Posted on 09/26/2005 7:50:14 PM PDT by Kimmers
Europe Died in Auschwitz By Sebastian Villar Rodriguez September 23, 2005
I was walking along Raval (in Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!
We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create.
We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God.
Because it is the people who gave to humanity the epic figures who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein, Freud...) and who represent the origin of progress and wellbeing.
We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened its doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.
We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition. We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better, peaceful world, for the suicide bomber.
We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our children.
What a grave mistake we made!
Not absolutely false! Take a re-read of the platform statements of both parties. What party is it that consistently approves of all abortions now? Is it the Republican Party? NO! You mentioned the govs of two Blue states (with heavy RAT participation among voters), including Reagan, but they were not the leaders of the Party.
I am not sure I understand your concern.
I believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the WE of cultural character and the ME of individual character. They are not each the same in all times and places. I referred directly to the writer's admonition that WE are engaged in a culture of death.
In that abortion and STDs are dominant themes in the life of this culture, I would maintain that this culture is thereby engaged in activities that promote innocent and needless death. Society tolerates these behaviors. It does not stop them.
I am not sure where we are going with this. What do you believe is the salient issue between the WE and the ME?
Our society in the USA is bound by our Constitution, correct?
You see some activities as a 'culture of death' -- that others see as constitutional issues. Can you acknowledge that you are bound to use constitutional means to resolve those salient issues?
In your earlier post to me, you claimed:
WE are responsible [for Auschwitz] just as surely as we are responsible for slavery in our country's history.
Speak for yourself Amos. -- We the people of the USA are bound by our Constitution, in which we abolished slavery, but wherein we have not yet assumed responsibility for policing the world.. -- And I doubt we could, even if asked.
We in the US, when we follow the constitution, celebrate a culture of freedom, not death.
I can agree that many of our constitutional principles are not being followed. -- Can you?
There is much about which we disagree.
Slavery was not abolished by our Constitution. It was abolished by a bloody and terrible war.
Abortion is provided by a perversion of our Constitution. The perversion says that the biological dependence of a child in a womb is grounds for killing. A so-called right of privacy has trumped the right to life. Which is guaranteed by our Constitution?
You have completely ignored my distinction between WE and ME. WE (our culture) claim that abortion is legitimate. I do not. I include myself in WE only when the cultural principle is agreeable. Otherwise I oppose it.
Our society in the USA is bound by our Constitution, correct?
You see some activities as a 'culture of death' -- that others see as constitutional issues. Can you acknowledge that you are bound to use constitutional means to resolve those salient issues?
I include myself in WE only when the cultural principle is agreeable. Otherwise I oppose it.
Fine. -- So be it. Thanks for your candor.
I have no authority to employ the Constitution. I have resolved these issues in myself and seek to resolve them in the minds of those I encounter.
The Constitution exists to limit the authority of government. It serves no other function. My freedom is not granted by the Constitution; rather, the Constitution is restricted from imposing the will of those who govern on my freedom.
Shall the Constitution be employed to resolve civil issues? I think not. The citizenry will, by their hue and cry, impose upon those in authority the requirement that they cease and desist from their abuse of the Constitution.
Our society in the USA is bound by our Constitution, correct? You see some activities as a 'culture of death' -- that others see as constitutional issues.
Can you acknowledge that you are bound to use constitutional means to resolve those salient issues?
bttt
Give that man a cigar. European Civilization took a bullet through the lungs after 1914, and thrashed around horribly before finally bleeding out during WWII. Europe did indeed die in Auschwitz, but was mortally wounded nearly three decades earlier. The horrors on the Continent during the Thirties and Forties could never have taken place without the physical and spiritual mutilation caused by the Great War.
Not true. I was born in this country and have never taken an oath to defend the constitution. Unless as an officer of the government, it is not the duty of the citizenry to defend the constitution. The Constitution protects the citizen from abusive authority by government officials.
This is a critical distinction. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of government in public life. The fact that this has been perverted in recent years by power mongering government officials does not make it constitutional.
You might want to check out the thread: Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1487129/posts
You are correct that I may appeal to the Constitution to protect my God given rights from abuse by another citizen or by the government.
Yeah, not exactly the smartest of moves. The Euros killed peaceful, hardworking, and highly educated people and ended up inviting in millions belonging to one of the most violent cults history has ever seen.
Europe richly deserves its fate.
We are all bound as citizens to support & defend our constitution.
The Oath of Citizenship
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/citizenship/oath.html
The Oath of Citizenship
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
so help me God.
WOW
Thank you. The last sentence is awkward. It might better read:
The Constitution restricts those who govern from imposing their will on my freedom.
I want to be sure that I am understood in this context. I love my country and will die for it. I have never, however, been in the military or been elected to public office. There has never been an opportunity for me to take an oath to defend the Constitution. I am sure that I would.
The point I am trying to make is that the founders of our government developed a structure that prevented the government from intruding into the inalienable rights of the citizenry. Freedom of the individual was paramount in their minds and is demonstrated clearly in the documents they created.
This inalienable freedom, not granted by the Constitution but recognized as granted by God, has been sullied in recent decades by the imposition of a government sanctioned set of freedoms.
Abortion is a prime example. It denies the inalienable right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when that individual is utterly dependent upon another for its survival. This turns the Constitution on its head.
The recent case of Terry Schaivo is a similar case in which the life of the individual was sacrificed to the convenience of others.
The Constitution is perfectly clear in the matter of individual freedom. It is not in the provenance of the government to restrict individual freedom unless that individual has broken their social contract by acting in ways that are morally repugnant.
When we dismiss the social contract and ignore morality we are left with a "living constitution" that must define these terms for a benighted people.
Thank you for the more compact wording - it is easier to recall for future reference!
The volume of statutes and caselaw which have accrued over the years is, IMHO, obscene. But that's what happens when man tries to define moral principles as law.
You claim that the Constitution is perfectly clear, -- that it is in the provenance of the government to restrict individual freedom when that individual has broken their social contract by acting in ways that are "morally repugnant".
Who gets to define what is morally repugnant? Congress? The USSC? A majority?
When we dismiss the social contract and ignore morality we are left with a "living constitution" that must define these terms for a benighted people.
Ignore morality? Whose version/vision of morality is ignored?
Aren't you also allowing some group of people to "define these terms"? And if so, where in the constitution is their power to so 'define morality' enumerated? 'Morality' is not constitutionally defined, and no person or group is empowered by the document to define it.
We have decided to allow groups of our peers [juries] to decide matters of guilt or innocence, using due process of law in the case at hand. But even juries are not allowed to define moral issues. Their decisions only apply to the criminal issues of the case presented. They do not make moral law.
No one in our constitutional system is empowered to make "moral law" for the rest of us, or to decree what is to be "morally repugnant".
Your comments are a perfect illustration of precisely what I am talking about. Morality was, in the minds of the framers and of the culture at the time, not a matter of debate. It was not decided by a group but was held in common respect.
The rejection of religion by political sociopaths has led to the relativism of morality. This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy.
John Adams and others believed that the Constitution could not stand unless the people had a fundamental sense of morality.
Moral relitivists would have the constitution reinterpreted to fit their current sense of right and wrong, commonly referred to as politically correct, a pop culture morality.
The fictitious claim that religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populas is bsed on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.
In fact the jury can do what ever it pleases. It is not bound by anything. It may acquit in the face of overwhelming evidence if it determines that the law is a bad law. It may decide the moral ramifications of a case and decide accordingly.
The jury is bound by nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.