jueves, 30 de junio de 2016
Brexit: «siamo stati traditi, abbandonati, il poco lavoro se lo prendono gli immigrati»
La Brexit non si capisce da Londra, ma dalle città desolate dove le case sono «tante piccole prigioni»
di Leone Grotti
Un reportage del Guardian racconta la maggioranza degli inglesi che ha votato Leave: «Siamo stati traditi, abbandonati, il poco lavoro se lo prendono gli immigrati»
Ma chi l’ha detto che gli inglesi si sono pentiti dopo la Brexit? I giornali, certo. Ma la realtà è un’altra cosa. Soprattutto la realtà che si trova al di fuori delle quattro mura della City o dei grandi centri urbani e che si snoda lungo le terre desolate del decadimento industriale. Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Cannock. E ancora Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton. Città diverse, perse tra Liverpool e Londra, ma accomunate dagli stessi messaggi: «Non si trova un lavoro decente», «i politici se ne fregano di noi», «siamo stati abbandonati».
MARCIA DI UN MESE. Le voci degli inglesi che nessuno ascolta, e che oggi tutti incolpano di aver fatto uscire il Regno Unito dalla “storia”, sono state raccolte da Mike Carter. Il giornalista freelance è partito il 2 maggio da Liverpool a piedi e ha raggiunto un mese dopo Londra, ripercorrendo le 340 miglia calpestate nel 1981 da 300 disoccupati contro le politiche di Margaret Thatcher. Da questo viaggio è uscito un reportage ruvido e vivido pubblicato dal Guardian, il principale giornale pro Unione Europea della campagna referendaria inglese.
«COME TANTE PICCOLE PRIGIONI». Il paesaggio è popolato da pub chiusi e negozietti con porte e finestre sbarrate da assi di compensato o fogli di lamiera «come tante piccole prigioni». Alle finestre delle case appaiono manifesti referendari: tutti favorevoli al “Leave”. «Non ce n’è neanche uno a favore del “remain” nell’Ue». Carter interroga i passanti, vince la loro reticenza e ascolta sempre le stesse risposte: «Vogliamo uscire. Non c’è dubbio». Perché? «Immigrazione. Rivogliamo indietro il nostro paese».
.........
Leggi tutto: www.tempi.it
Eliminando in un colpo solo il tradizionale In God We trust.
La nuova guerra dell’esercito americano. Contro Dio
di Benedetta Frigerio
«Anche solo immaginare che sarei stato rimosso mentre la bandiera americana era srotolata e aperta, la bandiera che rappresenta la libertà di espressione, la libertà religiosa, la libertà di stampa...è terribile». Sono le parole del sergente veterano dell'Air Force americana Oscar Rodriguez, a servizio delle Forze armate statunitensi per 33 anni. Contro di lui il Pentagono ha aperto un'inchiesta dopo un discorso che ha tenuto in aprile presso il California Travis Aire Force.
E cosa ha detto Rodriguez di così pericoloso? Semplicemente quelloche per oltre trent'anni ha ripetuto come tanti suoi colleghi: ha citato Dio. È bastato questo perché fosse assalito e mandato fuori dalla sala della cerimonia. Ma questo è solo l'ultimo di una serie di casi che mostrano quanto hanno subìto le Forze armate (su cui l'America ha sempre speso la maggior parte delle sue energie, avendo cara la cura per la coesione e l'unità fra i suoi uomini) fin dal 2008, l'anno in cui Barack Obama è diventato presidente degli Stati Uniti. L'attacco palese cominciò però nel giugno del 2011, quando il dipartimento dei veterani vietò di pronunciare il nome di “Dio” e di “Gesù” durante una cerimonia funebre presso il cimitero nazionale di Huston.
Subito dopo l'aviazione avrebbe cancellato per sempre un corso sui missili nucleari che si teneva davent'anni presso una base in California, perché le lezioni includevano teorie cristiane come quella della legittima difesa o della “guerra giusta” di sant'Agostino. Intanto, il capo dell'aviazione proibiva a tutti i comandanti di dare notizia ai piloti e alle loro famiglie della possibilità di esercitare la propria libertà religiosa attraverso l'osservanza di un programma di formazione cristiana. E ancora: «Non si può distribuire né usare alcun materiale religioso durante le visite» è il divieto imposto dal Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, uno dei più importanti ospedali militari del paese, revocato solo dopo la denuncia di parte di alcuni membri del Congresso. A novembre dello stesso anno, mentre annunciava la fine della collaborazione con un'organizzazione cristiana, scusandosi di averla scelta come tramite per inviare i regali natalizi con biglietti religiosi, l'aviazione decideva di spendere 80 mila dollari per la costruzione nella base di Colorado Springs di un tempio di pietre per il culto pagano.
Nel 2012, uno dei più illustri generali delle Forze armate, William G. Boykin, notoriamente cristiano,aveva dovuto declinare l'invito a parlare presso l'accademia militare americana in seguito alle pressioni sull'istituzione da parte della commissione delle Pari opportunità. Nello stesso mese, insieme alla decisione di rimuovere dal simbolo dell'istituto di ricerca militare Rapid Capabilities la frase Opus Dei (“Lavoro di Dio”), il ministro della Difesa vietava al cappellano di diffondere un lettera sull'obiezione di coscienza che l'arcivescovo aveva scritto affinché fosse letta durante la Messa. Ma i dubbi sull'antipatia della neoeletta amministrazione verso i cristiani erano già emersi all'inizio del 2009, quando nonostante una legge passata al Congresso e nonostante il pronunciamento della Corte Suprema, il governo si rifiutò di concedere all'associazione dei veterani un terreno nel deserto del Mojave, reclamato da tempo, per la ricostruzione di una croce innalzata lì nel 1934 in memoria dei caduti in guerra.
...........
Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it
«Anche solo immaginare che sarei stato rimosso mentre la bandiera americana era srotolata e aperta, la bandiera che rappresenta la libertà di espressione, la libertà religiosa, la libertà di stampa...è terribile». Sono le parole del sergente veterano dell'Air Force americana Oscar Rodriguez, a servizio delle Forze armate statunitensi per 33 anni. Contro di lui il Pentagono ha aperto un'inchiesta dopo un discorso che ha tenuto in aprile presso il California Travis Aire Force.
E cosa ha detto Rodriguez di così pericoloso? Semplicemente quelloche per oltre trent'anni ha ripetuto come tanti suoi colleghi: ha citato Dio. È bastato questo perché fosse assalito e mandato fuori dalla sala della cerimonia. Ma questo è solo l'ultimo di una serie di casi che mostrano quanto hanno subìto le Forze armate (su cui l'America ha sempre speso la maggior parte delle sue energie, avendo cara la cura per la coesione e l'unità fra i suoi uomini) fin dal 2008, l'anno in cui Barack Obama è diventato presidente degli Stati Uniti. L'attacco palese cominciò però nel giugno del 2011, quando il dipartimento dei veterani vietò di pronunciare il nome di “Dio” e di “Gesù” durante una cerimonia funebre presso il cimitero nazionale di Huston.
Subito dopo l'aviazione avrebbe cancellato per sempre un corso sui missili nucleari che si teneva davent'anni presso una base in California, perché le lezioni includevano teorie cristiane come quella della legittima difesa o della “guerra giusta” di sant'Agostino. Intanto, il capo dell'aviazione proibiva a tutti i comandanti di dare notizia ai piloti e alle loro famiglie della possibilità di esercitare la propria libertà religiosa attraverso l'osservanza di un programma di formazione cristiana. E ancora: «Non si può distribuire né usare alcun materiale religioso durante le visite» è il divieto imposto dal Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, uno dei più importanti ospedali militari del paese, revocato solo dopo la denuncia di parte di alcuni membri del Congresso. A novembre dello stesso anno, mentre annunciava la fine della collaborazione con un'organizzazione cristiana, scusandosi di averla scelta come tramite per inviare i regali natalizi con biglietti religiosi, l'aviazione decideva di spendere 80 mila dollari per la costruzione nella base di Colorado Springs di un tempio di pietre per il culto pagano.
Nel 2012, uno dei più illustri generali delle Forze armate, William G. Boykin, notoriamente cristiano,aveva dovuto declinare l'invito a parlare presso l'accademia militare americana in seguito alle pressioni sull'istituzione da parte della commissione delle Pari opportunità. Nello stesso mese, insieme alla decisione di rimuovere dal simbolo dell'istituto di ricerca militare Rapid Capabilities la frase Opus Dei (“Lavoro di Dio”), il ministro della Difesa vietava al cappellano di diffondere un lettera sull'obiezione di coscienza che l'arcivescovo aveva scritto affinché fosse letta durante la Messa. Ma i dubbi sull'antipatia della neoeletta amministrazione verso i cristiani erano già emersi all'inizio del 2009, quando nonostante una legge passata al Congresso e nonostante il pronunciamento della Corte Suprema, il governo si rifiutò di concedere all'associazione dei veterani un terreno nel deserto del Mojave, reclamato da tempo, per la ricostruzione di una croce innalzata lì nel 1934 in memoria dei caduti in guerra.
