Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Oh shut up!

Champagne Charlie takes a break from haranguing the comrades and indulges in some distinctly unwise arguments.

Excellent, that means the Orwellian civil liberties-abusing disgrace which is the Equality Bill is doomed. It will die a slow death in the court of public opinion and the politicians who have promoted it will fade away.

(The picture depicts my good self enjoying a night on the tiles with those well known hellraisers, Mac Mclernon, Fiorella and His Hermeneuticalness).

14 Comments:

Blogger Voltaire's Priest said...

I think you can manage to have more of a political argument with him than that. This post is below you.

2/04/2010 3:11 AM  
Anonymous Champagne Charlie said...

No it isn't

2/04/2010 11:44 AM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

I don't know Voltaire's Priest. I don't know.

I was hopping mad when I wrote that last night.

And you know what I was thinking? I was thinking it must be booze, it can only be booze which sparked Charlie's anti-Catholic tirade. I don't accept that he can really think that in the cold light of day. It shaded into xenophobia, for heaven's sake: "The Pope's attempt to interfere with UK legislation.

And quoting Cannon to give it all a Trotskisante flavour .. do me a favour.

Why not quote from Paul Blanshard or William Brownlee and really lay one's cards on the table, eh?

But what I still have not had an answer to is this: why should the Catholic Church be forced to ordain women and be penalised if it disciplines babyfathering priests?

How is that reasonable?

How is that fair?

How is that not Stalinist?

2/04/2010 12:39 PM  
Blogger Voltaire's Priest said...

Because Stalinism and that piece of equalities legislation are not the same thing.

2/04/2010 5:17 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

A bit pedantic of you but let me put it differently:

How is the Equality Bill not a Stalinist peice of legislation?

2/04/2010 5:44 PM  
Blogger Voltaire's Priest said...

Let me put it differently too: because a universal framework of equalities law is not a "stalinist" notion, unless you're using the word simply to mean "left wing".

2/05/2010 1:07 AM  
Anonymous Jim Denham said...

"And quoting Cannon to give it all a Trotskisante flavour .. do me a favour."


What exactly do you mean, Maria? That my Cannon quote is false?

That Cannon didn't really mean it?

That I've taken him out of context?

That elsewhere he talks/writes warmly about the Pope?

That Cannon, as Trotsky's man in the US, was not really a proper "Trotskisante" (sic)?

Maria: Cannon, the leader of the US Trotskyist movement throughout the 1930's and 40's *hated* the Catholic Church and wanted it driven out of public life.

I agree with him. By all means disagree with us. But don't try to make out (a la SWP) that we do not represent Marxism and/or Trotskyism in our hatred of your relic-kissing superstition.

2/05/2010 3:08 PM  
OpenID splinteredsunrise said...

Cannon, of course, was not infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. He was also known for being a bit intemperate when he'd had one too many.

There are Marxists and there are Marxists. Think of Heloisa Helena, the Trotskyist former senator in Brazil, and one of the finest class fighters in Latin America. She's a Catholic and a pro-lifer. Think of our old friend Alasdair MacIntyre. Think of Cannon's comrade Grace Holmes Carlson. I'd take one of them any day.

And don't knock the veneration of relics. St Therese's relics are excellent.

2/05/2010 4:19 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Relic kissing What the ...?

Nonetheless as my anger simmers down I'm appreciating afresh the Church's wisdom in defining anger as one of the seven deadly sins: I'm getting this awful feeling that the title of this post and some of its contents were indeed out of order of me. Darn it, I shall have to go back and edit it and make a grovelling apology to Champagne Charlie. I hope he will accept it. I'm keeping the picture, however, as I like it and it reminds me of myself. So there!

Back to Cannon. First, well done him for praising one of the Popes. If he did so in 1951 he was praising Pope Pius XII. Hold on a minute, don't switch off. Another thing I'm increasingly aware of is how complex a man and pontiff Pius XII was. We're all familiar with the Hitler's Pope theory, though historians will only properly be able to consider it once the Vatican opens its wartime archives. The Vatican has always moved at a glacial pace, however.

What is less well known about Pius XII was the support he gave desegrationist efforts in the American Church in the 40s and 50s, promoting the career of Joseph Ritter, for example, who as Bishop of Indianapolis was known for his rapid desegregation of Catholic institutions.

