LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  December 1996

CELTIC-L December 1996

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Famine Documentary

From:

Paul Wagner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List.

Date:

Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:26:54 GMT+1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (324 lines)

> Date sent: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:19:55 -0800
> Send reply to: "CELTIC-L - The Celtic Culture List." <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Moira <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Famine Documentary
> To: [log in to unmask]

> Dear Ray,
>
> I'll say it again: You need to watch WHEN IRELAND STARVED. You need to read
> PADDY'S LAMENT by Gallagher. You have one of the worst cases I have ever
> seen of Irish Holocaust Denial.

Excuse me, but how many famines have we seen in the last 10 years
around the globe? And what was the responce - a few wet pop songs and
the UN delivering grain to be hijacked by the local guerillas? At the
time of the Irish famine, Ireland was about as distant in peoples
minds as Rwanda is now, and as responsible for its own plight

Enough of this temporal parochialism!!

Paul



>
> Moira
>
>
> Following is a discussion with Ray denying the Irish Starvation, and Tom W.
> courageously stating the truth about the Great Hunger. (Way to go, Tom! How
> can bigots deny the Green Death?)
>
> [The Great Hunger has been carefully pruned from public libraries in
> California, and censored from the public school curriculum. I found out
> about it from the American Ireland PEC, in New York.]
>
> At 02:35 PM 12/9/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:19:04 -0800
> >> From: Tom Willis <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >> > >+ From what facts do you deduct that they run the government
> >> > >+ bad?
> >>
> >> && How about persecuting and stealing from most of the inhabitants
> >> of the country ? Prohibiting their education. Trying to wipe out
> >> their culture and religion. Impoverishing them and setting up a
> >> situation which allowed for a famine. Absentee Landlords. Famous
> >> corruption in the courts. Severely limiting Irish commerce.
> >> Bribery. Eventually getting thrown out. That seems like an
> >> adequate list.
> >
> >I agree that what you describe would be considered bad to our current
> >standards as to how a government should run a country. But that's
> >been exactly what I have been saying all the time: That you cannot
> >judge past actions by current standards. At the time these decisions
> >were made that way in Britain it still was considered the godgiven
> >right of the aristocracy that had been elected by god to run the
> >state to do such things. As it was, at that time, in most countries
> >on this planet. And I know of no way to decide if this wasn't god's
> >will. At least I know of no explicit statement in the bible or any
> >other christian religious statement that tells differently or could
> >not be interpreted in a way that fits that system.
> >Christianity does in no way talk about democracy and the equality of
> >all humans. At least not according to what I have learned in 20 years
> >in Catholic Church. On the contrary, christianity is talking about a
> >herd of sheep (stupid population) that has to be ruled by their
> >herdsmen, and HAS TO OBEY their decisions.
> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> >+ From
> >> >+ what facts do you deduct that in the last century it was
> >> >+ considered to be the responsibility of the government to care
> >> >+ that its governed would not starve to death?
> >>
> >> && Well the whole medieval idea of nobility was that it had its
> >> privileges because it defended the people. This is not a modern
> >> idea. Morality was not invented in the 20th century. Rudyard
> >> Kipling even wrote "The White Man's Burden" during the 19th
> >> century.
> >
> >Oh how nice. That's perhaps the early justification for that system,
> >but in no way was in place since the high medieval, since when it was
> >considered to be the GODGIVEN RIGHT of the nobility to do as they
> >like. This was even brought fourth as A RELIGIOUS DOGMA BY THE POPE!
> >>
> >> >+ From which knowledge do you deduct that it
> >> >+ is, in fact, the natural responsibility of the government to
> >> >+ care for its governed?
> >>
> >> && The alternative is that the natural role of the government is to
> >> exploit the governed. It's pretty obvious that isn't right.
> >
> >Why? I mean, pretty obvious to our modern understanding, I agree, but
> >that this is an universal law is not obvious, at least not to me.
> >>
> >> && What you're missing is that whether or not to have a standing
> ><snipped>
> >> penal laws are models of oppression.
> >
> >Once again you are heaving your private interpretation of what is
> >right and wrong to the level of universal correctness. These
> >persecutions, whatever my opinion is personally, can only be called
> >evil according to a special code of morale, but can be considered
> >completely OK under a lot of other codes of morale. I do not know if
> >my personal opinion is right, and I would not in the slightest dare
> >to claim universal correctness for my private opinion, as this would
> >be hybris.
> >>
> >> && The famine occured because 1) an unjust situation was set up in
> >> which Group A was desperately impoverished and marginally
> >> surviving;
> >
> >According to what superior universal knowledge you have can you judge
> >that the situation was unjust. Justice is something which depend on
