By Cardinal Cormac Murphy-OConnor (from a lecture he gave at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, on April 14)
I remember sitting at home in Reading as a boy of 9 listening to the radio. It was 1941, a very bad time for England in the Second World War. Winston Churchill was reading a poem, Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth by Arthur Clough. The last verse has always resonated with me:
And not by eastern windows only, When daylight comes, comes in the light.
In front, the sun climbs slow, how slowly, But westward, look, the land is bright.
Churchill hardly needed to explain to his anxious audience that while darkness had fallen across Europe under the Nazi shadow, it was from the West across the Atlantic that the rays of hope shone brightly.
Today Americans still readily embrace both religious faith and patriotism, a striking paradox in a land where Church and State are deliberately separated. We have much to learn from the people of the United States. Their search for a better life and their optimism are linked with their religious faith. From their first day at school, American children learn to salute the flag and declare their Americanness. They say: God bless America, and then happily add: Im a Baptist, or a Jew, a Catholic or a Muslim. To them, it seems, being a good Catholic, a good Jew, a good Baptist or a good Muslim fits in perfectly with being a good American. Americans always look with hopeful eyes to the future. Problems can be solved, people can be saved and God will continue to bless his people. Since the days of the Pilgrim Fathers, Americans have seen themselves as a chosen people, called to share in Gods work in history.
The contrast with Europe is striking. In the first place, Europeans have misgivings about patriotism because of the extreme nationalism that blighted Europe throughout the past century. The European Union is a conscious attempt to transcend national loyalties and to foster a new European identity based on common values. But Europes slow and painful birth has involved an attempt to brush under the carpet the continents Christian heritage. Whether it is motivated by overt hostility to religion or by a desire to find a lowest common denominator, such denial of the obvious is unhealthy and dishonest.
Europes mood is pessimistic. This is surprising, as the institutions that were created postwar to keep the peace in Europe the EU itself, Nato, and the European Convention on Human Rights under the Council of Europe have been remarkably successful in this perennially troubled continent. Part of the problem may be that the role of religion is not usually acknowledged. The American example suggests that seeing Christianity as part of the European vision, rather than ignoring it, could only enhance the construction of a common European civilisation.
The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason were intellectual landmarks as much in Europe as in America, but the two continents have handled them very differently. The Founding Fathers who devised the American Constitution combined the vision that came from faith with the rationality that came from the Enlightenment.
In Europe faith and reason have generally been seen as mutually exclusive. But pure reason will never inspire bold visions and great deeds. It is worth remembering that the founders of postwar Europe were also men of faith (though no doubt entirely rational). If we Europeans now choose to ignore the energy that drove them, it is hardly surprising if the resulting grey edifice fails to fire the imagination of its citizens. Pretending that Christianity played no part in Europes history could undo the whole European project.
Europeans are tired of mindless con-sumerism and hungry for meaning at deeper levels. Meaning cannot be imposed from on high and the institutional churches in particular must learn to follow a humbler path than they have been used to. There is an alternative to the city on a hill model of the Kingdom of God which is central to American self-understanding and which has sometimes seemed to sanction a powerful and triumphalist role for the Church in society. The gospels offer the more modest, but no less vital, metaphor of the leaven in the dough, the unseen agent that enlivens and animates society from within.
The Church understood as leaven does not rule but serves. This kind of Church is inspired by Christs example to seek out the poor, the homeless, the imprisoned, the stranger, the lost and lonely, to attend to their needs and to stand alongside them offering hope and love. The Church in a plural society must shun every form of privilege and power and dedicate herself to serving the common good. She is challenged to renew herself so that she may do good by stealth. Her structures need to be recast so that they can better serve those who serve others, the laity above all. This recalls an ancient title given to the Pope, servant of the servants of God. A servant Church poses no threat to anyone, so there are no good grounds for excluding it and forms of secularism that do so are unacceptable. Without Christianitys optimistic and imaginative vision of the human person and the State, European society risks becoming spiritually barren.
Europe and America appear to be at different stages in their journey of faith. And there is a warning to both of them in that. In Americas case, the warning comes from the Old Testament history of another people that believed itself chosen. The warning is that there is a cyclical rhythm, where faithfulness is followed by laxity, even idolatry and unfaithfulness. The things of God become instruments of power, used for selfish or wicked purposes. In this spiritual cycle, the people who lost their way in the wilderness were rescued when a prophet appeared to remind them of their sins and show them the way back. Where Europe is in that cycle, and where America is, I leave to your imagination. But wherever they are, each can learn from the other. The American experience shows that religion and democracy must make room for each other: to banish religion from the public square in the name of freedom and democracy is to threaten freedom and democracy, and the very existence of that public square. The separation of Church and State may indeed guarantee diversity and the exclusion of none; but if it systematically excludes any, problems will follow.
