This just seems...wrong. Inherently wrong on so many levels.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It [also?] seems natural. Completely natural for many reasons.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I'm Cuban. If there is one man's death worthy of a great party, Castro is the guy. His death won't fix everything that's wrong with Cuba, but it'll be a huge positive step forward, and this is worthy a a celebration.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I think it's natural to welcome the death of someone you see as an oppressor to your people or your ideals, but unnatural to have a formalized (state sanctioned?) location to celebrate it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I agree that it's somewhat freakish to make it an official function. It's not only pandering; it's tasteless pandering. That said, I suspect that they're hoping by having an official "destination" for the party that they'll avoid riots in the streets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Never succesfully impeded, he ruled with an iron fist for essentially the rest of his natural life. which took like fifty years."
Yay happy endings?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
HOW was he capable of ruling for fifty years?
What's the power structure like in Cuba that will topple on his demise?
He's got supporters who have supporters, etc. Is there anything to say that his death will bring Cubans more than moral relief?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well seeing as how we have tons of examples of state sponsored oppression of minorities, perhaps one example of state sponsored support of minorities is warranted.
Can't really back that up ethically, but I can in a sort of emotional, feel good sort of way.
The British celebrate Guy Fawks day, this could be the same deal.
Ok but honestly, I think I agree that the government should NOT be involved in this. The Cubans and their friends in Miami are intelligent and wealthy enough to have a perfectly effective celebration without governmental assistance.
I can't pretend to know enough about the infrastructure of Cuban government to effectively comment on what Castro's death will mean for Cuba. As far as I know, it could go both ways.
When Chairman Mao died, the Chinese were fed up with communism but Deng Xiao Ping managed to hold the country together with economic reforms, while simultaneously continuing China's policy of human rights abuses.
Russia's communism did not fall with Stalin's death. I will not be surprised if Castro's death allows for a more progressive Cuba, completely disassembles the communist regime in Cuba, or becomes old news in a week and everyone goes back to work.
edited: for a word omission mistake so large it reversed my opinion on the whole matter.
[ January 29, 2007, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
As I see it, Tom has the right of this. They're gonna be a massive party regardless (judging from the fact that it seemed the only substantial complaint was not having it in Little Havana) so I don't see any harm in trying to avert a potentially insane gathering that everyone feels like they have to go to or their not happy Castro died.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tom, FWIW, Cubans have never rioted.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Raúl Castro, by the way, is simultaneously more brutal and less intelligent than Fidel.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Tom, FWIW, Cubans have never rioted.
Nah... We just shoot some guns in the air, play a few rounds of dominoes, have some coffee and after all that rioting seems like... well... work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As to it being "wrong on so many levels", sure it's distasteful to celebrate the death of a human being. I think it's something which, in the abstract, should be discouraged. But we don't live by abstracts, we live in a world with people like the Castros and those who suffered under his rule, and for those of us fortunate enough not to, I think we lack the perspective necessary to pass specific moral judgement on them.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:I think we lack the perspective necessary to pass specific moral judgement on them.
The same argument can be used to excuse any number of actions, regardless of how barbaric they may be.
I think that our ability to empathize with someone and still condemn their actions is what allows us to create society as we know it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Oh, I forgot that we have to roast a pig for the occasion, too.
Cubans pretty much celebrate *everything* in about the same way, you understand. Castro's death... Child's birth... Got new shoes... we pretty much don't hold anything back ever in that regard.
The only near exception is New Years in which, in addition to all of the above, we have to eat a dozen grapes in under a minute.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What specifically makes it unethical to be glad and celebrate that a person who overtly harms people everyday will no longer do so?
Laying disagreements about whether Castro fits that statement aside, assuming its true, what is unethical about it?
Are we really meant to love humanity so much, that those who make it a lesser race need to be esteemed equally with those who try to make it better?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I will celebrate in some way when he is gone. I will be happy when he is gone. I may not go to Miami to do it, though. An official celebration may be a bad idea because of how it looks to outsiders; the Cuban community has still not recovered from the Elian fiasco, which made it okay to openly hate Cubans like never before.
Think of me what you will. *shrug*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote: Are we really meant to love humanity so much, that those who make it a lesser race need to be esteemed equally with those who try to make it better?
It's not about loving or hating someone, or agreeing or disagreeing with their actions in life.
In my opinion, reveling in death, in any form or manner, demeans humanity as a whole.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
he was a friend of Trudeau that to me is enough for me to not like people partying when someone dies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that our ability to empathize with someone and still condemn their actions is what allows us to create society as we know it.
I think it's impossible to truly empathize without some measure of real understanding of what it means to have been that person, THT. What understanding do you have of what it means to have been a Cuban living under Fidel Castro's rule? (Note: "I've read about it" doesn't really hold water. Knowledge of history does not confer empathy.)
I also don't think empathy without condemnation has much to do with our society as we know it. I think condemnation without outright persucution has a whole lot more to do with it, to be honest.
quote:In my opinion, reveling in death, in any form or manner, demeans humanity as a whole.