> >the system you are in, and is equally a system that has been made by
> >humans for humans, and as such is nothing universal. What is just in
> >one system may not be just in another.
> >
> >> 2) there was a crop failure;
> >
> >This is solid historical fact.
> >
> >> 3) the government failed to
> >> take the actions necessary to feed the people.
> >
> >Yes, but the question you are completely leaving out is: were they
> >able to do so at all? This as well depends upon actual resources as
> >on the beliefs and opinions held at that time. And those beliefs and
> >opinions, as far as we can say from the document sources, were that
> >it is better to let nature have its way.
> >>
> >> > > + Yes, I am refusing to take position wether this action was
> ><snipped>
> >> intended to make more living room for the Germans.
> >
> >You almost got it. Yes, it is only a personal decision if you (or I)
> >consider if something is evil. Objectivly it cannot be decided if it
> >was or not. Every such statement is A SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and
> >as such CANNOT BE HISTORICAL FACT!. That is what I am saying, and
> >that is what is so crucially important in historical science: that
> >you do not mix historical facts with such subjective interpretations.
> >As such, I personally condemn the Nazi dictatorship and its use of
> >concentration camps as evil, but I do not claim that it is a
> >historical fact that it was evil. This exactly is the difference
> >between fact and interpretation, and this is what takes science above
> >the level of personal beliefs - that it keeps facts and
> >interpretations apart.
> >>
> >> && We have a clear evil of 1,000,000 innocent people starving, and
> ><snipped>
> >> definite evil.
> >
> >Once again you are assigning universal superiority to your personal
> >beliefs. It is not morally correct to kill an innocent person
> >according to YOUR CODE OF MORALE. I, too, think that it is not
> >morally correct to kill an innocent person, but I cannot say if, in
> >the "plan of the universe", be it made by a god, multiple gods, or
> >whatever, this is ok or not.
> >Just as an example, take a look at Judas, the one who sold Jesus to
> >the Romans: He made it possible that the Romans kill the innocent
> >person Christ, and therefore he is condemned by Christianity. Have
> >you ever thought that if Judas had not decided to sell Christ, God's
> >plan to save us from original sin by sacrificing his own son would
> >not have worked? In fact, every Christian should thank Judas and
> >revere him much more than Christ, as while Christ returned to heaven
> >instantly Judas took eternal damnation on himself and thereby saved
> >us all! Christ took the easy way of suffering shortly and then
> >sitting to the right of god, while Judas decided to take the hard way
> >and sacrificed himself to eternal damnation and thereby saved us all.
> >I personally think that Judas decision is the harder one, and the
> >more important one. Now was it evil what he did? Or was it good? In
> >my eyes, if the greater plan for the universe was to save us from
> >damnation, his decision was good, not evil, as if he had decided
> >differntly, the greater plan for the universe would have failed. Well,
> >of course there still exists the option that god's greater plan for
> >the universe was to leave us condemned, then of course the decision
> >of Judas was evil as it spoiled HIS plans ...
> >I, to make my point, do not know what god's (if there is one) greater
> >plan for the universe does look like, so I am not able to judge if
> >something is against HIS plan or not. But only something against HIS
> >plan can be considered to be evil, don't you think?
> >>
> >> && OK, so you have some criteria about what is right and wrong.
> >> You're just not willing
> >> to be explicit about what they are. So we all get to guess.
> >
> >My criteria are those which are currently accepted as human rights.
> >And for me the primary element of human rights is TOLERANCE. Or, so
> >to say, "Live and let live".
> >And, just as a sidenote, I think that's much more in the way of what
> >Christ wanted us to do when we follow him than your positions, which
> >are, as far as I can see, primarily aimed at pointing at wrongs done by
> >somebody else against you, your people or whatever you consider to
> >be the "right" way of doing something. I think I remember a statement
> >of him that is very often forgotten by many people that "fight" for
> >"justice" (sorry if my translation is not completely in line with
> >those you know, but for this my English is not good enough): If
> >somebody strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other as well.
> >>
> >> && The unnecessary death of 1,000,000 innocent people is a definite
> >> and universal evil. Every person of good will knows this.
> >
> >Well, then probably I am not a person of good will. I do not know
> >this, as I know nothing that is definite and universal. And in fact,
> >I am very much fearing those who do, as nobody is a better killer
> >than the one who knows that he is rightful ...
> >>
> >> && OK part of this is a semantic issue. You're on the edge of
> ><snipped>
> >> describe the ethics of the action.
> >
> >Ethics and Moral both are something subjective. It changes nothing
> >how you call it, there is no way of how to decide what is
> >"inherently, superior, naturally or universally" right or wrong, as
> >no human can ever accieve a level of knowledge or wisdom that can
> >make him know if something is universally right or wrong. This is
> >impossible, and be it only due to the fact that our brain has only a