I conclude on an encouraging note closer, I believe, to the reality we face with another verse from Arthur Cloughs poem:
#1
In Dallas, TX during the period of time that illegal immigrants were marching and demanding citizenships and rights without due process, apartments managed by latinos where many Mexicans were living had Mexican flags flying from the balconies. Along with slogans such as "Viva Mexican", etc. etc..
Later when those in America began a counter campaign, across the street from some of those apartments, was an apartment complex managed by Americans. They put up signs on each building on the complex facing the street and the latino complexes that had two things on the sign.
1) The American Flag. 2) "In God We Trust" in bold letters below the flag.
The Mexican flags and slogans were soon seen dissapearing from the neighboring latino complexes. There is something powerfull when the Amverican flag is combined with those words.
#2
The cardinal left out something about the early history of the USA. Many of the migrants from Europe had been suffering for centuries either from persecution for their religion (or lack of it) and/or suffering from the pointless wars of religions dating back to the Middle Ages, from which arose the infamous quote: "Kill them all, God will recognize his own."
The outcome was a population which both respects (and/or practices) various religions to a degree unknown in Europe, and which is willing to let others practice theirs (but only to a degree, killing apostates, human sacrifice and polygamy are prohibited by general agreement). Those lessons were very hard-earned. A key part of American mythology is its view of being the "city on a hill" for the world. Taken too far, that view can lead to tilting at windmills.
. . . The first job approval numbers for July are in and the Reuters/Zogby Poll shows Bush at 34 percent, Congress at 14 percent.
Under Democratic leadership, Congress has gone from the brink of the abyss and leaped. Whee!
Pollster John Zogby broke down the numbers. "The Democratic Congress gets poor marks across the ideological spectrum -- just 21 percent of liberals and 10 percent of the very liberal give it positive marks, while 14 percent of conservatives and 14 percent of the very conservative give it positive ratings," Zogby wrote.
"Among Democrats, just 19 percent give Congress positive marks, compared to 13 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of political independents.
"By way of comparison, the Republican Congress had a 23 percent positive job approval rating last October, just a week before voters tossed the GOP out of their leadership posts in both houses."
After six months, Democrats do have one bipartisan accomplishment: Everyone hates Congress. Not so George Walker Bush. Among Republicans, 63 percent still think he is doing an outstanding job
Congress now has no base outside of its staff, the reporters who cover it and Mom, and even she is wavering. . . .
Read the rest of it to see why this is not necessarily reason for Schadenfreude.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2007 08:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who do you trust to serve the agenda of special interest groups? Congress or your military?
Who do you trust to serve in the interests of America rather than special interest groups? Congress or your military?
Who do you trust to serve for traditional non-aggrandizing civic goals? Congress or your military?
You do you trust to focus on the traditional proper functions and goals of government? Congress or your military?
Who would you expect to expend their time seeking more power? Congress or your military?
Who places more emphasis of nation above party? Congress or your military?
If the pollsters started asking these questions, you think the usual suspects in Congress on both sides of the aisle might get a hint? Or are they that brain dead, they wouldn't have a clue?
#2
The laugher here is that the libs rate Congress low BECAUSE they have yet to impeach Bush+Cheney and have not yet defunded the war. The conservatives rate it low because the Donks are in the majority. The American public at large will always favor the Congress over the military. It's the basis of the republic. And when someone like the idiot Edelman tells Your Thighness she has no business knowing certain info, he's way off base. He's got Senators from both sides ticked. The military is subservient to the public will. It will remain so.
#4
The unpopularity of Congress might encourage a firebrand reformer to step into the presidential race. I wonder what Newt Gingrich is thinking when he hears this?
Posted by: AT ||
07/21/2007 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sorry Woozle - the military is not subserviant to the public will...not in the least. If follows the bidding of the CnC. Period. Even Congress can declare war over the objections of it's constituency. War is not an exercise in representative government...thank God. And Edelman is right in doing what he did. He's got Congress/Senate pissed? GOOD! Throw the lot of em out and start from scratch with term limits. Lifetime political elitism is poisoning this nation. Get rid of em.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
07/21/2007 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Lifetime political elitism is poisoning this nation.