Why does reveling (or celebrating) death demean humanity, THT? A reasonable argument could be made that death is every bit as much a part of humanity as life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Like the previous poster said, death is indeed part of life. Its not some synthetic aspect that is prevalent in humanity, its part of every being sentient or otherwise.
He is not dead, and I do not know when he will be, but why not celebrate that a terrible event "the existance of Castro" has come to an end, and it ended without another human being doing something wrong to make it so.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it's terrible to think that the existence of a person is in and of itself a terrible event.
-pH
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: I think it's terrible to think that the existence of a person is in and of itself a terrible event.
And I think it's terrible that there are people whose existences are, indeed, terrible events.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Do you really think that can be the case? That someone can just be fundamentally terrible?
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Why did the Elian thing make it ok to hate Cubans?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Do you really think that can be the case? That someone can just be fundamentally terrible?
-pH
No, but a person's actions can overwhelmingly be more terrible then good. Who cares about whether or not Castro use to be a good person. As children I am sure 99% of us were all good people. But he has lived a long life and has opted to spend that time not in the service of others, or even at the least in gratifying himself without injury to others. Instead he has chosen that only in the misery of others can he be truly happy and thus his life is not one in which we should celebrate its existence.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Do you really think that can be the case? That someone can just be fundamentally terrible?
-pH
Sure. There are animals who are born with an instinct to hurt other people; what makes it so unlikely that there are humans who are born with an instinct to hurt other people?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: he was a friend of Trudeau that to me is enough for me to not like people partying when someone dies.
I'll raise a mojito specifically for you, Blayne.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Why did the Elian thing make it ok to hate Cubans?
Because the Cuban community came down on the side that public opinion overwhelmingly opposed. My own opinion aside--that it was the wrong cause for Cubans to rally around, and that, further, Elian belonged with his father, but that Reno's actions were unnecessary, borne of not bothering to understand her "opponents," needlessly violent, and capriciously endangering of human life--it is simply a fact that, right or wrong, expressing derision of Cubans in public became acceptable in pretty much all quarters (read: liberal or conservative) after it was all over. Cubans were perceived as a bunch who would put their politics above the relationship between a father and his son. Immediately afterward, I heard gringos at work say unabashedly anti-Cuban things, and, in subsequent visits to Miami (which I moved away from in 2001) I have heard anti-Cuban sentiments and racially-motivated humor on the street, on the internet (okay, seen, not heard), and even on AM sports radio in Miami. Heck, on the day of the raid, I saw Miami cops use mace and pepper spray on Cubans who were demonstrating nonviolently, and I never heard of any investigation taking place. People wanted an excuse to show Cubans how obnoxious they found them. Cubans spent all their credibility and destroyed their standing in that fracas. So much so that, as far as I heard, nobody even investigated Sr. Jeanne O'Laughlin's [not a Cuban, mind you] claim that Elian's father asked for asylum during his visit, and was not granted it by the Clinton administration, in order to avoid further political fallout.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:So much so that, as far as I heard, nobody even investigated Sr. Jeanne O'Laughlin's [not a Cuban, mind you] claim that Elian's father asked for asylum during his visit, and was not granted it by the Clinton administration, in order to avoid further political fallout.
I never heard that. If true, that's awful. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Icky: Wow.. things must be different there.. All I saw was a little boy who's mommy died trying to get him to freedom and then the gov't was going to send him back. I was on the Cuban's side all the way. I didn't hear any anti-Cuban rhetoric the whole time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Neither did I, FWIW.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Icky....sorry, but my bullshit meter went off on that one. (not from you, but about that non-story)
Nothing would have pleased the Clinton administration better than having him ask for protection....and there is no way the press wouldn't have run with it at that point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In a cursory search for documentation for you, I could not find documentation that Lázaro Gonzalez asked for asylum, but I did find documentation that at least one of Elian's grandmothers did (according to O'Laughlin, anyway).
From the February 20th, 2000 Miami Herald, by Herald staff writer Meg Laughlin:
quote:After three weeks of silence, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin has decided to tell exactly why she abandoned her position of neutrality and became an advocate for those who believe that 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez should stay in the United States rather than return to Cuba.
O'Laughlin now says that the night Elian met with his grandmothers in her home in Miami Beach, she learned that one of the grandmothers wanted to defect.
She says she learned that the father and his family knew about Elian's mother's plan to bring him to Miami on a boat 10 days before they left.
And as to why the Clinton Administration would not have wanted to let Elian stay, here is what Thomas Sowell had to say in an editorial:
quote:Clinton couldn't risk Elian's being granted asylum
Wants Full Diplomcatic Relations with Castro's Cuba
After the seizure of Elian Gonzalez by heavily armed marshals in the early hours of the morning, the spin from the Clinton Administration-echoed by CNN and CBS-was that Elian was now reunited with his father. But, even before this raid was launched, the Cuban government itself revealed that Elian is destined to go to a special place being prepared for him in Havana not in Cardenas, where his father lives.