> >limited calculating capacity.
> >>
> >> && What you've described is a philosophy which would justify Nazism
> ><snipped>
> >> benefit to your group.
> >
> >So it is, in your opinion, a good decision if the leader of group A
> >decides that his people should starve, as it is not ok to take the
> >food from group B, or do I interpret you wrong here?
> >>
> >> && This is a popular game for professors to play. To come up with a
> ><snipped>
> >> like Maximilian Kolbe and give up your life for another.
> >
> >Well, I know a lot of such example in life. For instance look at the
> >decision of the American government to intervene in Europe in WWII.
> >Had they decided not to do so, they would have risked that the Nazi
> >would kill millions of innocent people when they dominated Europe.
> >However, by deciding to do so they condemed themselves some millions
> >of innocent people to death, starting with American soldiers and
> >ending with the death of German children that were killed by the bombs
> >American airplanes threw on their houses. This is not a makebelieve
> >example, but as real as you can want: Now tell me: Was it a good or
> >an evil decision to join? Whatever they choose would possibly result
> >in the death of millions of innocent people. How would you have
> >choosen?
> >For someone who is having no responsibilities but his own life it is
> >often easy to find another possibility, which can be later
> >interpreted as "the good decision". But once you only even have a
> >family for which you have taken up responsibilities, the decisions
> >become more complex, and often enough you can only decide for the
> >"lesser bad" then already. Now imagine how much complex these
> >decisions become, how much bigger the responsibilities are, when you
> >have to care for the fate of some millions.
> >All in all, I have to say that you are, in my opinion, much to fast
> >to condemn somebody in my eyes, all based on your little private view
> >of the world. Even more, if somebody steps up and says that maybe
> >your view isn't the only valid, or that you might have forgotten the
> >one or other point in your calculations, you accuse him of writing
> >"false history", of failing to accept "universal evil" as such, of
> >not falling into the category of "every human with good will". This
> >is deeply intolerant.
> >>
> >> && This is tangential, but we may as well deal with some more false
> ><snipped>
> >> were to reclaim Asia Minor.
> >
> >You see, once again there is that "false history" issue. In fact, the
> >Crusades were only a rightful reconquista of territory illegaly
> >stolen from Christianity by the evil moslems. Man, this in no way
> >fell in the responsibility of the Roman pope. What the Moslems had
> >conquered was part of the Eastern Roman empire that had no connection
> >at all with English, French or German knights. And in fact, the
> >Moslems let anybody who wished to stay Christian, while the "brave
> >christian knights" who rightfully reconquered territory stolen
> >illegaly by the Moslems on direct papal order slaughtered not only
> >any Moslems and Jews that came in their way alike, stole their
> >property, raped their women, subjugated their land and sold their
> >children into slavery but as well killed the Arameian christians that
> >accidentially came in their way, beleaguered Constantinople and
> >attacked anything that came in their way.
> >This once again shows a biased view that what you think of as the
> >right way of living has a right to do any way he pleases. In fact,
> >the Muslim states of the medieval were much more tolerant than most
> >modern Christian states today, especially on the matter of religion,
> >and a million times more tolerant than any Pope in all Christian
> >history.
> >What you do is defending every wrong commited by the side you believe
> >is doing right as necessary, rightful or as only a reaction for
> >something where somebody else is really responsible for. This is
> >apologistic historicism in it's most dangerous form!
> >>
> >> && This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. To quote the
> ><snipped>
> >> 97.6% effectiveness for a particular method.
> >
> >Oh yes, and I am the king of China. The only natural method that has
> >an effectiveness of more than 50% is: No sex! and that is actually
> >what John Paul II. is preaching: If you don't want children, don't
> >have sex. If you have sex without wanting children, this is sin! Look
> >at his last apostolic letters on sex if you need any confirmation on that
> >matter.
> >
> >> > And always remember: Christianity IS NOT the only valid system of
> >> > morality. It is one of many, and we have no way to know which is
> >> > the "correct" one.
> >>
> >> && There is a way to know which is the correct one. As Jesus said,
> >> "By their fruits you shall know them."
> >
> >Then I can only deeply advise you to change your faith to Celtic
> >Paganism. I know of not a single war, murder, rape, theft or any
> >crime commited in the name of the ancient Celtic religion. Of course,
> >you also welcome to revert to Buddhism, which has a lot less wars,
> >crimes and murders to be proud of than Christianity. In fact, with
> >the exception of the modern interpretation of the Islam by some of
> >the fundamentalists I know of no religion that has been more brutal,
> >inhumane and intolerant than Christianity, especially Catholic
> >christianity.
> >If those are their fruits, I know very well that this can't be the
> >religion that is the right one.
> >
> >RAY
> >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager