Harry, Just because you can explain it doesn't make it right. I long for the good old days of the fairness doctrine. There are SOO many reasons for something being popular. Remember how popular the Coliseum was? There were more people murdered in the Coliseum than by Hitler and Stalin combined. And in a time of much lower population figures. I guess you could argue for any kind of support of conquering murderers as giving the people what they wanted. That was certainly the reason for the yellow journalism that murdered Indian men, women and children in the 19th century. It was more popular to send those Cherokees to Oklahoma, steal their farms, businesses, censor their newspaper, ban their written language, ban their religion, and eventually end up sterilizing their women without their knowledge up until 1978. Because it was popular.
Harry that argument is immoral and undemocratic and you should be ashamed of yourself. I expected more. REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Commentary From Fr. Matthew Fox....Inneresting... > Ray, > > The trouble with Novak (from his remark) is that it sells. The trouble that > inflicted poor old Phil is that he didn't sell. In fact the reason that > right-wing people dominate the radio talk shows is that they achieve > ratings. People like to listen to them. > > I should have seen this was happening a long time ago. I listened regularly > to Michael Jackson, a former Englishman, who held the morning spot on our > ABC station for about 30 years. > > Michael was an American liberal. He knew everyone in politics, everyone > from the international scene and, most important, everyone in the arts - > particularly the Hollywood crowd.. He is married to the daughter of Alan Ladd. > > He also came in early and read all the papers before going on the air. > > Obviously such an urbane, sophisticated, experienced radio talk show host > will survive for ever. Yet, he was fired. More people were listening to the > loud mouths than to Michael. Perhaps more importantly his liberalism > possibly seemed more dated that his competition. > > He was replaced by Dennis Prager - a conservative who also exhibited > similar traits to Michael. He is a scholar, a writer of a number of books, > fun to listen to - someone who is as likely to launch into a deep > discussion of religion as anything else. He held the spot for some time, > then was knocked out by more active hosts. > > Prager now has a national show on what appears to be a conservative network > with people like Michael Medwin and Hugh Hewitt. He is still often > interesting, but is maybe a smidgen louder than he used to be. > > I know little of Savage. Occasionally, my son gets him on car radio, but I > haven't really listened to him. I don't recall anything he's said, but he > seems to have a pushy, intrusive voice. > > I wonder if they'll run him on delay so they can bleep out what can't be > allowed to reach sensitive American ears? Back in the 50's, in the Toronto > CBC studios their delay method wasn't electronic. They had an endless tape > running around several posts to provide the delay. One evening the tape > broke and the host had to decide quickly - replace me with music, or go > ahead. He decided to go ahead. > > I thought at the time that was a compliment. On reflection, it was probably > that anything I said would be so innocuous so the delay didn't matter. (As > radio and television were changing back in those days, a lot of programs > seemed to run on (Rube Goldberg - US) (Heath Robinson - UK) hook-ups. > > Towards his demise, Donahue seemed to have some better programming - but > it apparently didn't help. I didn't often agree with him - but it's a > shame he's gone. > > I don't think that priests are necessarily paedophiles. Rather, I would > suspect that kids are merely targets of opportunity. They are what's available. > > Would Karen, Selma, Sally, et al, kindly avert their eyes for the next two > paragraphs - which may be said to be sexually explicit. > > My assumption for male sexually is derived from an old saw. It is: > > "All a man needs is a hole in the wall." > > This may be the reason for priestly misbehavior with children. If adults > had provided the opportunities, they might be chosen. But, sadly, it is the > kids with whom the failed priest might have most intimate contact. > > The assumption is born out in prisons and other venues without women. The > prisoners aren't (necessarily) homosexual. They are looking for something > better than a hole in the wall. The same may be said of some (or many) > "homosexuals". > > If they are afraid of women, or whatever, they may turn to men. This is not > to deny actual homosexuality. We seem to be a mixture of male and female > characteristics. That the mixture may veer in either direction seems normal. > > So, the sad priest caught up in this situation may yield to temptation. It > is wrong, but I'm not convinced it does irretrievable damage to the kid. In > fact, the bottomless coffers of the Catholic Church may provide temptation > in reverse. > > But, harm to a child rasps our sensibilities and wrinkles our nose in > disgust. This doesn't make such things easy to think about. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Ray wrote: > > >I don't know much about this but I do know that former Clinton harasser > >and FBI director Louis Freeh, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and > >the Russian spy Hanson were all members of the same Opus Dei chapter in > >Virginia. Could any of you fill me in on the assertions in this article > >and who Matthew Fox is? His statement about ideology is one that I > >resonate with from my own experience. Leadership as authority rather > >than service. Which brings me to those folks who have captured the > >Republican Party and are ordering us all to shut up and go to war or be > >tried for sedition. I heard Robert Novak accuse a long time > >journalistic colleague yesterday of being a Stalinist on the Capital > >Gang. She should have called him a follower of Mussolini and a fascist > >pig but she was too taken aback to reply in kind. > > > >REH > > > >Subject: Commentary From Fr. Matthew Fox....Inneresting... > >bb13e9.jpg > > Welcome: A Response to Priestly Pedophilia Revelations > >bb1425.jpg > >I don�?Tt think the issue in priestly pedophilia is celibacy as such. > >There are successful celibates in the Western church and in Eastern > >monastic communities. It is a pity that good priests and monks are being > >tainted by the abuse of some-and cover-up of hierarchy. It is true that > >celibacy can serve as a candle of allurement to a moth who has unresolved > >sexual issues. > > > >It appears that a high percentage (one psychologist has told me 100%) of > >pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children. When that happens > >there is often one of two reactions as one reaches puberty: Either an > >acting out that results in great libertinism or a closing up that > >registers as a kind of virginal life style. Clearly, a promise of celibacy > >would appeal to the latter type as it seems to �?osolve the problem�?