...........
Leggi tutto: www.lanuovabq.it
“He who dies with the most toys wins,”
A Humane Economy versus Economism
by Ralph Ancil
Introduction
Contributing to the multi-faceted crisis Americans now face is the loss of those values and principles that are essential to a healthy economy. We could mention the incestuous relationships between business and politics, the avarice of large banking institutions, misguided Federal Reserve policy, the irrationality of Wall Street investors, and the Gordon Gekko motto that greed is good. In the face of these problems, average Americans have indeed been hurt and made subject to the predations of those whose lives are truly driven by greed and fear. Or, as Robert Kuttner has recently written, Americans have been made subject to the rentier class, the powerful and unscrupulous creditors of the financial world.[1] But a more subtle form of depredation is robbing us in an even more fundamental way. No effort at restoring America’s foundations can be complete, no battle for her soul can be successful, without our being reminded of this need. I am speaking of our perspective on the nature and quality of business and work necessary for ahumane economy to oppose the ravages wrought by its opposite,economism.
By “economism” I mean a false view of economy and business that either (1) denigrates these pursuits as related merely to material needs and not intimately connected with man’s higher purposes, or (2) elevates the material means sought by business and commerce to the status of man’s only end. In both cases economic activity is associated exclusively with base human motives. In the former, economic pursuits are belittled, and in the latter they are given the highest praise. While there are many ways to engage this theme, I will here contrast the ancient and modern forms of economism with the alternative of a humane economy.
Ancient Economism: The Absence of Leisure
Contributing to the multi-faceted crisis Americans now face is the loss of those values and principles that are essential to a healthy economy. We could mention the incestuous relationships between business and politics, the avarice of large banking institutions, misguided Federal Reserve policy, the irrationality of Wall Street investors, and the Gordon Gekko motto that greed is good. In the face of these problems, average Americans have indeed been hurt and made subject to the predations of those whose lives are truly driven by greed and fear. Or, as Robert Kuttner has recently written, Americans have been made subject to the rentier class, the powerful and unscrupulous creditors of the financial world.[1] But a more subtle form of depredation is robbing us in an even more fundamental way. No effort at restoring America’s foundations can be complete, no battle for her soul can be successful, without our being reminded of this need. I am speaking of our perspective on the nature and quality of business and work necessary for ahumane economy to oppose the ravages wrought by its opposite,economism.
By “economism” I mean a false view of economy and business that either (1) denigrates these pursuits as related merely to material needs and not intimately connected with man’s higher purposes, or (2) elevates the material means sought by business and commerce to the status of man’s only end. In both cases economic activity is associated exclusively with base human motives. In the former, economic pursuits are belittled, and in the latter they are given the highest praise. While there are many ways to engage this theme, I will here contrast the ancient and modern forms of economism with the alternative of a humane economy.
Ancient Economism: The Absence of Leisure
In the past, the emphasis was on the man of leisure who, acting as an independent or relatively self-sufficient individual, was able to spend time contemplating the higher aspects of life out of love for the good. He was able to do so because he did not have to work by the sweat of his brow to earn a living. The chief end of man was not seen as getting material wealth, and therefore trade and business were considered unworthy activities of the properly formed man, the man with the liberal education. This, of course, harkens back to Aristotle’sPolitics, where he writes that topics related to business matters, such as natural and unnatural methods of getting wealth, are not unworthy of philosophical discussion, but “to be engaged in them practically is illiberal and irksome.”[2]
This perspective was subsequently reflected in the different social classes this view entailed because, after all, some people actually had to lower themselves to make, grow, and trade things. These were, in Roman as well as Greek society, the slaves or the serfs or the laborers. The education suitable for them was vocational training while for the leisure class it was education in the “liberal arts,” a name derived from the liberi, or freemen, the sons of well-to-do Romans who had the leisure to study such topics as philosophy, languages, and history.
To understand the purpose of “liberal” education, it is helpful to look at three definitions. First, Jacques Barzun writes that “the academic humanities serve the arts, philosophy, and religion by bringing order into the heritage of civilization.”[3] Secondly, John Gould Fletcher, speaking of higher education, has a different emphasis, claiming: “We employ our minds in order to achieve character, to be the balanced personalities, the ‘superior men’ of Confucius’ text, the ‘gentlemen’ of the old South. We achieve character, personality, gentlemanliness in order to make our lives an art and bring our souls into relation with the whole scheme of things, which is the divine nature.”[4] Thirdly, Richard Weaver writes of the medieval pursuit of knowledge: “Under the world view possessed by medieval scholars, the path of learning was a path to self-depreciation, and the philosophiae doctor was one who had at length seen a rational ground for humilitas. Thus knowledge for the medieval idealist prepared the way for self-effacement.”[5] We can summarize these goals as order, art, and humility.
The “gentleman” of English society is perhaps the most familiar illustration of this concept in practice. He was not one who would demean himself by engaging in commerce or the professions. He preferred to have an independent income and pursue liberal studies without thought of monetary reward. (Of course, it is an interesting sociological question how this independent income was first established and later maintained. That is another matter.) This older, genteel view re- minds one of the attitude of Mr. Collins in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, who was worried that Mrs. Phillips’s husband might be, well, might be engaged in—trade. He was dramatically relieved to find that Mr. Phillips was a solicitor, “a modest calling but respectable.”
Without calling into question the enormous benefit to English society of the “spirit of the gentleman,” as Burke calls it, the concept did do a disservice in one respect: by separating the higher ends of man from the way he earned his daily bread—that is, by failing to see the organic connection be- tween the two—it relegated work to a lower social class, from whom little of an elevated nature was to be expected. This is one form of economism.
........................
Read more: www.theimaginativeconservative.org
This perspective was subsequently reflected in the different social classes this view entailed because, after all, some people actually had to lower themselves to make, grow, and trade things. These were, in Roman as well as Greek society, the slaves or the serfs or the laborers. The education suitable for them was vocational training while for the leisure class it was education in the “liberal arts,” a name derived from the liberi, or freemen, the sons of well-to-do Romans who had the leisure to study such topics as philosophy, languages, and history.
To understand the purpose of “liberal” education, it is helpful to look at three definitions. First, Jacques Barzun writes that “the academic humanities serve the arts, philosophy, and religion by bringing order into the heritage of civilization.”[3] Secondly, John Gould Fletcher, speaking of higher education, has a different emphasis, claiming: “We employ our minds in order to achieve character, to be the balanced personalities, the ‘superior men’ of Confucius’ text, the ‘gentlemen’ of the old South. We achieve character, personality, gentlemanliness in order to make our lives an art and bring our souls into relation with the whole scheme of things, which is the divine nature.”[4] Thirdly, Richard Weaver writes of the medieval pursuit of knowledge: “Under the world view possessed by medieval scholars, the path of learning was a path to self-depreciation, and the philosophiae doctor was one who had at length seen a rational ground for humilitas. Thus knowledge for the medieval idealist prepared the way for self-effacement.”[5] We can summarize these goals as order, art, and humility.
The “gentleman” of English society is perhaps the most familiar illustration of this concept in practice. He was not one who would demean himself by engaging in commerce or the professions. He preferred to have an independent income and pursue liberal studies without thought of monetary reward. (Of course, it is an interesting sociological question how this independent income was first established and later maintained. That is another matter.) This older, genteel view re- minds one of the attitude of Mr. Collins in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, who was worried that Mrs. Phillips’s husband might be, well, might be engaged in—trade. He was dramatically relieved to find that Mr. Phillips was a solicitor, “a modest calling but respectable.”
Without calling into question the enormous benefit to English society of the “spirit of the gentleman,” as Burke calls it, the concept did do a disservice in one respect: by separating the higher ends of man from the way he earned his daily bread—that is, by failing to see the organic connection be- tween the two—it relegated work to a lower social class, from whom little of an elevated nature was to be expected. This is one form of economism.
........................
Read more: www.theimaginativeconservative.org
"Society is always unfinished, always in motion, and its key problems can never be solved by social engineering"
Apocalyptic Ponderings
by Bradley J. Birzer
Toward the end of the twentieth century, closing two thousand years of history since the time of the Incarnate Christ (or close enough), millennium fever struck the western world hard. A fist across the face and a punch to the stomach. Many fundamentalist Christians were calculating the time since Israel’s re-creation as a marker, while a number of Catholics were counting down the number of good, true, and legitimate popes remaining before a supposed anti-Pope arose. As such, the Virgin Mary had supposedly appeared in former Yugoslavia, dropping hints about popes and anti-popes and a variety of other fancies that many assumed were not fanciful. Radical doomsday cults (well, are there any other kind?) emerged out of the woodwork—or seeped into the aquifers in Yellowstone, depending on what kind of fuel and storage tanks they were using for the End—and evangelical authors had a field day (and a billion runs to the bank) predicting the End in fictional form.