. . .
But none are so blind as those who will not see-or hear. And too many Americans, especially in the media, fall into that category. The story of the special center being prepared for Elian in Havana was carried in the N.Y Times-back on page 17, under a bland headline about Elian's classmates' awaiting his return.
The other great piece of political spin out of the Clinton Administration is that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno "had no choice" but to send in marshals, in order to uphold "the rule of law."
Like so many things that are said inside the Beltway, this was the direct opposite of the truth. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had already set forth the other choice: a hearing on an application for asylum on behalf of Elian Gonzalez by his uncle in Miami. That may well be what set off this pre-dawn seizure of the little boy, precisely to prevent that choice from being exercised.
The political stakes are just too high, for both the Clinton Administration and the Castro regime, to take a chance on Elian Gonzalez's being given asylum in the United States. What this little boy could have said freely in an American court of law was likely to be radically different from what he will be saying now that he is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of Cuban officials in the United States-much less what he will say after he is "re-educated" in Havana.
As for the father's desire to be reunited with his son, he could have come here months ago for that purpose.
No one has yet faced up to the question asked by Dominican nun Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, whose home has served as a neutral meeting place for those involved in this controversy: "What, if not fear, could keep a person from making a 30-minute trip to reclaim his son?"
This has never been about reuniting father and son. From day one, the overriding consideration has been political damage control by preventing any revelations or defections that could set back the years-long efforts of the left to get full diplomatic relations established with the Castro regime in Cuba. Janet Reno made her move when the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling made that political disaster a very real prospect.
In any case, it's really secondary to the issue. I think the Cuban exile community was on the wrong side of this issue, based on the facts as they are generally understood--and I already said so. So I don't want to reopen the Elian thing, but I'm explaining why Cuban-Americans have been largely seen in a bad light for the last eight years or so, and why it has been okay in South Florida to say things about them that would be outrageous if they were said about any other minority group. My point being that an excess of jubilation over someone's death--no matter how appropriate that jubilation may be--will, I fear, be yet another black eye for my people, and lead to more scorn and prejudice. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had already set forth the other choice: a hearing on an application for asylum on behalf of Elian Gonzalez by his uncle in Miami.
IIRC, this, at least, is true. Reno could have waited for that hearing without endangering the rule of law. If the application were denied and Elian still withheld, then force would be necessary.
States traditionally have power over child custody issues. The only reason the feds were involved was because of the immigration issue. There were still legal avenues under immigration law that might have led to asylum being granted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:I think it's terrible to think that the existence of a person is in and of itself a terrible event.
I believe it is naive at best and foolish at worst to think that there are some people, throughout history, whose overall impact on the lives around them and on humanity as a whole could be correctly labeled 'terrible'.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But I don't think that the sum total of a person's actions being terrible makes his/her very existence terrible. That's what I'm saying.
-pH
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
We shouldn't have executed the Nazi's at Nurimburg. Agree or disagree?
Oh, and I was all for the Cuban community keeping the boy in the United States and knew no one who didn't agree with that. Then again, I live in the part of the U.S. where anything Clinton did was evil and wrong.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't thin that he should have been separated from his father.
Both sides played politics over him, and that was pathetic.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
There were more than two sides.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:We shouldn't have executed the Nazi's at Nurimburg. Agree or disagree?
Agree.
Do I think we should have then thrown a massive celebratory party? No.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Out of curiosity, were you or your family victims of the Nazis?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, were you or your family victims of the Nazis?
Not that I'm aware of. Why? Is this the point in the conversation where you point out how I couldn't possibly understand why they would celebrate?
If so, then you can stop there. You're right, I don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I've already stated that I can understand being thankful and glad that someone who perpetrated such evil is no longer alive, but I cannot accept that a joyous celebration is a fitting response.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Here's a crazy thought . . . you could respond to my statements after I make them, and not before.
If you look at my earlier posts, you'll see that I pretty much made it clear that I thought this party was a bad idea--mostly because of reactions like yours. That being said, though, I think that before you sit in judgment of a group of people whose situation you have never been in, you should give a little extra leeway for responses you have already acknowledged being unable to understand. That doesn't mean we can never judge things we have not experienced; just that we should try to be a little more understanding. I'm not saying this party is a good idea. I am saying I understand, and can't particularly blame, the sentiment behind it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The same thing came up very recently when Saddam Hussein was hung. I think it would be wrong for us in America (not connected to Iraq) to throw huge parties over it, but I don't condemn Iraqis for celebrating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:But I don't think that the sum total of a person's actions being terrible makes his/her very existence terrible. That's what I'm saying.
I don't really understand the difference you're making. It's a much larger question, but what value does someone's existence have? How do you measure that, if not by their impact on those around them?
-------------
Icky, I think you got caught up in a bit of heat towards me there with THT
--------
THT,
quote:Not that I'm aware of. Why? Is this the point in the conversation where you point out how I couldn't possibly understand why they would celebrate?
