Monday, September 28, 2015

Change Society and continue with Victimhood, or become a Survivor

Sorry no links to the quote yet
"We recognise a gender transitioned person’s new identity because it is the humane response to their condition. Kindness doesn’t cost anything".
No. The humane response is not to encourage them in their delusion. That is not helping them. For some reason, the liberal Narrative remains supreme, and the only people who are openly criticized are those who do not fall in line with it. Activist and lesbian Tammy Bruce points out that feminists and other groups go through a kind of ersatz therapy in their sharing groups which never actually makes it to the third and final stage of getting them help and reintegration into society, rather the focus is on social change – getting society to adapt to you, instead of the other way around.
Because there is a third stage of recovery that is ignored by feminist and gay special-interest groups—the stage where the group is supposed to concern itself with “reintegrating the survivor into the community of ordinary people.” In other words, face your issues, deal with them, get the help you need, and rejoin life. Not as a victim, mind you, but as a survivor and as your ordinary self. The failure of the Left Elite is that it requires of its leaders and its activists that they not move on to this third stage of recovery. Dr. Herman oddly lauds the fact that the feminist “consciousness-raising groups,” full of individuals who clearly needed psychological help because of past traumas, were focused on social change “rather than individual change.”
This is the core of the problem, stated by one of the leading psychologists in the field, but because Dr. Herman is a feminist she was blind to the implications of what she was saying: When your victimhood is your empowerment, recovery is the enemy, and working on “individual change” becomes counterproductive, even dangerous to your identity.
When that third stage of recovery is missing—when the group maintains the victimhood of the individual and spurns the last, imperative step—not only is there no reintegration, but something even more sinister begins to happen: the subconscious transference of the injured person’s trauma onto society. Society and culture end up being subjected to the malignant narcissism of those traumatized during their childhood or youth—which includes the Left’s most powerful leaders, activists, and ideologues.
This, I contend, is the monster that haunts the heart and soul of the Left Elite and threatens our future: the fact that the Left is led by a cadre of damaged and powerful individuals who have been condemned by their own politics never to escape their victimhood. Consider an entire wing of politics invested in the victimhood of its constituency, naturally attracting into activism and leadership those who have experienced more than their share of the tragedies that life has to offer and encouraging them to work out their demons on our society.
Bruce, Tammy (2004-06-29). The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (p. 28). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

The old approach to joint dialogue for RC

Quoted below are the three paragraphs (of sixteen total) which discuss Islam in Pope Benedict's lecture: Pope Benedict XVI said this on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany: 
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on — perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara — by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between — as they were called — three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point — itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole — which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.[then abrogated] But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[5]

An interesting contrast of the 2 popes, Is it shutting the door on a dark history? or is now covering even the modern happenings.under the guise of modernizing.

Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013:
In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
From Pope Francis’ address to Congress, September 24, 2015:
Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.
It would seem the cardinals that voted for the Argentinian cardinal to be Pope wanted these modern changes., as they would have well known the politics
          A 2013 report from The Telegraph shows that Cardinal Bergoglio took precisely the wrong stand with regard to Pope Benedict’s 2005 famous lecture at Regensburg that caused worlwide Islamic rage:
Reacting within days to [Pope Benedict’s lecture], speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his “unhappiness” with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.

“Pope Benedict’s statement don’t reflect my own opinions”, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. “These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years”.

[Not only that, but at the time, the Papacy threatened Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) with punishment for his disobedience:]

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff.

Friday, September 4, 2015

Money; brings more easily Immigration

Prepare yourselves: The Great Migration will be with us for decades

It is not war, but money, that drives people abroad. That is not going to change any time soon
A boat with refugees sinks close to the cargo ship 'OOC Jaguar' in the Mediterranean sea on 12 April 2015.
A boat with refugees sinks close to the cargo ship 'OOC Jaguar' in the Mediterranean sea  Photo: EPA/Opielok Offshore Carriers
When the crew of HMS Bulwark first fished immigrants out of the Mediterranean, they were expecting to find the world’s hungry, wretched and destitute. Instead, they found them relatively healthy, well-dressed and carrying mobile phones and credit cards, which they intended to use upon arrival in Italy. The military learnt then what politicians are only slowly beginning to work out – that this is not simply a refugee crisis. The world’s poor are on the move because they’re not quite so poor as they used to be, and can afford to travel. A great migration has begun, and it could be with us for decades.