Would you be Left Behind? What kind of Tribulation would there be? And at what altitude? At the top of the stairwell? Eight stories up? Eight miles high? Would JC rule before the New Jerusalem arrived, or after? Would humans build the City of God here and now? How many seals would be broken by angels? Just who is that fourth horseman? And why are Catholics the only ones worried about that dragon devouring Mary?
Of course, it is not all religious. Remember the fears regarding Y2K. Were you ready? Just how angular could all of this be?
The End is near!!!! The End is near!!!! Very near!
Sadly, such fever and fervor has yet to subside, really. We were just treated (subjected would be a more appropriate word) to a remake of the horrific, hate-filled Left Behind, this time with Hollywood superstar Nicholas Cage fronting. Why could the dear leader of North Korea not have gone after that one instead of the one from Sony? Sheesh, many might have even become convinced he is the anti-Christ. He would probably like that.
We worried about Harold Camping’s two dates for the end. Both were wrong. We worried about the Mayans ending their calendar. Nope. Even the Vikings seemed to have predicted the end right around now. Again, did not happen.
In fact, I can write with certainty that not a single prediction of the End has come true. Not one. Not even close.
Though it is quite possible that many ends have come and gone, each a rehearsal for the End.
Christian humanist scholars such as Eric Voegelin, Josef Pieper, and Thomas Molnar did much to prepare the world for the end of the twentieth century and what would amount to barely-contained lunacy regarding the End.
......................
Read more: www.theimaginativeconservative.org
Would you be Left Behind? What kind of Tribulation would there be? And at what altitude? At the top of the stairwell? Eight stories up? Eight miles high? Would JC rule before the New Jerusalem arrived, or after? Would humans build the City of God here and now? How many seals would be broken by angels? Just who is that fourth horseman? And why are Catholics the only ones worried about that dragon devouring Mary?
Of course, it is not all religious. Remember the fears regarding Y2K. Were you ready? Just how angular could all of this be?
The End is near!!!! The End is near!!!! Very near!
Sadly, such fever and fervor has yet to subside, really. We were just treated (subjected would be a more appropriate word) to a remake of the horrific, hate-filled Left Behind, this time with Hollywood superstar Nicholas Cage fronting. Why could the dear leader of North Korea not have gone after that one instead of the one from Sony? Sheesh, many might have even become convinced he is the anti-Christ. He would probably like that.
We worried about Harold Camping’s two dates for the end. Both were wrong. We worried about the Mayans ending their calendar. Nope. Even the Vikings seemed to have predicted the end right around now. Again, did not happen.
In fact, I can write with certainty that not a single prediction of the End has come true. Not one. Not even close.
Though it is quite possible that many ends have come and gone, each a rehearsal for the End.
Christian humanist scholars such as Eric Voegelin, Josef Pieper, and Thomas Molnar did much to prepare the world for the end of the twentieth century and what would amount to barely-contained lunacy regarding the End.
......................
Read more: www.theimaginativeconservative.org
Ukraine: everything is clear to everyone
Georgiy Kunadze: "Sooner or later, Russia will have to apologize to Ukraine and compensate for damages inflicted"
Автор: Roman Tsymbaliuk
Ex-Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia (1991-1993), Ambassador Georgiy Kunadze in an interview with UNIAN has told about similarities in the Kremlin's decisions to deploy troops in Afghanistan in 1979 and in Ukraine in 2014, and why the Russian special operations in Crimea and Donbas were in fact failures.
Kunadze told why the Russian special operations in Crimea and Donbas were failures
Not everybody in Russia supports the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of the Ukrainian territory. However, only few dare to speak up voicing their opposition to the Kremlin’s aggressive policy. Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia (1991-1993), Ambassador Georgiy Kunadze believes that the issue of the return of the occupied territories depends on the political will of the Russian leadership. If a task is set to hand back to the rightful owner the seized land, the diplomats will be able immediately to explain why this should be done. However, much will depend on how quickly the Russian public can recover from this “Great Empire” psychosis that has engulfed millions. Today, Russia does not agree to hand back to the Ukrainian authorities control at parts of the border with the occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as they are the main lever of the Russian influence on the situation in Donbas. Without control of the border, it is impossible to hold local elections, and, hence, the Minsk agreement can’t be fulfilled.
...........
...........
« Il n'y a pas de main invisible. Il n'y a que vos mains ».Emmanuel Faber, DG de Danone
Le patron de Danone évoque ce que lui a apporté son frère, interné en hôpital psychiatrique
Emmanuel Faber, DG de Danone, a prononcé le discours de remise de diplôme de l'école de commerce HEC. Dans ce discours émouvant, il a évoqué son frère, atteint de schizophrénie.
https://youtu.be/x4rj4MfNkys
« L'après-midi, il avait besoin de dormir à cause de sa maladie et il allait près d'un torrent. Il avait un vieux téléphone portable, il le mettait près de la fontaine et il m'appelait et me laissait un message téléphonique. Tous les jours. Avec juste le chant de la fontaine. Moi, j'étais avec le gouvernement chinois, de l'autre côté de la planète, dans un bureau à Shanghai ou à Paris, à Barcelone ou au Mexique… Et j'avais toujours cette petite voix une fois par jour qui me rappelait d'où je venais. »
« Ma vie a basculé (...) J'ai découvert l'amitié de SDF, de temps en temps, je vais dormir avec eux. (...) Je suis allé séjourner dans les bidonvilles à Delhi, à Bombay, à Nairobi, à Jakarta. Je suis passé au bidonville d'Aubervilliers, vous savez c'est pas très loin de chez nous à Paris. Je suis allé à la jungle de Calais. »Emmanuel Faber avait déjà passé une semaine à travailler dans un centre tenu par les sœurs de Mère Teresa, en Inde. Et si son salaire avoisine les 2,5 millions d'euros par an, il roule en Clio, ne porte ni montre de luxe, ni cravate chic, et passe ses vacances dans ses Hautes-Alpes natales.
USA - Desprecio radical a la libertad religiosa
El Supremo de EE.UU se niega a escuchar siquiera a los farmacéuticos que quien hacer objeción de conciencia
El Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU. el martes se negó a escuchar una apelación de los farmacéuticos del estado de Washington que dijeron que tienen objeciones religiosas a dispensar anticonceptivos y abortivos de emergencia. Uno de los jueces contrarios a la decisión ha advertido que los que valoran la libertad religiosa en el país tienen motivo de gran preocupación.
(InfoCatólica) La norma vigente en el estado indica que el trabajador de una farmacia puede negarse a vender anticonceptivos y abortivos siempre que haya otra persona que venda el producto.
La empresa Stormans Inc. indicó que en muchas ocasiones se da la circunstancia de quesolo hay una persona atendiendo al público o todas las que hacen esa labor quieren ejercer la objeción de conciencia.
El fiscal general de Washington se felicitó por la decisión del Supremo de no escuchar a los que demandan su derecho a objetar asegurando que «los pacientes deben saber que cuando necesitan medicación, no van a ser rechazados sobre la base de las opiniones personales del propietario de una farmacia en particular. El fallo del tribunal de apelaciones confirmó hoy la protección de ese principio».
John Roberts y Samuel Alito, dos de los cinco jueces que abordaron el caso, han indicado que estaban a favor de que el proceso siguiera adelante para ser tratado por el pleno del Supremo.
En un escrito en el que explicaba su voto particular, Alito advirtió que «si esto es una muestra de cómo las reivindicaciones libertad religiosa van a ser tratadas en los próximos años, los que valoran la libertad religiosa tienen motivo de gran preocupación»
La empresa Stormans Inc. indicó que en muchas ocasiones se da la circunstancia de quesolo hay una persona atendiendo al público o todas las que hacen esa labor quieren ejercer la objeción de conciencia.
El fiscal general de Washington se felicitó por la decisión del Supremo de no escuchar a los que demandan su derecho a objetar asegurando que «los pacientes deben saber que cuando necesitan medicación, no van a ser rechazados sobre la base de las opiniones personales del propietario de una farmacia en particular. El fallo del tribunal de apelaciones confirmó hoy la protección de ese principio».
John Roberts y Samuel Alito, dos de los cinco jueces que abordaron el caso, han indicado que estaban a favor de que el proceso siguiera adelante para ser tratado por el pleno del Supremo.
En un escrito en el que explicaba su voto particular, Alito advirtió que «si esto es una muestra de cómo las reivindicaciones libertad religiosa van a ser tratadas en los próximos años, los que valoran la libertad religiosa tienen motivo de gran preocupación»
“Restore the borders of the USSR” (Vladimir Zhirinovsky)
‘If the Russians come back again, they won’t be constrained by communism’
by Paul A. Goble
Some years ago, before he became Estonian president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves observed that “if the Russians come back again, they won’t be constrained by communism.” Instead, he suggested, they will build a genuinely Russian empire in which Russians will rule over non-Russians without even “the constraints” communism offered.
Those constraints, of course, were never absolute and did not mean that non-Russians were protected from the Russian majority or from the imperial pretensions of Moscow. But they did mean that Soviet Russians had to operate in ways that at least appeared to suggest a respect for the rights of other nations within the USSR.
Now, those from Vladimir Putin on down who regret the end of the USSR and who would restore Moscow’s power over much or even all of the former Soviet space are not so limited. Instead, they want not a “Russia for the Russians” but a “Russian empire for the Russians,” an entity that would inevitably threaten all non-Russians and the West as well.
It means that the empire such people would restore would treat non-Russians within its borders as second class citizens or worse and that they would only be able to maintain this ethnicized empire by engaging in constant wars against outsiders, something that the latter should reflect upon before dismissing what is happening in the post-Soviet space as unimportant.
Those reflections are prompted by the remarks yesterday of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the flamboyant leader of the misnamed Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.
It means that the empire such people would restore would treat non-Russians within its borders as second class citizens or worse and that they would only be able to maintain this ethnicized empire by engaging in constant wars against outsiders, something that the latter should reflect upon before dismissing what is happening in the post-Soviet space as unimportant.
Those reflections are prompted by the remarks yesterday of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the flamboyant leader of the misnamed Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.
Speaking to a congress of the LDNR, Zhirinovsky said that his party would take part in the upcoming Russian parliamentary elections with the following slogans: “Arise, Great Russia,” “Stop Denigrating Russians” and, most instructively of all, “Restore the borders of the USSR.”
As RFE/RL summarizes the LDNR leader’s speech, Zhirinovsky said that such slogans captured the needs of “millions of Russians” who have been “’driven out’” of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Ukraine and the Baltic states” and also those who are oppressed by ethnocratic republics inside the Russian Federation.
The first, he suggested, must be returned to Russian rule, and the second must be disbanded and replaced by entities defined entirely by territory and not ethnicity – or at least not by any ethnicity other than Russian.
Of course, it is easy to dismiss Zhirinovsky’s words. He has achieved what success he has by being outrageous. But all too often, his outrageousness has been reflected in subsequent Kremlin decisions and actions. Thus, the danger Ilves pointed to is real: the Russians may come back or at least try to – and they won’t be “constrained by communism.”
As RFE/RL summarizes the LDNR leader’s speech, Zhirinovsky said that such slogans captured the needs of “millions of Russians” who have been “’driven out’” of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Ukraine and the Baltic states” and also those who are oppressed by ethnocratic republics inside the Russian Federation.
The first, he suggested, must be returned to Russian rule, and the second must be disbanded and replaced by entities defined entirely by territory and not ethnicity – or at least not by any ethnicity other than Russian.
Of course, it is easy to dismiss Zhirinovsky’s words. He has achieved what success he has by being outrageous. But all too often, his outrageousness has been reflected in subsequent Kremlin decisions and actions. Thus, the danger Ilves pointed to is real: the Russians may come back or at least try to – and they won’t be “constrained by communism.”
"Хватит унижать русских"
ЛДПР пойдет на выборы под лозунгом:
"Хватит унижать русских"
Москва. 28 июня. INTERFAX.RU - Партия ЛДПР пойдет на выборы в Госдуму под лозунгом защиты русских и требованием устройства губерний по территориальному, а не по национальному принципу, сообщил ее лидер Владимир Жириновский.
"Здесь у нас сегодня главный лозунг: "Хватить унижать русских", - сказал Владимир Жириновский во вторник в программной речи на съезде партии во вторник.
Отметив, что миллионы русских были изгнаны с Кавказа, из Средней Азии, Украины, Прибалтики, лидер ЛДПР утверждал, что "сегодня продолжается процесс унижения русских... в Донбассе в подвалах СБУ пытают русских... хуже, чем в немецком концлагере, убивают, издеваются, запрещают русский язык и русские песни, русские театры, русские школы".
Жириновский перечислил другие лозунги, с которыми либерал-демократы пойдут на выборы: "Вернуть границы СССР", "Время работает на ЛДПР", "Не мешайте людям работать", "Вставай, великая Россия", "Всю казну на экономику".
Лидер ЛДПР подчеркнул, что нельзя делить территорию страны по национальному принципу. "Губернии, единый принцип устройства страны - территориальный. Назовите страну, где принцип национальный? Югославия рухнула вся. Полно многонациональных стран, например, Индия, но там провинции. Нигде нет территориальной единицы - национальная республика",- сказал Жириновский.
Москва. 28 июня. INTERFAX.RU - Партия ЛДПР пойдет на выборы в Госдуму под лозунгом защиты русских и требованием устройства губерний по территориальному, а не по национальному принципу, сообщил ее лидер Владимир Жириновский.
"Здесь у нас сегодня главный лозунг: "Хватить унижать русских", - сказал Владимир Жириновский во вторник в программной речи на съезде партии во вторник.
Отметив, что миллионы русских были изгнаны с Кавказа, из Средней Азии, Украины, Прибалтики, лидер ЛДПР утверждал, что "сегодня продолжается процесс унижения русских... в Донбассе в подвалах СБУ пытают русских... хуже, чем в немецком концлагере, убивают, издеваются, запрещают русский язык и русские песни, русские театры, русские школы".
Жириновский перечислил другие лозунги, с которыми либерал-демократы пойдут на выборы: "Вернуть границы СССР", "Время работает на ЛДПР", "Не мешайте людям работать", "Вставай, великая Россия", "Всю казну на экономику".
Лидер ЛДПР подчеркнул, что нельзя делить территорию страны по национальному принципу. "Губернии, единый принцип устройства страны - территориальный. Назовите страну, где принцип национальный? Югославия рухнула вся. Полно многонациональных стран, например, Индия, но там провинции. Нигде нет территориальной единицы - национальная республика",- сказал Жириновский.
Much of the discussion of the British vote to leave the European Union (EU) has ignored the reality of political sclerosis in Europ
The BREXIT Reality: A Key Opportunity for European Reform
By Harald Malmgren and Robin Laird
Brexit, instead of being the end of an era, may be an opportunity for a political opening to a much needed, long overdue reform process in Europe.
There is little question that the result of the recent British referendum shocked most members of Britain’s Parliament as well as politicians across the entire European Union. The unexpected vote to leave the EU also shocked global financial markets.
Within hours it became evident that the Prime Minister’s office, the Parliamentary promotors of “remain” or “leave”, and most British businesses and bankers had made no plans for exit from the EU.
Throughout the month leading up to the historic June 23 vote Boris Johnson and other leaders of the “leave” movement recited a litany of reasons why remaining was bad for the British people and promises of gains that would accompany exit. Once the vote occurred, neither Johnson or his fellow Brexiters were able to explain what would happen next.
Financial markets recoiled in disbelief that no plans had been made. Endless questions of when and how exit would take place spread through the media and the Internet. Fear generated a tsunami of selling the pound sterling and stocks of British banks. This spread to selloffs of entire stock and bond markets, not only in London, but throughout the world. Seemingly unrelated, a collapse of world oil prices started, spreading damage to Russia and Middle East oil producers, even threatening to reach the fledgling oil producers in North America.
Financial markets recoiled in disbelief that no plans had been made. Endless questions of when and how exit would take place spread through the media and the Internet. Fear generated a tsunami of selling the pound sterling and stocks of British banks. This spread to selloffs of entire stock and bond markets, not only in London, but throughout the world. Seemingly unrelated, a collapse of world oil prices started, spreading damage to Russia and Middle East oil producers, even threatening to reach the fledgling oil producers in North America.
...........
A national movement towards more transgender-friendly education ?
University of Arizona to Launch Nation's First Transgender Studies Program
The University of Arizona will be the first university in the United States to launch a transgender studies master’s program, which is expected to begin in the fall of 2017. The focus for the program will be all things related to transgenderism, including sex, gender, and cultural and political issues.
But the question remains, for what exactly will such a program prepare graduating students? What possible careers will seek out transgender studies majors?
According to the Daily Caller, the announced program is the “end result of the public school’s Transgender Studies Initiative, which was introduced in 2013.” That initiative sought to prioritize transgender issues even before they became the center of significant national debate.
Three professors have already been hired for the new program, though they will be working in the women’s studies, anthropology, and religious studies departments until the new program is officially launched. Susan Stryker, who is responsible for the program, toldInside Higher Ed that the school plans to hire a fourth professor, preferably one who is not white.
“The three people who had been hired were all white, and we were really trying to prioritize hiring faculty of color,” Stryker candidly said.
...............
Read more: www.thenewamerican.com
Increasingly difficult for the EU schemers to overcome proper concerns about the Orwellian features of this Big Brother superstate
Globalists Move to Sabotage Brexit
by William F. Jasper
The Brexit vote on June 23 means Britain will exit the European Union, right? Isn’t that what it was all about? Well, not really, according to a growing chorus of voices that insists “No” doesn’t mean no, “Out” doesn’t mean out, “Leave” doesn’t mean leave, “irreversible” doesn’t mean irreversible, etc.
Yes, it is true that "Remain" lost and "Leave" won. And, yes, it is true that Remain advocate Prime Minister David Cameron, just two days before the Brexit referendum vote, cranked up a last-ditch “Project Fear” blitz imploring British voters not to take the “irreversible” step of serving Brussels with divorce papers. Cameron pleaded with older voters to resist the call to “leave Europe” (as if the decades-old political EU is synonymous with the centuries-old historical, cultural, geographical Europe) and urged them to “think about the hopes and dreams of your children and grandchildren.”
"And remember,” he warned, “they can’t undo the decision we take. If we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe — for good. And the next generation will have to live with the consequences far longer than the rest of us.”
..............
Read more: www.thenewamerican.com
The Brexit vote on June 23 means Britain will exit the European Union, right? Isn’t that what it was all about? Well, not really, according to a growing chorus of voices that insists “No” doesn’t mean no, “Out” doesn’t mean out, “Leave” doesn’t mean leave, “irreversible” doesn’t mean irreversible, etc.
Yes, it is true that "Remain" lost and "Leave" won. And, yes, it is true that Remain advocate Prime Minister David Cameron, just two days before the Brexit referendum vote, cranked up a last-ditch “Project Fear” blitz imploring British voters not to take the “irreversible” step of serving Brussels with divorce papers. Cameron pleaded with older voters to resist the call to “leave Europe” (as if the decades-old political EU is synonymous with the centuries-old historical, cultural, geographical Europe) and urged them to “think about the hopes and dreams of your children and grandchildren.”
"And remember,” he warned, “they can’t undo the decision we take. If we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe — for good. And the next generation will have to live with the consequences far longer than the rest of us.”
..............
Read more: www.thenewamerican.com
miércoles, 29 de junio de 2016
500 Years After It Was Destroyed By Henry VIII
Haunting Photos Show Monks Returning To Abbey
By Ryan Scheel -
A hauntingly beautiful set of photos, appearing on DailyMail, shows two Cistercian monks, Father Joseph and Brother Bernard, visting the ruins of a former Cistercian Abbey in England that had been destroyed during Henry VIII’s reign.
Rievaulx Abbey was Founded in 1132 by twelve monks from Clairvaux Abbey and It quickly became one of the most powerful and spiritually renowned centres of monasticism in Britain, housing a 650-strong community at its peak.
The abbey was dissolved by King Henry VIII on December 3, 1538. At that time there were reported to be 72 buildings occupied by an abbot and 21 monks, attended by 102 servants, with an income of £351 a year. Henry ordered the buildings to be rendered uninhabitable and stripped of valuables such as lead.
To support a candidate not for what he is, but for what he might be, or what you wish he were
On Converting for the Wrong Reasons
The last few weeks have seen the ranks of the #NeverTrump crowd dwindling somewhat as several once-staunch opponents of The Donald have concluded that, despite their myriad objections to Trump’s positions and personality, he would still be preferable to Hilary Clinton as president. Now, the dominance of the two-party system in the United States has resulted in many a voter casting his ballot less in support of one candidate than in opposition to another candidate over our nation’s electoral history—this would be nothing new. The difference, and the interest, lies in the apologia that some of these Trump converts make for their position: we are told by a number of new Trumpers that a President Trump is certain to be more friendly to traditional Republican interests, that his antics are only intended to rile up a key portion of the electorate to sweep him into the White House, and that post-inauguration we can trust him to appoint originalist Supreme Court justices, deal effectively with Congress, and charmingly engage our foreign allies. “He can change!” they plead.
Take radio host Hugh Hewitt. After pushing for changes to convention rules to thwart Trump’s nomination, Hewitt recently made an about-face and wrote an op-ed in theWashington Post backing Trump against Hilary Clinton—not because he supports Mr. Trump’s positions, mind you, but because “the prospect of another President Clinton, especially a Clinton who is so mired in scandal, compromised on national security and is the author of so many foreign-policy meltdowns, has a way of concentrating the mind.” While voicing his support for Trump as the only viable choice to prevent Secretary Clinton from being elected, Hewitt also signals what he expects, or would like, Trump to do going forward in his campaign: “Trump’s task now is clear: It’s time to abandon his off-the-cuff remarks, disengage from his battles with the media and methodically prosecute the case that throughout her career, [Hillary] Clinton has consistently displayed a disqualifying lack of judgment. He needs to develop this argument, detail it and drive it home.”
Any priest worth his collar would respond to an affianced person making such a plea about their intended by encouraging them to think carefully about their situation and seriously consider whether this was a proper match for them. A marriage that begins with the requirement that one party eventually change and the expectation that they will is not starting out on the best footing. (And here we mean significant changes—not so much “stop leaving your dirty socks in the living room” as “stop abusing alcohol and get a job.”) Choosing a marriage partner is a much more momentous and lasting choice than selecting a candidate to support in a given election, but the comparison holds in the crucial aspect: when we choose someone while hoping they’ll change, then what is it that we’re choosing?
My point here is not to focus on Trump himself, but to use the situation his presumptive nomination has created as an analogy for a certain type of convert to the Catholic faith. (The analogy limps, as all analogies do, but let’s take it as far as it can go.) I take as my exemplar former British prime minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicismshortly after leaving office in 2007. Mr. Blair’s wife and children were already Catholics, and he frequently attended Mass, so the news was not particularly surprising to many. Blair said of his conversion, “As time went on, I had been going to Mass for a long time … it’s difficult to find the right words. I felt this was right for me. There was something, not just about the doctrine of the Church, but of the universal nature of the Catholic Church.”
However, not long after being received into the Church, Mr. Blair began to openly criticize the Church for its teachings on several aspects of sexual morality. An article inNewsweek informed us that “Though a devout believer, he stands in opposition to his pope on issues like abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research and the rights of gay people to adopt children and form civil unions. ‘I guess there’s probably not many people of any religious faith who fully agree with every aspect of the teaching of the leaders of their faith,’ he says.” In an interview, Blair said, “Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith,” attributing the Church’s consistent teaching on these matters to a mere “generation gap.”
Is not such an attitude puzzling, event troubling? Just how did Mr. Blair feel “at home” in the Church if he considers it bigoted, benighted, and befuddled, like a grandparent who “was just raised that way”? The Church considers its teachings to be an integral whole, one inseparable from the other and all interwoven with one another. Does Mr. Blair accept that the Church is divinely guided in its teachings on the divinity of Christ and the grace of the sacraments but not in certain areas of morality? How could that be? The answer may come in that Mr. Blair is by trade a politician; I fear he, like too many others, views the teachings of the Church as though they were the planks of a political party platform—how often are they called “positions” in the media?—to be debated or negotiated at will.
To be clear, not every person who struggles with an aspect of Church teaching falls under this criticism. It is one thing to approach the Church and say, “I would like to enter the Church, but the Church’s teaching on X, Y, and Z is very different from the way I am used to thinking; I am still working that out, but I trust Our Lord when he said that the Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, and I will be docile and listen.” It is another thing to say, “I would like to enter the Church, but the Church is in error on X, Y, and Z, and I trust that the Church will bow to the spirit of the times, and I will be vocal and intractable.” The former shows humility; the latter, stubbornness at best, arrogance at worst.
.............
After taking the measure of our desperation, it is clear that the way forward is the way back
Desperate America
by TIMOTHY D. LUSCH
“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” True in Thoreau’s age, perhaps, not so much in ours. It seems the decibels of desperation have increased since Henry David’s days near Walden Pond. And not decibels only, but desperation. Nowadays we take our desperation at alarmingly acceptable rates. How often we merely “consume” media coverage of a mass killing, a sadistic murder, or the latest teenage suicide. And that is if we bother to get beyond the headlines. Often, I’ve heard it called The New Normal. I have no idea what this means. I take it to mean, of course, that we are both desensitized and accustomed to the screaming desperation in our country. It is at once an acknowledgement of, and a gloss upon, the point.
The point has gotten sharper.
Young Nones leave sacred places for safe spaces. Catastrophizing the need for the latter, while ignoring the former, exposes the desperation woven into the very name for the religiously unaffiliated.
Beyond the scourge of illegal drugs, the veneer of acceptability persists in the abuse of prescribed narcotics. The U.S. is less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but consumes 80 percent of the global opioid painkillers and 99 percent of the global supply of hydrocodone, the active ingredient in Vicodin.
More troubling still, the National Center for Health Statistics recently reported that suicides in America have reached a 30-year high. The report shows increases in every age group except older adults. Significantly, the suicide rate of young girls aged 10-14 tripled. There was a particularly steep increase for women overall and a substantial uptick for those in middle age.
These are branches of the same dying vine. They are also desperate answers to questions facing desperate people. By themselves, though, they do not answer the question.
Why are we so desperate?
When I bring this up in conversation, some people respond with Keep Calm and Carry On. Most go long on history because they are short on interest. Bad stuff, they say, has been going on since the beginning of time. No time is worse than any another. But this does not suffice when one takes a close, sustained look at the phenomenon of desperation in our country. Why? Because each elides the point. We are simply trying to avoid it altogether. Yet the point remains.
Desperation defined is clear enough. Desperation displayed isn’t always so. We can all agree that an increased suicide rate is a symptom of widening desperation. Likewise, the excessive use and abuse of prescription drugs. There is likely to be more disagreement over the extent to which a surfeit of stupidity signals desperation. Any number of reality shows and YouTube videos, in my view, are disgusting and disturbing evidence of desperation. Here, I concede, the waters muddy a bit. It may be easier to apply Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s well-worn description of pornography to the phenomenon of desperation in its modern iteration. We know it when we see it. All the same, these are but signs and symptoms. If we are to have any hope in redeeming the country and the culture, we must, as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, get down to causes and conditions. Perhaps we should look to Captain MacWhirr’s advice to young Jukes in Joseph Conrad’s Typhoon, “Facing it—always facing it—that’s the way to get through.” True as that is, the storm of desperation is of our own making. And we have yet to face it.
Meantime, technology allows for a diffusion of desperation at breakneck pace. Cisco reports that by 2020, three-fourths of the world’s mobile data traffic will be video. Much of this no doubt is due to the ubiquity of Facebook, YouTube, and Snapchat. What it says about us, significantly though not exclusively, is that we are desperate to be seen, heard, and entertained. And not in any authentically meaningful way. We are desperate to broaden our “profile” or “brand” but not our humanity. Desperation is the progeny of despair, and we are desperate for distraction from our despair. Despair, as Kierkegaard has it, in all its dimensions, is the sickness unto death.
In a humorous twist on a serious problem, we may do well to remember Douglas Horton’s view that “desperation is like stealing from the Mafia: you stand a good chance of attracting the wrong attention.” Indeed. And not merely from a world eager for distraction, but from an Evil One eager for souls. Lust, wrath, avarice and the rest ravage body and soul until we are given over to despair. The demon of acedia arrives in our despair, surreptitiously shutting the door behind the demonic horde.
It is here that acedia makes its home.
........
Read more: www.crisismagazine.com
The displacement of history by “social studies” in schools has been a disaster for historical understanding.
A CINEMATIC LESSON IN HOPE
by George Weigel
At a moment like this when there doesn’t seem to be a lot going right—ascendant authoritarianisms throughout the world; lethal violence by ideological fanatics; feckless responses to both from the democracies—it’s good to be reminded that things can be different, and in fact were different, not so very long ago.
Recapturing those days and summoning memories of a time when the good folks won, cleanly and against all the odds, is the singular accomplishment of a splendid new documentary, Liberating a Continent: John Paul II and the Fall of Communism, which should be on everyone’s summer must-watch list.
It took me nineteen years of research and three books (The Final Revolution,Witness to Hope, and The End and the Beginning) to do what executive producer Carl Anderson and writer/director David Naglieri have done in ninety-three minutes of gripping videography and marvelous graphics: explain how and why John Paul played a pivotal, indeed indispensable, role in the greatest drama of the last quarter of the twentieth century, the collapse of European communism. In doing so, they make us think hard, again, about how this miraculous liberation took place—something no one expected on October 16, 1978, when a little-known Polish cardinal, who styled himself the pope “from a far country,” was presented on the central loggia of St. Peter’s as the new Bishop of Rome.
Central and eastern Europe weren’t liberated by conceding that the communists had a point, even if they were rather brutal and inefficient in making that point socially, economically, and politically. Nor were the countries of the Warsaw Pact liberated by churchmen and western diplomats cosseting the dictators that ran those party-states. What we used to call the “captive nations” were liberated because “good” and “evil” were “called by their right names,” as the Solidarity martyr, Blessed Jerzy Popieliuszko, used to put it.
Central and eastern Europe didn’t break free of the shackles of totalitarianism without trying, failing, and then trying again: It took a critical mass of people, determined to “live in the truth” no matter how difficult, to implode the communist culture of the lie and give a new birth of freedom to the lands Stalin claimed as his prize for helping beat Hitler.
And the countries of central and eastern Europe didn’t regain their liberties by adopting the usual twentieth-century method of social change, mass violence. Understanding that people who begin by storming Bastilles usually end up building their own (as one Polish dissident said), the new freedom fighters inspired by John Paul II deployed weapons that communist brutality could not match: truth, national memory, tenacious organizing, and personal resilience.
For those whose memories of St. John Paul reach back only as far as his last years,Liberating a Continent is also a powerful reminder of what a handsome, charismatic, and utterly compelling man John Paul II was at the height of his physical powers. He radiated confidence, moral strength, and the courage of a happy warrior. And because of that, those whose lives he touched felt empowered in return.
The displacement of history by “social studies” in U.S. elementary and secondary schools has been a disaster for historical understanding.
..........
Revealing negative information about a stigmatized minority does not justify leaving children without support
The Data on Children in Same-Sex Households Get More Depressing
by Mark Regnerus
A new study examines the risk of depression and other negative outcomes among adolescents and young adults raised by same-sex couples.
A new study released earlier this month in the journal Depression Research and Treatment contributes to mounting evidence against the “no differences” thesis about the children of same-sex households, mere months after media sourcesprematurely—and mistakenly—proclaimed the science settled.
One of the most compelling aspects of this new study is that it is longitudinal, evaluating the same people over a long period of time. Indeed, its data source—the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health—is one of the most impressive, thorough, and expensive survey research efforts still ongoing. This study is not the first to make use of the “Add Health” data to test the “no differences” thesis. But it’s the first to come to different conclusions, for several reasons. One of those is its longitudinal aspect. Some problems only emerge over time.
Professor Paul Sullins, the study’s author, found that during adolescence the children of same-sex parents reported marginally less depression than the children of opposite-sex parents. But by the time the survey was in its fourth wave—when the kids had become young adults between the ages of 24 and 32—their experiences had reversed. Indeed, dramatically so: over half of the young-adult children of same-sex parents report ongoing depression, a surge of 33 percentage points (from 18 to 51 percent of the total). Meanwhile, depression among the young-adult children of opposite-sex parents had declined from 22 percent of them down to just under 20 percent.
A few other findings are worth mentioning as well. Obesity surged among both groups, but the differences became significant over time, with 31 percent obesity among young-adult children of opposite-sex parents, well below the 72 percent of those from same-sex households. While fewer young-adult children of same-sex parents felt “distant from one or both parents” as young adults than they did as teens, the levels are still sky-high at 73 percent (down from 93 percent during adolescence). Feelings of distance among the young-adult children of opposite-sex parents actually increased, but they started at a lower level (from 36 percent in adolescence to 44 percent in young adulthood).
To be fair, life in mom-and-pop households is not simply harmonious bydefinition. It is, however, a recognition that it is not just stability that matters (though it most certainly does). It’s also about biology, love, sexual difference, and modeling.
........
For decades, the Sexual Revolution was supposed to be about freedom. Today, it is about coercion.
OBERGEFELL AND THE NEW GNOSTICISM
by Sherif Girgis
For decades, the Sexual Revolution was supposed to be about freedom. Today, it is about coercion. Once, it sought to free our sexual choices from restrictive laws and unwanted consequences. Now, it seeks to free our sexual choices from other people's disapproval.
That’s a sharp turn—but it was inevitable. The ideals of the Sexual Revolution call for it: That is one lesson of the year that has passed since the Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Most of Obergefell’s lay supporters were simply moved by concern for our LGBT neighbors—a worthy and urgent concern that the Church must be the first to heed, as Wesley Hill hasbeautifully reminded us. But the Court’s ruling itself depended on a broader sexual progressivism; and its cultural fallout has made clearer that sexual progressivism is illiberal. Absorb its vision of the human person wholesale, and you will soon conclude that social justice requires getting others to subscribe to that vision.
In short, the ideas that Obergefell imposed on our government could hardly stop there; as with an evangelical creed, the legal system could not embrace them without feeling bound to spread them. Obergefell is thus best seen as a religious bull from our national Magisterium, the Supreme Court, by the pen of its high priest, Justice Kennedy. With all the solemnity of a Chalcedon or Trent, it formalized new doctrines for our nation’s civil religion—Gnostic ideas about the human person. Ideas that, by their very nature, create an obligation to recruit new adherents. (And ideas that—unlike true religion—could serve their purpose whether or not they were accepted freely.)
Obergefell has thus inspired fidelity and stigmatized heresy, on pain of the (civic) mortal sins of bigotry and injustice. One year later, we can take the measure of its consequences—and prepare for future ones—only if we spell out the ideas it embraced, and why they demand to be enforced.
To hold that same-sex marriage is part of the fundamental right to marry, or necessary for giving LGBT people the equal protection of the laws, the Court implicitly made a number of other assumptions: that one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself, only the feelings fostered by any kind of consensual sex; that there is nothing special about knowing the love of the two people whose union gave you life, whose bodies gave you yours, so long as you have two sources of care and support; that what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering. It effectively had to treat contrary views as irrational.
That’s a sharp turn—but it was inevitable. The ideals of the Sexual Revolution call for it: That is one lesson of the year that has passed since the Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Most of Obergefell’s lay supporters were simply moved by concern for our LGBT neighbors—a worthy and urgent concern that the Church must be the first to heed, as Wesley Hill hasbeautifully reminded us. But the Court’s ruling itself depended on a broader sexual progressivism; and its cultural fallout has made clearer that sexual progressivism is illiberal. Absorb its vision of the human person wholesale, and you will soon conclude that social justice requires getting others to subscribe to that vision.
In short, the ideas that Obergefell imposed on our government could hardly stop there; as with an evangelical creed, the legal system could not embrace them without feeling bound to spread them. Obergefell is thus best seen as a religious bull from our national Magisterium, the Supreme Court, by the pen of its high priest, Justice Kennedy. With all the solemnity of a Chalcedon or Trent, it formalized new doctrines for our nation’s civil religion—Gnostic ideas about the human person. Ideas that, by their very nature, create an obligation to recruit new adherents. (And ideas that—unlike true religion—could serve their purpose whether or not they were accepted freely.)
Obergefell has thus inspired fidelity and stigmatized heresy, on pain of the (civic) mortal sins of bigotry and injustice. One year later, we can take the measure of its consequences—and prepare for future ones—only if we spell out the ideas it embraced, and why they demand to be enforced.
To hold that same-sex marriage is part of the fundamental right to marry, or necessary for giving LGBT people the equal protection of the laws, the Court implicitly made a number of other assumptions: that one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself, only the feelings fostered by any kind of consensual sex; that there is nothing special about knowing the love of the two people whose union gave you life, whose bodies gave you yours, so long as you have two sources of care and support; that what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering. It effectively had to treat contrary views as irrational.
....
“Occidente”, prima di essere uno spazio geografico, è il nome di una civiltà.
La Brexit e il destino dell’Occidente
di Roberto de Mattei
Il referendum inglese del 23 giugno (Brexit) sancisce il crollo definitivo di un mito: il sogno di una “Europa senza frontiere”, costruita sulle rovine degli Stati nazionali. Il progetto europeista, lanciato con il Trattato di Maastricht del 1992, aveva in sé stesso i germi della sua auto-dissoluzione. Era del tutto illusorio pretendere di realizzare un’unione economica e monetaria prima di un’unione politica.
O, peggio ancora, immaginare di servirsi dell’integrazione monetaria per attuare l’unificazione politica. Ma altrettanto e ancor più illusorio era il progetto di pervenire ad un’unità politica, estirpando quelle radici spirituali che vincolano gli uomini a un comune destino. La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea approvata dal Consiglio Europeo a Nizza nel dicembre 2000, non solo espunge ogni riferimento alle radici religiose dell’Europa, ma ha in sé una viscerale negazione dell’ordine naturale cristiano.
Il suo articolo 21, introducendo il divieto di qualsiasi discriminazione relativa alle “tendenze sessuali”, contiene, in nuce, la legalizzazione del reato di omofobia e dello pseudo matrimonio omosessuale. Il progetto di “Costituzione”, al quale lavorò una Convenzione sul futuro dell’Europa tra il 2002 e il 2003, fu bocciato da due referendum popolari, in Francia, il 29 maggio 2005 e in Olanda, il 1 giugno dello stesso anno, ma gli eurocrati non si arresero.
Dopo due anni di “riflessione”, il 13 dicembre 2007, fu approvato dai capi di Stato e di Governo dell’UE il Trattato di Lisbona che avrebbe dovuto essere ratificato esclusivamente per via parlamentare. L’unico paese chiamato ad esprimersi per via di referendum, l’Irlanda, bocciò il Trattato il 13 giugno 2008, ma essendo necessaria l’unanimità degli Stati firmatari, fu imposto agli irlandesi un nuovo referendum, che grazie alle fortissime pressioni economiche e mediatiche, diede finalmente esito positivo.
Nella sua breve vita, l’Unione Europea, incapace di definire una politica estera e di sicurezza comune, si è trasformata in una tribuna ideologica, che sforna risoluzioni e direttive per spingere i Governi nazionali a liberarsi dei valori familiari e tradizionali. All’interno dell’UE, la Gran Bretagna, ha premuto il freno, per rallentare il disegno franco-tedesco di un “superStato europeo”, ma ha invece premuto l’acceleratore per diffondere su scala europea, le proprie “conquiste civili”, dall’aborto all’eutanasia, dalle adozioni omosessuali alle manipolazioni genetiche.
............
“Occidente”, prima di essere uno spazio geografico, è il nome di una civiltà. Questa civiltà è la Civiltà cristiana, erede della cultura classica greco-romana che dall’Europa si è estesa alle Americhe e alle propaggini lontane dell’Asia e dell’Africa. Essa ebbe il suo battesimo la notte del sogno di san Paolo, quando Dio diede l’ordine all’apostolo di voltare le spalle all’Asia per «passare in Macedonia», ad annunciare la buona novella (Atti, XVI, 6-10).
Roma fu il luogo del martirio dei santi Pietro e Paolo e il centro della civiltà che nasceva. Spengler, convinto dell’inesorabile declino dell’Occidente, ricorda una frase di Seneca: Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt («Il destino guida chi vuole lasciarsi guidare e trascina chi non vuole»). Ma alla visione relativista e determinista di Spengler noi opponiamo quella di sant’Agostino che, mentre i barbari assediavano Ippona, annunciava la vittoria della Città di Dio nella storia, sempre guidata dalla Divina Provvidenza. L’uomo è artefice del proprio destino e con l’aiuto di Dio il tramonto di una civiltà può trasformarsi nell’alba di una resurrezione. Le nazioni sono mortali, ma Dio non muore e la Chiesa non tramonta.
O, peggio ancora, immaginare di servirsi dell’integrazione monetaria per attuare l’unificazione politica. Ma altrettanto e ancor più illusorio era il progetto di pervenire ad un’unità politica, estirpando quelle radici spirituali che vincolano gli uomini a un comune destino. La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea approvata dal Consiglio Europeo a Nizza nel dicembre 2000, non solo espunge ogni riferimento alle radici religiose dell’Europa, ma ha in sé una viscerale negazione dell’ordine naturale cristiano.
Il suo articolo 21, introducendo il divieto di qualsiasi discriminazione relativa alle “tendenze sessuali”, contiene, in nuce, la legalizzazione del reato di omofobia e dello pseudo matrimonio omosessuale. Il progetto di “Costituzione”, al quale lavorò una Convenzione sul futuro dell’Europa tra il 2002 e il 2003, fu bocciato da due referendum popolari, in Francia, il 29 maggio 2005 e in Olanda, il 1 giugno dello stesso anno, ma gli eurocrati non si arresero.
Dopo due anni di “riflessione”, il 13 dicembre 2007, fu approvato dai capi di Stato e di Governo dell’UE il Trattato di Lisbona che avrebbe dovuto essere ratificato esclusivamente per via parlamentare. L’unico paese chiamato ad esprimersi per via di referendum, l’Irlanda, bocciò il Trattato il 13 giugno 2008, ma essendo necessaria l’unanimità degli Stati firmatari, fu imposto agli irlandesi un nuovo referendum, che grazie alle fortissime pressioni economiche e mediatiche, diede finalmente esito positivo.
Nella sua breve vita, l’Unione Europea, incapace di definire una politica estera e di sicurezza comune, si è trasformata in una tribuna ideologica, che sforna risoluzioni e direttive per spingere i Governi nazionali a liberarsi dei valori familiari e tradizionali. All’interno dell’UE, la Gran Bretagna, ha premuto il freno, per rallentare il disegno franco-tedesco di un “superStato europeo”, ma ha invece premuto l’acceleratore per diffondere su scala europea, le proprie “conquiste civili”, dall’aborto all’eutanasia, dalle adozioni omosessuali alle manipolazioni genetiche.
............