If so, then you can stop there. You're right, I don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I've already stated that I can understand being thankful and glad that someone who perpetrated such evil is no longer alive, but I cannot accept that a joyous celebration is a fitting response.
If you cannot understand why they would celebrate, you're just not trying. I believe you're lying to yourself, if you cannot even imagine yourself ever joyous at someone else's death. I don't think that sort of saintliness exists outside of, well, saints-and to be honest, I don't think even saints could instinctively fail to feel joy (or, well, celebration) if someone who murdered their entire family and tortured them for years were put to death.
If I'm correct, and you really can't even imagine yourself celebrating such a thing...then yes, I believe you lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgement to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally.
I wish we lived in a world where everyone couldn't imagine themselves celebrating, because it would mean that the amount of human suffering would necessarily be much lower for everyone. But we don't, and since I haven't even walked a yard in their shoes, much less a mile, I'm not going to pronounce moral criticism on them for their response to something I've only read about.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:If you cannot understand why they would celebrate, you're just not trying.
I don't have it in my heart to celebrate anyone's death, however deserved it may be.
quote:I believe you're lying to yourself, if you cannot even imagine yourself ever joyous at someone else's death.
I refuse to be branded as a liar because you can't accept my position as one borne out of a deep understanding of myself as opposed to a deliberate self-deception.
I'm sorry that you can't accept that I feel this way, but I've been surrounded by too much death in my life to take any joy in it, regardless of its necessity or its deservedness.
quote:If I'm correct, and you really can't even imagine yourself celebrating such a thing...then yes, I believe you lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgment to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally.
I can't really respond to this.
We have differing personal opinions, but you feel a need to ascribe mine to a lack of perspective, experience, etc.
By the same token, I could assert that your position is incorrect because you "lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgment to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally."
It looks good, but it doesn't really move things forward.
quote:I wish we lived in a world where everyone couldn't imagine themselves celebrating
Well, at least we can agree on this Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Here's a crazy thought . . . you could respond to my statements after I make them, and not before.
Sorry Ick, I blended a couple posts together and got ahead of myself.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It's okay--note the smilie in my original. It's all good. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: HOW was he capable of ruling for fifty years?
What's the power structure like in Cuba that will topple on his demise?
He's got supporters who have supporters, etc. Is there anything to say that his death will bring Cubans more than moral relief?
He ruled through the military, and he rewarded the military's loyalty by giving them all the best things that Cuba could import. He also created an Orwellian system of checks and rewards for loyalty. Only communist party members can have such luxuries as a telephone, a television, or a car. Pledges to the revolution are mandatory at most places of employment. Each neighborhood has a committee, but rather than looking at the color of your drapes or the size of your grass, they report back on suspicious, antirevolutionary neighbors. Those whose loyalty is not beyond question will be harassed at the very least. If the suspicions turn out to be accurate, those people can go to jail. Children are indoctrinated with revolutionary doctrines in school, and taught that it is heroic to turn in any traitors, including those in your own family. Parents are afraid to contradict the messages children learn in school, so they come to believe that those messages are true.
I don't have a whole lot of reason to believe that things will get much better with Castro gone.
I am all but convinced that the embargo has been a failure--particularly since it was basically a unilateral embargo. I think that American culture is almost viral in nature, and the best way to undermine a competing ideology is to import as much of our culture as possible. The Cuban government itself realized this: a decade or so ago, Cuba used to steal American programming through satellite and provide it, free of charge, to communist party members who had televisions. The it occurred to them that having Cubans, even loyal Cubans, see all this evidence of America's prosperity and freedom was bad for morale and loyalty, so they stopped.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
THT,
quote:I don't have it in my heart to celebrate anyone's death, however deserved it may be.
Yes, and how many members of your family have been tortured, raped, murdered, 'disappeared', enslaved, etc. in your lifetime, exactly?
quote:I refuse to be branded as a liar because you can't accept my position as one borne out of a deep understanding of myself as opposed to a deliberate self-deception.
I'm sorry that you can't accept that I feel this way, but I've been surrounded by too much death in my life to take any joy in it, regardless of its necessity or its deservedness.
I didn't say anything about 'deliberate'. I wasn't clear enough when I said you weren't trying. Many people (and I have no opinion over whether this is a good or a bad thing) simply cannot imagine themselves suffering to the point of many in this world, who have suffered as I have described. I can't, really, imagine what it would feel like over a period of years or even days. I should have said that instead.
There are people who have been surrounded not just by death, but by suffering, to make yours and mine insubstantial *by comparison*. Please note that careful qualifier. Even if you have lost your entire extended family, there are people who've lost the same, but in front of them, for instance in bloody extended torture.
It takes more nerve than I've got to condemn someone for celebrating the death of a man who ordered that sort of thing.
quote:By the same token, I could assert that your position is incorrect because you "lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgment to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally."
