- This topic has 62 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
The question of personal belief, which so exercises both secular and religious fundamentalists, was not essentially, the purpose of my original post, but rather the positive, beneficial effect of our country having an over-arching Christian culture on our moral standards, generally, irrespective of individuals’ personal beliefs.
An atheist may, of course, question a Christian’s claim of a causal connection between the demise of Christianity as the State religion and the galloping anarchy and degeneracy of the nation. However, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts, so despite the question of the causal connection, anyone remotely familiar with the fifties and sixties, or who browses through the archives of newspapers of the period, cannot but be struck by the difference in the rates of serious crimes and as well as their very nature in some areas; or, for that matter, who ponders the record rates of teenage (and sub-teenage) pregnancies and abortions, compared to the rest of Europe, the rate of VD among school-children, and so on, while they still tell us that sex-education, even for infants, is the way forward. Any lad who needs an education to perform that, well….
Of course, they claim it’s really about contraception. Well, then why not confine it to that. Throw in "sensitive relationship" , if that’s also an imponderable.What would your views be on the 10,000 or so allegations of abuse by members of the clergy, mainly in the US, a nation we seem to be heading towards and what seems the systematical attempt to brush it under the carpet by their superiors ? Or the rate of divorces within the Church which is according to some approaching the national average
Christ told us that the second commandment, to love our neighbour as ourself, is like the first, to love God, himself, whole-heartedly.
A notion that different factions within the followers of Jesus Christ seem incapable of doing
But how can we claim to love God then, if we are prepared to ignore the plight of the needy – failing, in a meaningful way to even want to change the economic structure of our world, which has been so disastrously polarising the wealth in the West.
Wealth and the Church. They haven’t done too badly over the years off members of the congregation, many of them needy themselves. Polarising ? Would the Churchs investments in arms companies be a recentish example ?
In a recent encycical, Charity in Truth, Pope Benedict lays out what seems to amount to a Sting, which has taken the best part of 2000 years in the preparation, pointing out that neoliberal economics have brought us to the brink of planetary catastrophe on economic and ecological levels. Not that he omit’s the matter of personal morality, but that has been a constant in the Church’s teaching, if not always practice.
Charity in Truth – That’s a big read. I’ve read the introduction. No charity without truth, no truth without love. Justice and the common good is a good part.
"Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person’s good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of “all of us”, made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society. It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them
.
Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis
[/color:8n8bjvh2].
This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations, in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God."
I guess the tricky part is still who decides what is the common good and the inevitable conclusion that some will be better off than others, not unlike a democracy I guess which leads on to the bit in bold. The higher up the pólis the more influence you wield, the more likely you are able to impose your own ideas of what the common good should be regardless of your capabilities to do so. Sounds a bit like our present Government.
I will endeavour to read the rest of Charity & Truth when I have a moment, if nothing else it might get me thinking about things but I have an idea it might just reinforce my views on the subjectFaith is intimately connected with the other two, so-called theological virtues, Hope and Charity or selfless love; The theological virtues are gifts of grace from God, and the object of the virtues—what the practice of the virtue aims at—is God Himself.
But we know from Matthew’s Gospel and from our own personal experience that the very good people are well-represented among non-believers (in terms of conscious belief, although their actions indicate a belief and commitment at the only important level for the individual, not that a religious upbringing or ambience would never be a factor).
As for the truth of our respective positions, bbobbell, as with horse-races, time alone will tell who’s right.
I wrote a song a couple of years ago which pretty much put forward my position which if you will forgive the indulgence I have listed the first verse below.
There’s a thing you all should know
About what happens when you die
There’s no place left to go
No place up in the sky
No fire burning down below
No treble six to find
The only place you’re going to
Is the back of someones mindI was going to say I fear you are going to be disappointed when you die because there will be nothing there but that would kind of contradict the whole no God argument because with your last breath you will still have the belief that there is "somewhere" to go. It matters not one jot whether there is or not. If there is your faith will have been vindicated, if not you’ll not know anything about it. Not an all together bad way of looking at things I suppose.
I wish you well and admire your faith however misguided I think you might be
I thought this was about the shambolic decision to release the lockerbie bomber. Whether the decision was right or not (i think not) the repsonse of the libyans has been vile. But if the idiot who saw this through had any idea of the wider world, then he would have known that that was coming
I thought this was about the shambolic decision to release the lockerbie bomber. Whether the decision was right or not (i think not) the repsonse of the libyans has been vile. But if the idiot who saw this through had any idea of the wider world, then he would have known that that was coming
Agree the welcome was vile but not unexpected.