Again in 1958 when some bishops from the southern US states baulked at a statement denouncing racial segregation and discrimination, Pius ordered the statement to be issued "at once".

Yet the Cannon peice you quoted from, Jim, seemed to me a quite hysterical example of nativist anti-Catholicism. Why the fuss about the US having diplomatic relations with another state, the Vatican? Hence my asking why you didn't quote from Blanshard or Brownlee.

As to Trotsysante, a corruption of Marxisante, that is how I have heard the Hitch wryly refer to himself. I also like the gallic pretentiousness of it.

Anti-Catholicism in many ways resembles anti-semitism, to which you, Jim have always rightly taken exception. I'm thinking here of the accusations of dual loyalties and talk of mysterious foreign powers intervening in national affairs.

Philip Jenkins, surely the most exciting historian and sociologist of our times and a former student of Jack Plumb's when he was at Cambridge (if that fact doesn't give people pause, I don't know what will) has written some masterful works on the topic.

His books, Pedophiles and Priests and The New Anti-Catholicism really are required reading.

I recommend that everyone reading this blog gets hold of them and reads them from cover to cover. I venture to say that a certain former De Valera man called Sean Matgamna, who you may be familiar with, Jim, would also benefit from doing the same thing.

2/05/2010 7:16 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

There, done, changed with a reference instead to Champagne Charlie haranguing the comrades. I really don't think anyone could object to that.

2/05/2010 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Jim Denham said...

Maria,

You and "Sunrise" who says on Dave's Part that the AWL is *worse* than the holocaust-denying Williamson, may be interested in the following discusiion of "left" Irish Catholic nationalism, the Curragh and "Maroa Duce" and "left" ant-semitism:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/12419

2/08/2010 11:43 AM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Thankyou for that, Jim. It's a quite astounding peice of information which deserves further consideration.

Apropos what you said earlier, I wonder what you'd think of David Oderberg.

2/08/2010 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Jim Denham said...

"Back to Cannon. First, well done him for praising one of the Popes. If he did so in 1951 he was praising Pope Pius XII"

...eh...where, exactly does Cannon praise *any* Pope, le alone Pius XII?

Secondly: Cannon's anti-Catholicism (and mine) is *not* comaparable with anti-semitism. I acknowledge that it's a complex and sensitive area, but the essence seems to me quite clear: anti-semitism is racial; anti-Catholicism is ideological. In recent years religious people have found it very convenient to confuse the two things, hoping for a sort of "right-on" protectin that hey don't deserve and that leftists should not afford them.

2/08/2010 6:06 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

...eh...where, exactly does Cannon praise *any* Pope, le alone Pius XII?

I dunno, Jim but 'twas you who said that he spoke warmly about him. See your comment above.

Secondly: Cannon's anti-Catholicism (and mine) is *not* comaparable with anti-semitism. I acknowledge that it's a complex and sensitive area, but the essence seems to me quite clear: anti-semitism is racial; anti-Catholicism is ideological.

Yes and no. Racists have smeared their targets' religions to make nasty points about their supposedly inate backwardness, cruelty or immorality. To give one example: one of Hitler's first acts on coming to power was plainly targeted at Germany's Jewish population, though it would have effected frummers a lot but Atheists not at all, that is the banning of shechitah in 1933. Simimlarly, it is not unknown for grubby anti-semitic tracts to include disparaging references and lies about Judaism.
I'm sure we could think of other examples.

In recent years religious people have found it very convenient to confuse the two things, hoping for a sort of "right-on" protectin that hey don't deserve and that leftists should not afford them.

Do you think it's mere convenience or something else, something far less cynical which has prompted the religious to make comparisons between one kind of bigotry and another?

Remember that many religions have a history of persecution. Could it be the memory of Maccabees, or the forty martyrs or perhaps even more recent persecutions which send shivers down the spines of religious people and cause them to wonder where official disapproval ends and persecution begins?

On the other hand it could be no more than a case of people reflecting the prevailing culture around them, in which groups of people form lobby groups and exert pressure on the authorities and media so that they may realise their rights.

I think it could be a bit of both.

2/09/2010 7:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home