My lack of experience and understanding of what, exactly? I'm not the one claiming to understand what it's like, and I'm not the one making moral criticism/condemnations. It's for you, the one making sweeping moral criticisms, to offer some sort of perspective, THT.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that it's a wonderful thing that Castro is no longer ruling Cuba. I am happy for the Cuban people, and I don't blame them at all for celebrating.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure. There are animals who are born with an instinct to hurt other people; what makes it so unlikely that there are humans who are born with an instinct to hurt other people?
You'd judge a person's worth based on the instincts he or she was born with and presumably did not choose? If so then be happy that you did not get assigned those instincts!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just hope that after Castro's demise and the eventual takeover of Cuba by the Cuban exiles, they don't ban baseball in Cuba just out of spite because Castro loved the game.
Seriously, here is something to watch out for: It may be that the Catholic Church is planning a major effort to take over Cuba once Castro is gone and his "ites" have imploded and been brushed aside. Castro directed much ire at the Catholic Church when he took over Cuba, ousting clerics and nuns, and confiscating all RC church properties. History teaches us that the RC church has a long memory, and is willing to seek its revenge even after generations have gone by. The Catholic church has long been currying favor with the Cuban exiles. Whatever happens in post-Castro Cuba, the RC church will be actively involved, even if behind the scenes.
Certainly, the church can claim justice for its actions. And it could do much good, using its resources to help rebuild the country and its economy. But the true test will come in how Protestants are treated, when the RC church has gained control of Cuba.
Throughout history, it has always been those who are closest to you in beliefs, and differ only on one or two points, who are treated the most harshly. Even Protestants burned one of their own at the stake for "heresy."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, that's a pretty vindictive set of predictions/statements. I'm not sure why you think the rest of the world would sit still for an RC 'takeover' of Cuba, either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: pH,
quote:But I don't think that the sum total of a person's actions being terrible makes his/her very existence terrible. That's what I'm saying.
I don't really understand the difference you're making. It's a much larger question, but what value does someone's existence have? How do you measure that, if not by their impact on those around them?
I think that a person's life has an inherent value just due to the fact that said person is a living, breathing thing and that said person is a human being.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
o_O
What kind of pot do you smoke, Ron?
First of all, only the most misguided of Miami exiles believe they will be able to take over. The fact is, there is more than a little resentment on the part of the people who got stuck in Cuba toward those who managed to get away. Second, the exiles have been gone for as much as fifty years. It's not their country anymore. Whatever they once owned is gone. Have you ever returned to a city you lived in ten years ago? Was it like you remembered? Could you find your way around? The Cuba of old is gone, and those who remember it are largely a decade or two away from death themselves. They may be able to be heavy investors, but they won't be able to walk into their old lives.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, virtually nobody on the island is Catholic anymore. The Church spent forty-five years underground. Mostly the only Catholics left are themselves 60-year-old (or older) women. Beyond that, your descriptions of the Church's vindictiveness, and your predictions of mistreatment of Protestants--of which there are virtually none in Cuba--seem to me to be in violation of Hatrack's TOS. I'll leave it to some Catholic to decide if it's offensive enough to whistle the post.
As for the Catholic Church currying favor with the exiles, how exactly was this done? I'm a part of the community you're talking about, and I'm not aware of this. Would you care to explain it to me?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
quote:I think that a person's life has an inherent value just due to the fact that said person is a living, breathing thing and that said person is a human being.
Personally, I agree. Every person has value. However, I also believe a person's life has value based on what they do with it. I believe the second value can become substantial enough negate, in the sum of that person's value, their worth and in fact make them have value, but in a negative way. An overdraft, so to speak.
I suppose you disagree?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think bad actions can negate the inherent value of being a living creature. It's not an issue here really, but I'm also against the death penalty (big surprise, I'm sure ).
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with Rakeesh. I think there are cases in which the world as a whole would have been better off if a give person had never lived. In fact, I think this is rather obviously so.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Icarus, I do know of a fair number of Protestants in Cuba. Interestingly Castro has even allowed some Protestants to conduct public evangelistic campaigns, and they baptized thousands. The Seventh-day Adventist church has been allowed to build a seminary and over 300 churches in Cuba, all in recent years.
Remember the Elian Gonzales fiasco? It was Catholic clerics who visibly gave comfort to the Miami exhiles, even offering to try to broker some kind of deal with the Clinton Whitehouse.
The activities of the Roman Catholic Church are a part of history. Only those raised exclusively on Jesuit-written textbooks could possibly try to deny the direr aspects of that history. Even the Pope himself (the previous one) publicly apologized for some of the excesses of history--things such as the Inquisition.
Look, I can acknowledge that John Calvin had fellow Protestant Michael Servetus burned at the stake for heresy in 1553. Why can't you admit some of the equally dire features of the history of the RC church, which are a part of history known to everyone who has ever studied the subject? Do we correct the errors of the past and move on toward more civilized standards of living by trying to deny and suppress the facts of past history?
I see the possibility of excesses on the part of Catholics when their church will attempt to regain control of Cuba, something that does need to be warned against, so hopefully they will not do it.