However I don’t actually have a problem with his release – notwithstanding the fact he is terminally ill and has only a short time to live it was a brave decision showing compassion.
Moreover I happen to believe he was not responsible for the bombing, certainly not directly responsible and most of the so called evidence was circumstantial – I believe he was a scapegoat.
The trial itself was flawed – any trial held in front of just judges has to be questioned and to me it stank of a political show trial – especially with most of the "evidence" coming from US security sources – whom I would not trust as far as I could throw them. I cannot see how he was convicted “beyond all reasonable doubt”
As regards the interference in the decision from America – what right do they have to stick their noses into an internal Scottish decision?
The US – a nation where they hold political prisoners without trial and torture them as well , a nation where prisoners are executed having been denied the right to appeal, a nation where the means of execution results in a barbaric painful death for the prisoner. Hypocrits!!
The reason he was released on compassionate grounds is (imo), because his conviction would have been quashed at his appeal hearing.
As I understand it, Megrahi was granted leave for compassionate release only if he dropped his appeal. Who can blame him for choosing the former option?
The reaction in Libya, whilst abhorrent if we believe Megrahi is guilty, is perhaps more understandable if you believe – as surely many Libyan’s do – he is victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Like Paul, I have personally never been convinced of his guilt, and it is no coincidence (imo) that Libya was the United States public-enemy number-one at the time of the atrocity. If the Lockerbie bombing had taken place ten years later, I’m pretty sure they would have found an Iraqi to pin it on.
My preference would have been to have listened to the evidence of his appeal. This outcome doesn;t really serve justice, and the "compassionate release" argument just looks like a huge smokescreen
Because the victims were largely american. As stated in the times today, its only by chance that this is a scottish issue. Ten minutes later and the plane would have been in international waters. Two minutes earlier, over England. I think they have every right.
Hope things getting better for you Paul
However I don’t actually have a problem with his release – notwithstanding the fact he is terminally ill and has only a short time to live it was a brave decision showing compassion
I’m surprised with you Paul…him not having served one half of his sentence and all….
Strange old thing thou – 27 years for being convicted of blowing up 270 people, 30 years for robbing a train….
The UN’s independent observer under a Security Council resolution sat through the whole Lockerbie trial and found the conviction little short of perverse :
http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm
His conclusion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
17…..proper judicial procedure is simply impossible if political interests and intelligence services − from whichever side − succeed in interfering in the actual conduct of a court…… The purpose of intelligence services − from whichever side − lies in secret action and deception, not in the search for truth. Justice and the rule of law can never be achieved without transparency.
18. Regrettably, through the conduct of the Court, disservice has been done to the important cause of international criminal justice.
The goals of criminal justice on an international level cannot be advanced in a context of power politics and in the absence of an elaborate division of powers.
What is true on the national level, applies to the transnational level as well.
No national court can function if it has to act under pressure from the executive power and if vital evidence is being withheld from it because of political interests.
The realities faced by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands have demonstrated this truth in a very clear and dramatic fashion − the political impact stemming, in this particular case, from a highly complex web of national and transnational interests related to the interaction among several major actors on the international scene.
=========================================
Many more links here for those interested (may need to add manually latter part of the link):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3% … er_mission
Paul Foot in his Private Eye compilation said the evidence pointed to the bomb going on board at Heathrow, in circumstances that the US and UK intelligence services would be best able to explain.
…on which the UN observer’s sentence bears repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The purpose of intelligence services − from whichever side − lies in secret action and deception, not in the search for truth.
===========================Its successive US and UK political leaders who have failed and continue to fail the victims.
At least now though an innocent has been released – a man who took an almighty hit for his country in the whole charade.
best regards
wit
However I don’t actually have a problem with his release – notwithstanding the fact he is terminally ill and has only a short time to live it was a brave decision showing compassion
I’m surprised with you Paul…him not having served one half of his sentence and all….
Strange old thing thou – 27 years for being convicted of blowing up 270 people, 30 years for robbing a train….
I believe Biggs was guilty I don’t believe al-Megrahi is – if I thought he was then I would expect him to serve his full sentence.
And yes – as you suggest 27 years is not enough for blowing up 270 people – if guilty he should have received 270 life sentences – makes you wonder why he didn’t doesn’t it?