“Occidente”, prima di essere uno spazio geografico, è il nome di una civiltà. Questa civiltà è la Civiltà cristiana, erede della cultura classica greco-romana che dall’Europa si è estesa alle Americhe e alle propaggini lontane dell’Asia e dell’Africa. Essa ebbe il suo battesimo la notte del sogno di san Paolo, quando Dio diede l’ordine all’apostolo di voltare le spalle all’Asia per «passare in Macedonia», ad annunciare la buona novella (Atti, XVI, 6-10).
Roma fu il luogo del martirio dei santi Pietro e Paolo e il centro della civiltà che nasceva. Spengler, convinto dell’inesorabile declino dell’Occidente, ricorda una frase di Seneca: Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt («Il destino guida chi vuole lasciarsi guidare e trascina chi non vuole»). Ma alla visione relativista e determinista di Spengler noi opponiamo quella di sant’Agostino che, mentre i barbari assediavano Ippona, annunciava la vittoria della Città di Dio nella storia, sempre guidata dalla Divina Provvidenza. L’uomo è artefice del proprio destino e con l’aiuto di Dio il tramonto di una civiltà può trasformarsi nell’alba di una resurrezione. Le nazioni sono mortali, ma Dio non muore e la Chiesa non tramonta.
Dans certains cercles, on est pour l'UE ou on est pour l'UE. Un point c'est tout.
Brexit : le splendide isolement des élites
Par Eléonore de Vulpillières
Source: FIGAROVOX/ENTRETIEN
Les réactions de contestation du Brexit s'apparentent à la «révolte des élites» théorisée par Christopher Lasch, vivant dans leur isolement du reste du peuple, estime le professeur Jacques de Saint Victor, historien du droit et professeur des Universités (Paris XIII/CNAM). Ses derniers ouvrages parus sont Via Appia (Les Equateurs, 2016) etBlasphème. Brève histoire d'un crime imaginaire (Gallimard, prix du livre d'histoire du Sénat, 2016).
LE FIGARO. - A l'issue du référendum sur le Brexit, les partisans du camp du maintien ont réagi de diverses façons, allant de l'abattement à la combativité marquant leur attachement à l'Union européenne. Une pétition - comportant plusieurs centaines de fausses signatures - a atteint les 3 millions de signataires. Certains réclament l'indépendance de Londres membre de l'UE d'un Royaume-Uni hors UE. Comment analysez-vous ces réactions?
Jacques de SAINT VICTOR. - On peut penser dans un premier temps qu'il s'agit juste d'une réaction de mauvais perdants ou de désespoir d'une partie de l'élite urbaine, souvent jeune, qui se sent trahie par les campagnes, les vieux et les gens modestes. Il y a dans ce rejet de la démocratie une sorte d'illustration de ce que le grand penseur anglais, Christopher Lasch, appelait la «révolte des élites» (par opposition à la «révolte des masses» d'Ortega y Gasset). Dans ce livre très visionnaire, publié en 1995, Lasch notait que ce sont aujourd'hui les élites, et non plus les masses, qui vivent dans un splendide isolement, satisfaites d'elles-mêmes, rejetant tout ce qui échappe à leur bien-être personnel, coupées des réalités du monde commun qui les entoure. C'est la solidarité des surclasses globales qui, de Londres à Singapour ou Paris, sont indifférentes au sort de leurs voisins locaux. Elles ont développé une sorte d'irresponsabilité et d'immaturité qui les prive de toute forme de «sensibilité pour les grands devoirs historiques», disait déjà Lasch. Lorsqu'elles sont confrontées à un retour brutal du réel, comme le résultat d'une consultation démocratique, elles n'hésitent pas à se déclarer contre la démocratie. Lasch soulignait d'ailleurs ce déclin du discours démocratique chez des «élites qui ne font que se parler à elles-mêmes».
Peut-on y voir la marque d'un refus du jeu démocratique? La «construction européenne» est-elle, pour certains, supérieure à l'expression de la volonté populaire?
C'est vrai et c'est un élément, parmi d'autres, dans cette réaction anti-démocratique. L'Europe a échappé au discours historique. C'est une sorte de nouvelle religion laïque qui n'est plus fondée sur un socle réel mais sur un système de croyance. Etre eurosceptique relève pour certains d'un crime de lèse-majesté. Cela échappe au débat démocratique. Dans certains cercles, on est pour l'UE ou on est pour l'UE. Un point c'est tout. «Bruxelles a toujours raison». Cet unanimisme antidémocratique est aux origines mêmes des dérives du processus. Dès 1992, on l'a oublié, mais les Danois avaient dans un premier temps voté contre Maastricht à 50,7% (alors que les sondages prévoyaient 59% de oui). Bruxelles leur rappela sèchement qu'un petit peuple ne pouvait pas se permettre d'entraver le «rêve» de tout un continent. On les traita à part et avec hauteur. Il faut relire les déclarations de certains grands dirigeants à l'époque qui se demandèrent si les Danois étaient vraiment dignes de la démocratie. Montrés du doigt, ils furent contraints de revoter en 1993 et, à 56% cette fois-ci, ils firent le choix de Maastricht. On peut s'interroger si les profondes traditions anglaises se laisseront prendre à une telle mascarade de second vote. C'est peu probable car, en outre, l'Europe de Bruxelles n'est plus aussi attrayante qu'en 1992. Quand on a vu la façon dont MM Juncker ou Schäuble s'adressaient à la Grèce, le visage de Bruxelles a changé, même pour de nombreux europhiles de la première heure.
LE FIGARO. - A l'issue du référendum sur le Brexit, les partisans du camp du maintien ont réagi de diverses façons, allant de l'abattement à la combativité marquant leur attachement à l'Union européenne. Une pétition - comportant plusieurs centaines de fausses signatures - a atteint les 3 millions de signataires. Certains réclament l'indépendance de Londres membre de l'UE d'un Royaume-Uni hors UE. Comment analysez-vous ces réactions?
Jacques de SAINT VICTOR. - On peut penser dans un premier temps qu'il s'agit juste d'une réaction de mauvais perdants ou de désespoir d'une partie de l'élite urbaine, souvent jeune, qui se sent trahie par les campagnes, les vieux et les gens modestes. Il y a dans ce rejet de la démocratie une sorte d'illustration de ce que le grand penseur anglais, Christopher Lasch, appelait la «révolte des élites» (par opposition à la «révolte des masses» d'Ortega y Gasset). Dans ce livre très visionnaire, publié en 1995, Lasch notait que ce sont aujourd'hui les élites, et non plus les masses, qui vivent dans un splendide isolement, satisfaites d'elles-mêmes, rejetant tout ce qui échappe à leur bien-être personnel, coupées des réalités du monde commun qui les entoure. C'est la solidarité des surclasses globales qui, de Londres à Singapour ou Paris, sont indifférentes au sort de leurs voisins locaux. Elles ont développé une sorte d'irresponsabilité et d'immaturité qui les prive de toute forme de «sensibilité pour les grands devoirs historiques», disait déjà Lasch. Lorsqu'elles sont confrontées à un retour brutal du réel, comme le résultat d'une consultation démocratique, elles n'hésitent pas à se déclarer contre la démocratie. Lasch soulignait d'ailleurs ce déclin du discours démocratique chez des «élites qui ne font que se parler à elles-mêmes».
Peut-on y voir la marque d'un refus du jeu démocratique? La «construction européenne» est-elle, pour certains, supérieure à l'expression de la volonté populaire?
C'est vrai et c'est un élément, parmi d'autres, dans cette réaction anti-démocratique. L'Europe a échappé au discours historique. C'est une sorte de nouvelle religion laïque qui n'est plus fondée sur un socle réel mais sur un système de croyance. Etre eurosceptique relève pour certains d'un crime de lèse-majesté. Cela échappe au débat démocratique. Dans certains cercles, on est pour l'UE ou on est pour l'UE. Un point c'est tout. «Bruxelles a toujours raison». Cet unanimisme antidémocratique est aux origines mêmes des dérives du processus. Dès 1992, on l'a oublié, mais les Danois avaient dans un premier temps voté contre Maastricht à 50,7% (alors que les sondages prévoyaient 59% de oui). Bruxelles leur rappela sèchement qu'un petit peuple ne pouvait pas se permettre d'entraver le «rêve» de tout un continent. On les traita à part et avec hauteur. Il faut relire les déclarations de certains grands dirigeants à l'époque qui se demandèrent si les Danois étaient vraiment dignes de la démocratie. Montrés du doigt, ils furent contraints de revoter en 1993 et, à 56% cette fois-ci, ils firent le choix de Maastricht. On peut s'interroger si les profondes traditions anglaises se laisseront prendre à une telle mascarade de second vote. C'est peu probable car, en outre, l'Europe de Bruxelles n'est plus aussi attrayante qu'en 1992. Quand on a vu la façon dont MM Juncker ou Schäuble s'adressaient à la Grèce, le visage de Bruxelles a changé, même pour de nombreux europhiles de la première heure.
..........
Lire la suite ici: www.lefigaro.fr
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)