� of > >one�?Ts sexual dysfunction lending it high social status as a priest. What > >is even more clear, however, is that this �?~hiding away�?T from one�?Ts > >sexuality only lasts so long and then it bursts out as violence to the > >next generation. > > > >I believe that the deeper scandal being exposed by priestly pedophilia, > >however, concerns centuries of negative teaching about sexuality by the > >church and the misuse of celibacy as a political device to keep a clique > >in authoritarian power. This alone explains the incessant cover ups by > >Cardinal Law and other hierarchy over the years. > > > >�?oA mistake about creation results in a mistake about God�?� St. Thomas > >Aquinas warned seven centuries ago. The church has been involved and is > >still involved in false teaching about sexuality. Consider how these > >priests who were acting out their sexual violence on innocent youth were > >also, in the name of Catholic dogma, preaching in the pulpit and advising > >in the confessional that 1) it is wrong to practice birth control even at > >a time when the human population is swamping the rest of creation and 2) > >it is wrong to use condoms even at a time when people are dying world-over > >from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and 3) that all > >masturbation is a �?oserious sin�?� and 4) that homosexuality is a > >�?odisorder�?� and that all homosexuals must abstain from sex-i.e. be > >celibate even when these priests, or promises, were not and 5) women do > >not have the �?~equipment�?T to be ordained priests. > > > >What all this amounts to is a substitution for the God of healthy > >sexuality (a God of creation) with man-made rules that enforce an > >authoritarian and patriarchal system of hierarchy that covers up the > >serious offenses of its all-male caste members in the name of secrecy and > >not rocking the boat. Protecting the perpetrator proves to be a higher > >priority than protecting innocent youth. Everything gets sacrificed to > >perpetuating the all-male club. (Theologians also get sacrificed to this > >voracious god of secrecy.) And of course it is verboten to even discuss > >opening the club up to married clergy for fear of tainting the closed system. > > > >Early in the twentieth century a Celtic poet wrote a poem entitled > >�?oPater Noster�?� in which the dominant image was the church as a great > >sailing vessel that sailed successfully through wild hurricanes and > >ferocious storms over nineteen centuries but then-in the twentieth > >century-crashed into sank. The rock�?Ts name was �?~Sex.�?T > > > >The revelations of sexual misconduct are the chicken coming home to roost > >for the Roman Catholic church. You cannot teach falsely about creation, > >i.e. sexuality, and rightly about other forms of power. That is why the > >credibility of this organization and its �?~infallible�?T hierarchy will > >never recover from these revelations. Nor need they. The church is being > >demythologized. The spiritual revolution that Jesus set loose needs > >ecclesial structures to play a lesser, not a greater, role in the future > >when humankind must travel more lightly and must put spirituality ahead of > >religion and orthopractice ahead of orthodoxies. > > > >The late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago used to speak about the �?oseamless > >garment�?� of Catholic morality. One implication of a �?~seamless > >garment�?T is that when one thread unravels the whole garment does the > >same. We are currently witnessing the unraveling of the Roman Catholic > >church particularly as regards its secrecy and male-dominated clubbiness > >which means of course the repression of the feminine. > > > >To understand this clubbiness and male-domination one must grasp the role > >that Opus Dei plays in the current papacy. Indeed, Cardinal Law is a card > >carrying member of Opus Dei and its poster child for the North American > >church. Opus Dei is a secretive organization spawned in Franco�?Ts fascist > >Spain and rehabilitated by the current pope who has put it under his wing > >and appointed bishops and cardinals especially in Latin America and North > >America from its ranks. Even the pope�?Ts press secretary is Opus Dei. > >This organization�?Ts commitment to secrecy and male-brotherhood combined > >with serious banking interests in Europe has set the tone for the secret > >�?oboys club�?� mentality that we now see has been busy covering up > >priestly pedophilia while it also expels theologians from the priesthood. > >It also explains the embarrassingly low caliber of appointment of bishops > >and cardinals during the current Vatican regime. The sole criteria for > >selection have been right-wing ideology and unquestioning obedience. The > >German mafia who run the Vatican today are in bed with Opus Dei who run > >the episcopacy. Those looking to understand the scandal of hierarchical > >silence about pedophiliac priests might do well to research the role of > >Opus Dei in this papacy, the most corrupt papacy since the Borgias. > > > >Opus Dei has no need for theologians, only ideologues. Their theology is > >all made up and it centers around unquestioned obedience to the > >�?~leader�?T. This is why the condemnation of theologians and expulsion > >from their religious orders has become such a common practice during this > >papacy serving, as it did, a larger purpose of spreading fear into the > >ranks of potential theologians. When theologians are expelled or > >threatened, ideology takes over. It is amazing indeed how the press has > >treated the Vatican as a Teflon papacy over the years of John Paul II and > >how uncurious it has been about the role of Opus Dei in the > >decision-making levels of the Roman Catholic Church and the attitude it > >has spawned of �?oprotect the institution at all costs.�?� In light of the > >revelations now flowing from the injured �?ofaithful�?� of the church at > >the grass roots, history will not be so forgiving. Nor, hopefully, will > >the laity ever again be so naïve or so in denial. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
