Poblacht a few years' back where the BNP was trying to establish an Irish equivalent in Ireland in response to some Irish people "concerned" at the number of Third World immigrants coming to Ireland and they even had a Declaration drawn up along the lines of the 1916 Proclamation - a re-working of the 1916 Proclamation, by British Nationalists - I wonder how Pearse would feel? Curious indeed. They ran a campaign called "Keep Ireland Irish"! Incredible! Edited by Angus Toanimo, Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 17:32.
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 18:35 Post #215 |
|
Anne-Marie wrote the following: "Of course, the concept of the 'nation state' is less than 200 years old!" I found that remark interesting Anne-Marie. Could you enlarge please.I fear we may be going off-topic, despite OSB's wonderful way of discouraging that - but you have asked a fair question, PJD. We need to separate our experience and view of the world as occupants of an island, where 'borders' are fairly obvious. Go across water to continent and things have always been much more fluid. Passports, borders and border controls never existed until quite recently. Currencies were in gold (at, least until Churchill abolished the 'Gold Standard') or barter of whatever form. Abroad, life was much more laissez faire - quite unlike anything we know now. 'Government' was much more to do with controls used by the overlord (prince/duke/king) who happened to control that bit of land that week. Across Europe you could come and go and pass through without 'let or hindrance' - except the occasional highwayman exercising true capitalism! Since (in most of Europe anyway) only the serfs paid tax, with the gentry and Church not being subject by and large (except feudal dues), there was no need for the sort of organisation known by the Romans and Egyptians in millennia past. Set foot outside this island and no-one much cared who you were, where you came from or your intention... just so long as your army didn't come with you! It was only after the Norman Conquest (when my lot turned up) that England was brought under some sort of 'national' control. That never happened on the continent, despite powerful kingdoms like France - it was only Napoleon who caused confusion by creating a real nation, because much of what we call France (Provence - southeast France) was actually papal territory - and even now many areas try objecting to attempts to enforce the official language (try going into a Provencale bakery away from the Med coast and ask for une baggett ("bagget-ter" will come the response!) Italy and Germany are new creations of the nineteenth century. The Scandinavian countries are modern creations - Norway only became a country in 1905! Poland was not where Poland has been since post-WW2! Czech(oslovakia) and Hungary were part of Austria. Much of the Turkish coast we know today was part of Greece until 100 years ago. As for the Balkans, the less said about them the better. Africa had more to do with tribes and their chiefs than with any thought of 'nationhood' - and for those who don't happen to know, Africa had some of the GREAT civilisations till we turned up there complete with slave-traders! Some parts of that continent have reverted to that. As for how the Spanish got control of south America... it wasn't much different! And, for the mods' reference, it is very relevant to religion/Catholicism, because nationhood was largely a concept developed for overlords, princes/kings to wrest temporal power away from from the spiritual (Church). Thank you Anne-Marie for going to the trouble of contributing such a detailed reply. That was very kind of you. I am not so sure that this is as much off-topic as it may seem; a topic which certainly has to do the mixing of peoples and cultures, their emplacements, movements, etc. So, Anne-Marie how would you relate (if you wish to make any connection that is) to these two paragraphs in the Catechism? 56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the "nations", in other words, towards men grouped "in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations".9 57 This state of division into many nations ***is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity10 united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.11 But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.12 9 Gen 10:5; cf. 9:9-10, 16; 10:20-31. 10 Cf. Acts 17:26-27. 11 Cf. Wis 10:5; Gen 11:4-6. 12 Cf. Rom 1:18-25. PJD [Footnote: You may be interested to learn that the first edition of the Catechism included the following words - subsequently left out post final adjustments in subsequent editions - which were read as follows following my ***: "each entrusted by Divine Providence to the guardianship of angels"] |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 20:03 Post #216 |
|
Unless my present state of health is seriously distorting my mind, those two paragraphs merely seem to state, that according to the Church, it is entirely proper for humanity to be divided into families (races?) and lands (nations) and to organise themselves for their needs. It appears to state specifically that we shouldn't 'do a Babel' by getting together! As such, it seems to support the views of those who think in more nationalistic ways. I'm proud of my country, rotten though it may be, but I'm no nationalist. I recognise that however much we wish to support others in need, it should not be at the expense of 'our own' - which in my case means the citizens of this country living here being provided for their needs first. As a great believer in 'When in Rome do as the Romans', it would be nice if guests here treated us, our country, our laws and our culture with respect. And whether the Catholic Catechism states what you say or not (I haven't checked, though I was surprised to read your quote), I see nothing extreme in 'helping the locals first'. Such sentiments should not be left to groups like the BNP. It's precisely because the 'mainstream' parties are not listening, that groups like the BNP are able to capitalise. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:18 Post #217 |
|
Yes they are. And they do. Veritas Truth CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:19 Post #218 |
|
I suppose they are not racist mugs. Pax CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:24 Post #219 |
|
There is a history of right wing extremist groups in the UK using Christianity and Celtic Nationalism as bait on their hooks to catch the poor little fishes. To those who have studied such things it is a familiar story. Of course once the fish are hooked they generally end up in the frying pan! Libera nos Deliver us CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:24 Post #220 |
|
Thank you for your reply Anne-Marie. Well put. [in my opinion that is] PJD |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:27 Post #221 |
|
Economically engineered actually by Conservative governments in the 1950s and early 1960s. Nothing to do with social engineering. Pax CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 21:33 Post #222 |
|
I've just noticed that this topic is now in something called the Car Park. No problem about that. Never looked into it before because I thought it was for chattering women matters. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Joseph | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 22:41 Post #223 |
|
Oooh Errr PJD = a bit provocative that isn't it?
|
|
Joseph | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 22:48 Post #224 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The Car Park is outside the Church. It is where we the parishioners stand and talk about this n' that, not strictly Catholic talk. Now yer know! |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 27. October 2009, 23:13 Post #225 |
|
And THIS is why the BNP keeps gaining 'decent' supporters. You may be listening to the news right now... and at last someone has started taming those rotten politicians. They can no longer employ their spouse. You believe that rubbish, do you? Well get this... MPs are already 'swopping' wives - I will employ your spouse and you will employ mine: Doesn't break the new rules. The money-grabbing carousel will continue unabated - at public expense. If only our MPs put just 10% as much effort into SERVING our country, rather than fleecing it, our economy would be booming. But that just isn't the way politics works. And folks wonder how 'decent' people could possibly go out and vote BNP. "EASY", I think the answer would be! |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |









8:37 PM Jul 11