What do you mean the other nations of the world would not allow it to happen? Right now, and in recent years, there are multiple cases in Mexico and Central and South America where priests have stirred up their congregations, and sent them to burn out Protestants, both homes and churches. It was reported in the news, but not made a big deal of, since it mainly happened in relatively rural areas. There was virtually no followup. There was no international outcry.
That is why the warning needs to be given in Cuba, in hopes of preventing such behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We don't, as a rule, burn Protestants at the stake since Vatican II.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:What do you mean the other nations of the world would not allow it to happen? Right now, and in recent years, there are multiple cases in Mexico and Central and South America where priests have stirred up their congregations, and sent them to burn out Protestants, both homes and churches. It was reported in the news, but not made a big deal of, since it mainly happened in relatively rural areas. There was virtually no followup. There was no international outcry.
And what bearing does that have on your warnings of the RC taking control over an entire nation, exactly, Ron?
I think you know there's a world of difference between some priests inciting riots and lynchings, and between the RC leading the takeover of an entire nation, prominent in international news.
You've also failed to address many of Icarus's statements in his reply, while harping on history.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kmboots: But their homes and churches have been burned in Latin America within the past five years.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ron, you replied to statements I did not make, and failed to reply to the ones I did. I did not claim that nothing bad ever happened in the Church's history, and yet you claimed that I denied this. I never said anything about what other nations would or would not allow, and yet you acted as though I had. How about you reply to what my post actually said?
The idea that the modern Roman Catholic Church is a vengeful, imperialistic entity looking to take over countries and burn heretics is pretty outlandish, as far as I'm concerned. Further, that Catholic officials are involved in current events is not evidence that this is so, not is it evidence of the Church currying favor with Cubans. Sr. Jeanne O'Laughlin was actually initially publicly in support of returning Elian to his father. Was that the only example you could think of? Wait--I've got another for you: A Jesuit once bought me dinner. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, most of Icarus' statements were wrong and misinformed, as I explained. Wishful thinking is not an argument. The examples of history do constitute arguments.
How much official collusion is there in anti-Protestant excesses committed by local priests and their congregations? That is a fair question, and unfortunately it cannot be definitively asnwered, as far as I know. How much is implicit policy, how much is designed to allow deniability--who can say? I have not heard any official rebuke and apology being issued for these actions in Latin America by the church hierarchy.
A few years ago, Steve Green, the extremely talented and famous gospel singer, who happens to be Baptist, was given all kinds of grief and clear obstructionism on the part of the Mexican government when he attempted to have a gospel music tour in Mexico. I am not Baptist, but I consider Steve Green the best gospel singer around today. He has true operatic quality and discipline, wide range, and a wonderful voice tone. He does "Find Us Faithful" and "Pilgrim's Chorus" from Tannhauser with equal skill. I have been privileged to hear him live. Many people in Mexico wanted to hear him live. What reason could there possibly be for the best gospel singer in America to be hindered in his attmpet to conduct a gospel tour in Mexico, other than religious prejudice and persecution because he is Protestant?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Icarus, you did what you claimed I did--debated statements I did not make. For instance, where you said: "the modern Roman Catholic Church is a vengeful, imperialistic entity looking to take over countries and burn heretics." I did not say that. The Catholic church is not generally behaving that way now. It would not be politic. But are you really sure there are not hard core fanatics who actually would look with favor on such things, given the opportunity? It is a simple fact that there are people in various Catholic orders who have sworn to do some of the very things you say the church would never do. These people and their oaths and the orders to which they belong are allowed.
The RC church is an entity that seems to maintain its best behavior when the international community requires it. But if you believe bad things do not happen in isolated areas even now, or if you believe it is impossible for bad things to ever happen again on a larger scale, then you are making a statement of belief not based on historical facts.
You also seem to be unaware of what is really happening in many places behind the scenes. Like how was influence brought to bear on the Mexican government to give Steve Green so much obstructionism in his attempt to have a gospel music tour in Mexico?
I object to these things, and I have a right to object to them, because they are real, they have happened. Recently. It gives me no comfort for you to assure me my fears are ridiculous. What I need from Catholics is promises that they will guard against the excesses of the past, by being vigilant in keeping an eye on extremists. Are you comfortable with everything involving the Catholic group, Opus Dei?
Look--please get this. I know that the Catholic church is no different from any of the rest of us Christians--or any of us humans, for that matter. When human nature acts religious, there are certain pitfalls that history shows are common. Given enough time and opportunity, Protestant churches will devolve to the point of committing every one of the excesses the Catholic church ever committed in its lengthy past. The problem is not the Catholic church, the problem is how to be religious--how to worship the Creator instead of the creature (ourselves). Churches and all their institutions cannot save us. Only God can, and only by His means, not our means.
[ January 30, 2007, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree with Rakeesh. I think there are cases in which the world as a whole would have been better off if a give person had never lived. In fact, I think this is rather obviously so.
I think I agree as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree with Rakeesh. I think there are cases in which the world as a whole would have been better off if a give person had never lived. In fact, I think this is rather obviously so.
I think I agree as well.
Been trying to say the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The RC church is an entity that seems to maintain its best behavior when the international community requires it.
I believe there are very few entities for which this is not true.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
This is what I see when I examine Icarus's points and your responses to them.
quote:Icarus, I do know of a fair number of Protestants in Cuba. Interestingly Castro has even allowed some Protestants to conduct public evangelistic campaigns, and they baptized thousands. The Seventh-day Adventist church has been allowed to build a seminary and over 300 churches in Cuba, all in recent years.
Icarus said there were very, very few Catholics in Cuba. You brought up knowing a fair number of Protestants. Not really a substantive response, Ron. You've also completely failed to address Icarus's points about only fanatic, deluded Cuban exiles believing they'll return to Cuba and take control, or return to their old lives.
quote:Remember the Elian Gonzales fiasco? It was Catholic clerics who visibly gave comfort to the Miami exhiles, even offering to try to broker some kind of deal with the Clinton Whitehouse.
It's simply bizarre that you'd bring this up, given Icarus's other statements about the Elian fiasco.
quote:The activities of the Roman Catholic Church are a part of history. Only those raised exclusively on Jesuit-written textbooks could possibly try to deny the direr aspects of that history. Even the Pope himself (the previous one) publicly apologized for some of the excesses of history--things such as the Inquisition.
Can you show me where someone here has been denying those direr aspects of Catholic history?
quote:Why can't you admit some of the equally dire features of the history of the RC church, which are a part of history known to everyone who has ever studied the subject?
Dude, this is just transparent. First, you state that no one can deny the numerous tragedies and atrocities perpetrated by the Catholic church over the millenia (something no one here has attempted to deny). Then, you criticize people for failing to admit to such things!
quote:Rakeesh, most of Icarus' statements were wrong and misinformed, as I explained. Wishful thinking is not an argument. The examples of history do constitute arguments.
No, they weren't. As I've demonstrated, you spent some time explaining statements that weren't made, while ignoring some that were. I've read your posts here, Ron. You have not explained them yet. I challenge anyone to find me a quote in this thread showing you specifically responding to an actual point Icarus made.
quote:For instance, where you said: "the modern Roman Catholic Church is a vengeful, imperialistic entity looking to take over countries and burn heretics." I did not say that. The Catholic church is not generally behaving that way now. It would not be politic.
So you're suggesting, in this quote, that if not for the moderating influence of world politics on RC, they would or might be vindictive, imperialistic, and vengeful? You're welcome to clarify yourself, but that is clearly implied in this statement, Ron. And it's not very different from what Icarus was suggesting either.
quote:The RC church is an entity that seems to maintain its best behavior when the international community requires it. But if you believe bad things do not happen in isolated areas even now, or if you believe it is impossible for bad things to ever happen again on a larger scale, then you are making a statement of belief not based on historical facts.
Again, show me the quotes. Show me where someone thinks these things aren't happening.
quote:You also seem to be unaware of what is really happening in many places behind the scenes. Like how was influence brought to bear on the Mexican government to give Steve Green so much obstructionism in his attempt to have a gospel music tour in Mexico?
Yeah, well, I'm not really up to date on what happens in the international community relating to live appearances of singers I've never heard of or listened to, in genres I'm not an especial fan of. I must have my head in the sand.
quote:What I need from Catholics is promises that they will guard against the excesses of the past, by being vigilant in keeping an eye on extremists.
I think if you want promises, you should respond sincerely to arguments being made in opposition to your statements. It shows you're willing to listen openly, and so far in this thread, you've clearly not been.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The RC church is an entity that seems to maintain its best behavior when the international community requires it.
I believe there are very few entities for which this is not true.
And now I am agreeing with Tom on something, this is an interesting day.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: You'd judge a person's worth based on the instincts he or she was born with and presumably did not choose? If so then be happy that you did not get assigned those instincts!
A good point. I guess, while it is almost true that everyone could be reverse engineered to be nice, lovable members of society, (you go back in time to Saddam's childhood and give him the love he needed or some other cliche) it feels morally empty...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I see that Icarus said there were 'virtually no' Protestants in Cuba, in a later post. So, my mistake on that count, Ron. You say there are 300 churches and "a fair number" of Protestants within Cuba. I'll have to look for information on that number.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you missed where Icarus said: "and your predictions of mistreatment of Protestants--of which there are virtually none in Cuba--" (line 3, second paragraph from the end, in his post of January 30, 2007 02:48 PM)
I brought up the Elian fiasco simply because that was an example of Catholic church officials inserting themselves into a situation on a side favorable to the Miami exiles. That was an example of me responding to an argument made by Icarus.
I think that but for the moderating influence of Western Civilization, virtually any religious group would eventually tend to excesses, given--as I said--enough time and opportunity. It is a universal problem of human nature, not just of the Catholic church, or of Puritans, whatever. It is most extensively demonstrated in the history of the Catholic church just because it has been around far longer. I did not even mention all the rival popes excommunicating each other. Or incidents like those in Fox's Book of Martyrs, which is too depressing for me even to recommend.