Word, Rex. Special interests have entrenched their 'bots in office while we pay the price for it. Our trade issues with China are a glaring example of this.
#9
Actually Rex, the officer oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to obey the orders of the President. The enlisted servicemembers do have the phrase to 'obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them'. The former is to avoid the allegiance to a single leader be he Caesar, Cromwell, or Hitler, where by the way, each German soldiers was sworn to obey. They still had a culture that didn't believe in breaking oaths. Our allegiance is to a concept or idea rather than to a person. So when those holding power in the institution of government start implementing law, no matter how rationalized by the lawyers, which is clearly in direct violation of the Constitution, you'll place those who truly believe in the document in a position of choosing to act 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. Not looking forward to that time at all. However, you can see the handiwork already in motion.
#10
Zen & Rex, you're right about the posionous 'bots, BUT!!!!!!
The problem is that the civil service lifers are just as committed to the special interests and the less control the elected have over THEM the less control we, the voters, have.
Rock, meet hard place; hard place, meet rock.
This is the genesis of the anti-Bush CIA & State problem. Same things go on in all the less important and less visible agencies as well.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2007 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
JohnQC - You are right - see the link I posted in post #6. That's right - you're number one!
But, shhhh, it's a big secret that is not supposed to get out.
Posted by: AT ||
07/21/2007 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#16
It's a simple formula. America loves and respects a winner. We do not accept bad behavior from our winners, like Michael Vick or OJ. We do not accept lucrative gains at our expense, but we don't mind profit for goods or services, as in Bill Gates. Politics, however is supposedly a zero sum game, and we expect out politicians not to feed at the public trough. When they are caught, we like to crush them. When they behave badly, we like to replace them.
Except donks. When their politicians behave badly, they sometimes become heros, like Willy.
Finally, we expect our military to be winners, behave correctly, and we make heros out of all of them.
Too bad Hollywood has gone so far into the darkness of their imaginations that they search without a clue for a hero from a fight. They can't even find a fight worthy of a hero, yet the world is abuzz with war. The world is upside down now.
#17
Yep, my oath is to support and defend the const of the US against all enemies, foreign & domestic, and to bear true faith & allegiance to the same, etc.
No mention of pres, country or congress.
Porcopious2k makes a point I've been wondering about the last two months -- gonna come a time when congress pulls some blatant shit in violation of the const -- I'm wondering how we in the mil react. I would personally have no prob escorting some of them cowards from their offices at gun point -- really hope it never comes to that in my lifetime.
#1
The world should be outraged. Where are all those idiotic self-righteous organizations on this? These kind of stories don't get too much play outside of these kinds of blogging sites. The MSM could do a service by reporting on this aspect of islam. Something for the left to get its underwear in a bunch about. Islam is the "religion of peace" and slavery. Islamic slavery is no surprise to Rantburgers who call islamicfacists on this kind of $hit all the time.
by Dean Barnett
In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.
Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers--those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation--took the opposite path from their parents during World War II. Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers' response to their moment of challenge. War protests where agitated youths derided American soldiers as baby-killers added no luster to their image.
Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century. In the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, military service didn't occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty.
But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.
I've spent much of the past two weeks speaking with young people (and a few not-so-young) who have made the decision to serve their country by volunteering for the military. Some of these men have Ivy League degrees; all of them are talented and intelligent individuals who--contrary to John Kerry's infamous "botched joke" ("Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq")--could have chosen to do anything with their lives. Having signed up, they have either gone to Iraq or look forward to doing so. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have underreported their stories.
One of the excesses of the 1960s that present-day liberals have disowned and disavowed since 9/11 is the demonization of the American military. While every now and then an unrepentant liberal like Charlie Rangel will appear on cable news and casually accuse U.S. troops of engaging in baby-killing in Iraq, the liberal establishment generally knows better. They "support" the American military--at least in the abstract, until it does anything resembling fighting a war.
In search of a new narrative, 21st-century liberals have settled on the "soldiers are victims" meme. Democratic senators (and the occasional Republican senator who's facing a tough reelection campaign) routinely pronounce their concern for our "children" in Iraq. One of the reasons John Kerry's "botched joke" resonated so strongly was that it fit the liberals' narrative. The Democratic party would have you believe that our soldiers are children or, at best, adults with few options: In short, a callous and mendacious administration has victimized the young, the gullible, and the hopeless, and stuck them in Iraq.
But this narrative is not just insulting to our fighting men and women, it is also grossly inaccurate.
Kurt Schlichter is a lieutenant colonel in the California National Guard. A veteran of the first Gulf war, he's now stateside and commands the 1-18th Cavalry, 462-man RSTA (Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition) squadron attached to the 40th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. The last media representative he spoke with before I contacted him was a New York Times stringer who wanted Schlichter's help in tracking down guardsmen who were "having trouble because they got mobilized."
In describing his unit, Schlichter says, "Our mission is to operate far out in front of the main body of the brigade to find and keep in contact with the enemy, report on its activities, and call in air or artillery fire on it. We are very lightly armed--speed, stealth, and smarts are our best weapons--and our Cav scouts work out of humvees or on foot." Their squadron motto is "Swift and Deadly."
Colonel Schlichter talks about the soldiers he commands with unvarnished admiration. He has 20-year-olds serving under him who have earned combat badges. As to why these young men are willingly and eagerly putting themselves in harm's way, Schlichter flatly declares, "The direction comes from themselves. They like to be challenged."
One of the soldiers in Colonel Schlichter's 1-18th is 28-year-old Sergeant Joseph Moseley. The outline of Moseley's story matches the liberal narrative of the "soldier victim." A junior college student, he served four years in the Army and then four years in the National Guard. During his stint in the Guard, Moseley got mobilized. He went to Iraq, where he had a portion of his calf muscle torn away by an IED. He has since returned to the United States and is undergoing a rigorous rehab program, which he describes as "not always going smoothly." It's virtually impossible that Sergeant Moseley will recover fully from his injuries.
Yet when asked about his time in Iraq, Moseley speaks with evident pride. He says the fact that he took the brunt of the IED's blow means he did his job. None of the men serving under him was seriously injured. When asked how he would feel about being characterized as a victim, Sergeant Moseley bristles. "I'm not a victim," he says. "It's insulting. That's what we signed up for. I knew what I was doing."
Tom Cotton is another soldier who knew what he was doing. When 9/11 occurred, Cotton was in his third year at Harvard Law School. Like most Americans, he was "shocked, saddened, and angered." Like many on that day, he made a promise to serve his country.
And Cotton meant it. After fulfilling the commitments he had already made, including clerking for a federal judge and going to work for a large Washington law firm, Cotton enlisted in the Army. He jokes that doing so came with a healthy six-figure pay cut.
Cotton enlisted for one reason: He wanted to lead men into combat. His recruiter suggested that he use the talents he had spent seven years developing at Harvard and join the JAG Corps, the Armed Forces' law firm. Cotton rejected that idea. He instead began 15 months of training that culminated with his deployment to Iraq as a 2nd lieutenant platoon leader with the 101st Airborne in Baghdad.
The platoon he led was composed of men who had already been in Baghdad for five months. Cotton knew that a new platoon leader normally undergoes a period of testing from his men. Because his platoon was patrolling "outside the wire" every day, there was no time for Cotton and his men to have such a spell. He credits what turned out to be a smooth transition to his platoon's noncommissioned officers, saying, "The troops really belong to the NCOs." After six months, Cotton and his platoon redeployed stateside.
While in Iraq, Cotton's platoon was awarded two Purple Hearts, but suffered no killed in action. His larger unit, however, did suffer a KIA. When I asked Cotton for his feelings about that soldier's death, the pain in his voice was evident. After searching for words, he described it as "sad, frustrating, angry--very hard, very hard on the entire company."
He then added some thoughts. "As painful as it was, the death didn't hurt morale," he said. "That's something that would have surprised me before I joined the Army. Everyone in the Infantry has volunteered twice--once for the Army, once for the Infantry. These are all grown men who all made the decision to face the enemy on his turf. The least you can do is respect them and what they're doing."
Now serving in the Army in Virginia, still enjoying his six-figure pay cut, Tom Cotton says he is "infinitely happy" that he joined the Army and fought in Iraq. "If I hadn't done it," he says, "I would have regretted it the rest of my life."
Regardless of their backgrounds, the soldiers I spoke with had a similar matter-of-fact style. Not only did all of them bristle at the notion of being labeled victims, they bristled at the idea of being labeled heroes. To a man, they were doing what they saw as their duty. Their self-assessments lacked the sense of superiority that politicians of a certain age who once served in the military often display. The soldiers I spoke with also refused to make disparaging comparisons between themselves and their generational cohorts who have taken a different path.
But that doesn't mean the soldiers were unaware of the importance of their undertaking. About a month ago, I attended the commissioning of a lieutenant in the Marine Corps. The day before his commissioning, he had graduated from Harvard. He didn't come from a military family, and it wasn't financial hardship that drove him into the Armed Forces. Don't tell John Kerry, but he studied hard in college. After his commissioning, this freshly minted United States Marine returned to his Harvard dorm room to clean it out.
As he entered the dorm in his full dress uniform, some of his classmates gave him a spontaneous round of applause. A campus police officer took him aside to shake his hand. His father observed, "It was like something out of a movie."
A few weeks after his commissioning, the lieutenant sent me an email that read in part:
I remember when I was down at Quantico two summers ago for the first half of Officer Candidates School. The second to last day I was down there--"Family Day," incidentally--was the 7/7 bombings. The staff pulled us over and told us the news and then said that's basically why they're so hard on us down there: We're at war and will be for a long time, and the mothers of recruits at MCRD and at Parris Island right now are going to be depending on us one day to get their sons and daughters home alive.
When I was in England last week, I talked to an officer in the Royal Navy who had just received his Ph.D. He was saying he thought the larger war would last 20-30 years; I've always thought a generation--mine in particular. Our highest calling: To defend our way of life and Western Civilization; fight for the freedom of others; protect our friends, family, and country; and give hope to a people long without it.
It is surely a measure of how far we've come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated. Just because Washington and Hollywood haven't noticed this generational shift doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. It has, and it's seismic.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2007 17:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
the Sub-Headline was "Better than the Boomers". I'll let you make your own opinion. I was born in '59. Guess that makes me a "tail-boomer"? Er...no.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2007 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I wonder how this author reconciles the fact that so many Baby Boomers managed to raise children who have somehow magically responded to their country's calling. If there was one thing that Baby Boomers did transmit and transmitted well it was literacy. One could easily say that their offspring had the best set of morals to rebel against but it probably goes well beyond that.
An ability to read opens a multitude of doors into every other corridor of thought that the printed page can offer. Someone like myself who was brought to anti-war marches all through childhood can nonetheless still pick up a volume of Ayn Rand and invoke personal change irrespective of any and all upbringing. I'm relieved to report that I was a devout capitalist long before reading Rand's "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal".
In between the Baby Boomers and this "9-11 Generation" there was the "Television Era". Quite possiblymore than anything elseit is television's supplanting of the written word that has served to cripple independent thought and critical analysis. For now, we'll disregard the additional paralytic effect of video games.
Generations of Americans are now habituated to having their information predigested for them like meals disgorged by parent animals. Not only has this served to inhibit analytical thinking but it also has allowed the wedge of Mainstream Media's anti-American bias to intrude uponwhat is often no longerany sort of informed opinion.
As is so often the case these days, we now find thatmuch like the Baby Boomer's predecessors' introduction of the automobilethe Internet's advent has stimulated a paradigm shift of truly monumental proportions. It is no small coincidence that the Baby Boomers' capacity for literacy has continued to serve future generations so well. One merely need consider how you who now read these words are not staringinsteadat a photomontage lifted from Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451".
The Baby Boom most likely has access to what was America's height of educational quality. While the American public education system's consequent decline is nothing short of criminal, never underestimate the value of what went before. It sowed the seeds of awareness that may well prove this nation's saving grace in its time of peril.
#3
Having been born in 1945 --- and I have no children, but I'm of the generation of the Baby Boomers. This generation that is currently in the military, are not Baby Boomer's children, they are grandchildren of Baby Boomers.
Lots of the Baby Boomer women, left the 60's and moved into the next stage we faced, the age of Feminism... Got to get ahead. Had to break the glass ceiling.
But there were still the kids to content with. So, searching to be the SuperWoman of an incredible career and an incredible Mom, kids got stashed with grandparents... the grandparents were the Greatest Generation.
No good SuperWoman would ever tell you, but it wasn't she raising the kids, the grandparents could take lots of responsibility for that. The time that Mom and Dad took with the kids, got to be known as "quality time."
Hence, this generation of our military folks, and others like BA that we are currently reading, were raised by parents who were greatly influenced by their grandparents.... those of the Greatest Generation.
I've seen it....
It's not the children of the Baby Boomers that is answering the phone. It's their grandchildren. Sadly, it is the Baby Boomers that are in Congress....
Now, I'm back to Harry Potter -- almost attached the UPS guy today when he finally rang my doorbell, with that coveted box in hand.
. . . "Order of the Phoenix" echoes World War II: As in 1930s Europe, evil forces are gathering in Harry's world, just as he himself is growing into duty-minded manhood.
"If Voldemort is building up an army," the teenager says, "then I want to fight."
Yet a key character in the film, evocatively named Cornelius Fudge, is too blind to see the looming danger. As Ty Burr, film critic for The Boston Globe, explains: Fudge ends up "looking very much like the Neville Chamberlain of this fictional universe."
Chamberlain, of course, was the British prime minister who thought he could "appease" Hitler and so avoid war. Ever since, Chamberlain has epitomized myopia and weakness -- in contrast to his far-seeing and stouthearted successor, Winston Churchill.
So now we can see why "Potter" does so well: It appeals to multiple audiences.
Kids can enjoy all the magic and special effects, even as older audiences -- including the youngsters who have been growing up in the real world, alongside Harry in his reel world -- can appreciate the larger meanings and historical parallels.
Today, in 2007, we are in a war. Several wars, in fact, from Afghanistan to Iraq -- to wherever in the world a terrorist might be lurking.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is correct when he says, as part of his presidential stump speech, that we must confront, whether we want to or not, "the transcendent challenge of our time, which is the struggle against radical Islamic extremists."
At some level, all Americans, even the young uns, understand the truth in McCain's words. It's possible to argue the strategy and tactics of -- and even the most apt name for -- "The Global War on Terror." It's even possible to argue over the origins of the current war, whether Sept. 11, for instance, was an unprovoked attack, or "blowback" from past American policies.
But what's not possible to dispute is that we are in a war now. There are people around the world who are waking up every morning determined to kill us. . . .
When kids see "Harry Potter," they should be thinking first about defending their country, and their civilization, against evildoers wielding weapons of mass destruction. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
07/21/2007 08:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
I have read that series and I agree that there are many parallels between the Death Eaters and the Nazis. One thing especially stands out - while the element of magic is fantasy, the moral choices which the main characters make are consistently realistic and positive.
#2
saw Order of the Phoenix last weekend. Dark, like the book, and excellent. Read all the books - Getting my new Potter book via Amazon today, so I may not be on the Burg much this weekend :-)
Pinkerton can be a real tool sometimes, but he's on the mark here
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2007 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Kids can enjoy all the magic and special effects, even as older audiences -- including the youngsters who have been growing up in the real world, alongside Harry in his reel world -- can appreciate the larger meanings and historical parallels.
Um, no. If this were true, the Potter series would be a lot less popular (with adults). Far too many adults seem determined not to see any historical parallels with the Nazis, unless they're looking at George Bush.
#4
"If your determination to shut your eyes will carry you as far as this, Cornelius," said Dumbledore, "we have reached a parting of the ways. You must act as you see fit. And I - I shall act as I see fit."
Dumbledore's voice carried no hint of a threat; it sounded like a mere statement, but Fudge bristled as though Dumbledore were advancing on him with a wand.
"Now see here, Dumbledore," he said, waving a threatening finger. "I've given you free rein, always. I've had a lot of repect for you. I might not have always agreed with your decisions, but I've kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry. But if you're going to work against me --"
"The only one against whom I intend to work," said Dumbledore, "is Lord Voldemort. If you are against him, then we remain, Cornelius, on the same side."
Excerpt from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling, Scholastic Press, 2000. (Page 709)
Note: I went back to read this passage in the awful days following September 11
#9
I almost seems childish to me that adult writers, no matter how exceptional they write, need to go back to WW2 for material for the broad picture of good vs. evil.
These are the times. Now. The WW2 era was just a dress rehearsal. Oh, the big bombs were invented then, but now when we know the awful power of nuclear weapons, and still evil marches toward world domination in the face of such power. Not an evil which believed in simple superiority, but todays evil embraces death before life, death as a means to glory and victory, death as the goal.
Today, either evil wins, and all good men die, or good wins and all evil men die.
#10
the books are about universal good vs evil. It's not just a WW2 metaphor. If your kids read it, they may get a another excellent good vs evil reference? Wow! that would be terrible, wouldn't it? It doesn't make readers cultists, like the Quran, it's FICTION with a good lesson, unlike the Quran
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2007 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"Among Democrats, just 19 percent give Congress positive marks, compared to 13 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of political independents.