The reason he was released on compassionate grounds is (imo), because his conviction would have been quashed at his appeal hearing.
As I understand it, Megrahi was granted leave for compassionate release only if he dropped his appeal. Who can blame him for choosing the former option?
The reaction in Libya, whilst abhorrent if we believe Megrahi is guilty, is perhaps more understandable if you believe – as surely many Libyan’s do – he is victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Like Paul, I have personally never been convinced of his guilt, and it is no coincidence (imo) that Libya was the United States public-enemy number-one at the time of the atrocity. If the Lockerbie bombing had taken place ten years later, I’m pretty sure they would have found an Iraqi to pin it on.
My preference would have been to have listened to the evidence of his appeal. This outcome doesn;t really serve justice, and the "compassionate release" argument just looks like a huge smokescreen
It isn’t often I agree with you Grassy but I think you are spot on here.
The appeal would have been highly embarassing for both the US and UK governments and the granting of his release in turn for dropping the appeal is most expedient – I would venture to suggest that was the gist of the meeting between al-Megrahi and MacAskill.
It will be interesting to see just how terminal his cancer is and if he will die inside three months.
Paul, it doesn’t matter what you think – both were convicted. One is either consistent in one’s views or one is a hypocrite.
Its one of those news stories i have never really followed too thoroughly, so wouldnt comment on his guilt or otherwise. But it was arrogant of the scots not to bring american views into consideration given that they were the prime victims. American anger is perfectly justified
As for Paul foot Wit…well…. Far left american hater who no doubt embraced all islamist causes and dictators (as they tend to do), so will pass on that one….
wit, thanks for the links – fantastic reading, particularly Koechler’s Malaysian speech on International terrorism.
Paul, it doesn’t matter what you think – both were convicted. One is either consistent in one’s views or one is a hypocrite.
No hypocrisy at all.
One was convicted using a jury system with overwhelming evidence and even Biggs himself has admitted he took part in the robbery.
The other was "convicted" in a political show trial and should not have been in prison in the first place – and if you recall from other threads I am coming at this as a person who is no friend of Arab States so I am not approaching this one on a "political" basis.
There is a world of difference between ones reaction to a guilty criminal and a political prisoner.
Hope things getting better for you Paul
Cheers Clive – hopefully should be back racing "part time" again next week.
Did one day, at Chester, last week and was knackered afterwards – hopefully another week of rest should do the trick.
No hypocrisy at all
So no hypocrisy, as both these men hadn’t served half their sentance, between this view of a man convicted of a Train Robbery:
Do I care he is a decrepit old man, not in the least – he made his bed he can lie in it. As far as I am concerned he can rot in his cell
And this view of a man convicted of murdering 270 people:
I don’t actually have a problem with his release
Once again Paul, it’s doesn’t matter what you think, both these men were convicted under due process. We either accept the rule of law we live under or we don’t it’s not a case of picking and choosing to suit our position…..
Pompete
that’s the whole point – there WAS NOT due process for either of the Libyans (see the ridiculous gymnastics even around the unconvicted one).
the trial and the subsequent appeal attempts were all run on the basis of effectively unchallengeable arbitrary and contradictory "trust me" statements from the intelligence services of the US and the UK, using governmental "public interest immunity" certificates.
Dr Koechler, the independent UN observer, said this in 2008:
"Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland.
At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale – its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as "supreme state interests" interfere with the imperatives of justice. (…)
The fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest.
If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order – such as a state’s momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests.
The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience."
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Lockerbie-22Sept08.htm
clivexx,
if – despite your self-admitted unfamiliarity with the detail of the case – you automatically discount the views of an investigative journalist who knew it inside-out, for no better reason than that his politics happened to be left-wing, what is your reason for dismissing the views of Dr Koechler ?
With respect Wit, it is my view that Jack Straw’s rejection of the Parole Boards decision to release Ronnie Biggs was a political decision (see my opening post in the Ronnie Biggs thread) he posed no threat to society and grounds for compassion were overwhelming – therefore making him a political prisoner.
Consequently, I don’t see the difference.
Incidentally to get the facts straight we all know that the Libyan’s wouldn’t have handed over the two suspects to face a Scottish jury in a Scottish court – therefore the trial in Holland under Scottish Law presided upon by three Scottish judges was the only option – not from the British or the Americans but the Libyans.
Btw, I don’t believe his guilty and I believe the Scottish Justice Minister reached the right decision to release him on compassionate grounds.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.