I believe I have responded to the arguments posed against what I said. What specifically do you have in mind that I did not respond to? Or do you mean by listening "openly," that I have to agree with the arguments?
By the way, mere assertions and exaggerations of what I said do not constitute arguments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You also seem to be unaware of what is really happening in many places behind the scenes. Like how was influence brought to bear on the Mexican government to give Steve Green so much obstructionism in his attempt to have a gospel music tour in Mexico?
To be fair, you are also unaware of how influence was brought to bear on the Mexican government to give Steve Green so much obstructionism.
I know several dozen people who have gone on Protestant missions to Mexico, and the total number who went on the trips I have one-degree knowledge of is in the thousands. Billy Graham held a Crusade in Mexico.
If you have evidence that this was based on the Catholic/Protestant divide, link it.
quote:How much official collusion is there in anti-Protestant excesses committed by local priests and their congregations? That is a fair question, and unfortunately it cannot be definitively asnwered, as far as I know.
How much official collusion is there in the online forum trolling and unsubstantiated bashing of other religions committed by the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists?* That is a fair question, and unfortunately it cannot be definitively answered, as far as I know.
*In case anyone is confused, I am not alleging any such collusion between the Conference and Ron. I do, however, have exactly as much evidence as he does for his allegation that I quoted - none at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the way, mere assertions and exaggerations of what I said do not constitute arguments.
Too true. Neither does "OMG! this Protestant guy, he once had trouble getting into Mexico to sing gospel music. They're Catholic there. And he's Protestant. It must be anti-Protestant persecution that caused it!"
[ January 30, 2007, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron Lambert,
My mistake was brought to my attention and I acknowledged it already.
quote:I brought up the Elian fiasco simply because that was an example of Catholic church officials inserting themselves into a situation on a side favorable to the Miami exiles. That was an example of me responding to an argument made by Icarus.
That's a response, but you give that response entirely without context to your larger argument. One isolated, and very unique incident in which Catholic officials side with Cuban exiles versus the government of Cuba.
quote:I believe I have responded to the arguments posed against what I said. What specifically do you have in mind that I did not respond to? Or do you mean by listening "openly," that I have to agree with the arguments?
You've responded an awful lot, as I've said...at least twice now, I think...to arguments no one is making. That doesn't count. And it's not an assertion or exaggeration when I point out that no one is disagreeing with you that the Catholic Church has in many places an ugly history.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dagonee, I give you credit for even knowing that there is a General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Speaking objectively, there are an astounding number of similarities between the SDA church and the Roman Catholic church--enough to make many SDAs uncomfortable when it is pointed out to them. But we just organized our church the way it seemed most efficient to do so, and best facilitate accomplishing the church's world mission. The Catholic Church did the same. I would even go so far as to say there are probably more genuine Spirit-filled and Spirit led Christians in the RC church than in the SDA church--if only because the RC church is so much larger. The SDA church has an enormous world-wide mission outreach, including hospitals and clinics as well as individual full-time career missionaries; and a huge educational program with universities, seminaries. colleges and private church schools all around the world (any SDA church with over a hundred members tries to have its own fully accredited church school). It outstrips all other Protestant churches, and is second only to the RC church throughout the world. Bear in mind that the current membership of the SDA church is only about 25 million. So we are number two, but we try harder.
By the way, if the SDA church were to gain effective denominational dominance of Cuba, I would not trust it not to devolve at some point into religious tyranny and state-sponosred intolerance of other churches. We might not have Sunday laws enacted, but we might have Sabbath laws enacted. That's just the way human nature is.
[ January 31, 2007, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I admit I haven't read every single line in this thread, but this one did catch my attention...
quote:...the eventual takeover of Cuba by the Cuban exiles...
I seriously doubt that will happen the way you appear to describe it.
Cubans here in Miami talk the talk, criticize the government and the atmosphere in Cuba at the top of their lungs. If you're not taking bad about Castro, you're not talking at all around here. I can guarantee you that if you walk ten blocks through Little Havana, at any time of day, on any day of the week, you'll hear the word "Castro" spoken at least three or four times, and not spoken in a good way.
But if Castro were to suddenly disappear, and Cuba given back to the people (so to speak), do you think Cubans will suddenly leave the wonderful life they have here in the US to go there? Why would they?
Cubans here in Miami live like kings. They live the American dream and the U.S. Government even helps them do so. Sure, all the Cubans might say that they'll go back, but I would be really surprised if any of them actually did, and those that do would probably do it only for immediate monetary gain (such as establishment of trade, or milk the Cuban people of whatever money they may have, etc...) and not because they want to go back to their country. They wouldn't go back for virtually the same reason the millions of immigrants that came to the U.S. don't go back to Europe; why downgrade one's life?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
With a few important changes in the way the country is governed, Cuba could become a very desirable place to live. It used to be a preferred playground for the rich and famous in America (also for the rich and Mafia-connected, but let's not go there).
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)