Friday, October 17, 2014

Rhétorique antidroite

"DOSSIER POLITIQUE

"LES 5 RACINES D'UNE IDEOLOGIE

"IMPOSER SA VISION DU MONDE ET SURTOUT DéSIGNER DES ENNEMIS COMMUNS POUR FÉDÉRER SES COURANTS (CONTRE-RÉVOLUTIONNAIRES, ULTRA-TRADITIONALISTES CATHOLIQUES...). TEL EST LE CIMENT DE L'EXTRÊME DROITE, UNE MOUVANCE QUI SE STRUCTURE AUTOUR DE CINQ THÈMES."


La source: Phosphore, Mai 2007

Eh, bien? Et l'anti-droite n'est pas un ciment que fédère les gauches et les néolibéraux (autrement très divisés entre eux) contre, comme ennémi commun, les ultra-traditionnalistes Catholiques (qui ne sont pas très divisés du refusants de la République, certains y sont, d'autres acceptent la République, mais les Monarchistes aussi) et l'extrême droite?

"LES 5 RACINES D'UNE IDÉOLOGIE"


Tout ce qui se rapporte à une des 5 thèmes appartient donc à une idéologie unique, et par là aux autres quatre, qui y appartiennet également?

Il y a mieux, quand on constate comment les 5 "racines" sont présentées ...

"1 Le refus de la démocratie et de la république"
Qui a lu Maurras (mais qui l'a?) sait qu'il rejetait la république à l'échelle du pays précisement en faveur des républiques à l'échelle de la ville. Il acceptait la monarchie à l'échelle du pays, pour que le monarche laisse en paix ces petits républiques, ce que ne peuvent pas les parlamentaires, car ils ont besoin d'être réélus ... et donc c'intéresser à tout le monde.
"2 Le rejet de l'immigration"
"5 L'antisémitisme"
Qui a lu Maurras sait qu'il n'y avait pas d'immigration à repousser hors les frontières du pays ou à accueillir dedans à l'époque.

[Je peux m'être trompé, j'avais lu son livre Mes Idées Politiques, mais pas son œuvre comme journaliste]

Juifs et métèques (il cite le cas d'un commerçant portugais), pour lui c'étaient deux groupes qui n'avaient tout simplement pas les mêmes intérets culturellement dessinés que les autres Français, tout à fait comme les maçons et les huguenots. Il analysait ces quatre groupes comme formant des dynasties du pouvoir parmi les habituellement élus. Ils ne leur montrait pas d'agressivité, sauf en tant qu'en pouvoir en France au lieu des Français ... et, par Paris au lieu de par chaque localité.
"3 Le nationalisme"
Le nationalisme insiste sur la dimension ethnique et exclusive de la nation. Mais il a raison. Je n'ai pas l'honneur d'être, ni Français, ni Provençal/Occitan, et la langue basque m'échappe largement aussi, tout comme le Breton. Bonne raison de ne pas me mêler excessivement dans les affaires de ces groupes, hein ..?

C'est précisément pour ça qu'en France, malgré mes sympathies pour Maurras, je n'ai pas parlé de monarchie. Je me suis borné aux thèmes qui sont internationaux et par conséquent compréhensibles, même aux dimensions émotionnels (à certain degré), pour quelqu'un du dehors.

Ce que Maurras reprochait aux Juifs, Franc-Maçons, Huguenots et Métèques, ce que les nationalistes d'aujourd'hui reprochent au musulmans immigrés et à Bruxelles (vous voyez, les ennemis ne sont pas les mêmes), c'est de faire la politique selon leur cœur (ou parfois sans cœur) pour un peuple qui en a un autre.
"4 L'ordre moral"
Phosphore cite le politologue Jean-Yves Camus: "On retrouve cette thématique sous le régime de Vichy ..." (sous-entendu: alors c'est une thématique de meurtriers, d'immoralistes ... comme si tout le régime de Vichy était enthousiastes pour les déportations: en fait Pétain a sacrifié son pouvoir en refusant de continuer les déportations en 1942, il était alors remplacé par Lavalle - ou était-ce Lasalle? Je confonds toujours ces deux noms!) "et sa politique rétrograde en matière de mœurs, contre l'avortement, contre le régime laïc, etc"

Et c'est ça que les anti-droites veulent défendre, ne fût-ce qu'au prix du bon sens, ne fût-ce qu'au prix de la ... précisément: morale.

Qui veut savoir mon avis sur la moralité de l'avortement, ça suffit de consulter le menu à gauche:

[J'ai dû copier les essais et les mettre sur un autre site, entre-temps:]



Ceci a été d'abord publié sur le blog équivoqué, car normalement purement en anglais et en plus uniquement au format de débats, ou encore des commentaires de youtubes : Assorted retorts : Rhétorique anti-droite

Wrong question

[not title* of TFP essay, but its presentation in send-out] What unites the Cultural left in our nation? This is the topic of our lead article this week. Click here for details.

Quote:

"And this “choice” means freedom from rules, morals or restraints. An unlimited choice is what unifies the radicals of the Cultural War. Thus, they display a consistent unity favoring not only abortion but any other practice – free love, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, transgenderism or any sexual deviation – that favors a raging sensuality."


Ergo: TFP goes beyond pro-life to attack a pro-choice that is no longer necessarily pro-abortion - ackording to what they told a little above.

I think the important thing is not what unites this or that enemy (the left reasoned long enough "what unites fascists? let us attack it!") but what unites Christians.

Hans Lundahl

Another quote from same article:

"Resolving the abortion issue, we may win a major battle but not the Cultural War. We must resist the idea that, without abortion, we can retreat to a kind of Mayberry where we can babyboom once again and everything will go back in order. Unless we broaden the fight to include the full cultural spectrum, we will not prevail.

To find further proof that the battle extends beyond the abortion issue, we need look no farther than the very people the pro-life cause amazingly manages to unite.

The list is very diverse: libertarians, feminists, rockers, punks, atheists, agnostics, Greens and even pagans for life. Take away the uniting principle of life and we are left with groups that in varying degrees have agendas that oppose the Christian civilization that we so ardently desire. Winning the pro-life battle only throws us into another cultural battle with our temporary strategic allies."


(my emphases)**

Comments: first on the latter issue emphasised, it is good that some of the leftists, some of whom are infidels, are against abortion. It is not a shame for the pro-life cause, but an honour to them. Second on the first issue: a baby boom is per se no moral problem. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture, nowhere in the Fathers, do we read that baby booming is essentially wrong for married laymen or for married priests. Abstaining from sex within marriage is for prayer, for fasting on fast days, for letting spiritual joy prevail over carnal joy on feast days. It is not for avoiding large families, as if they were an evil. There are times, when it is a great woe to be a pregnant woman. They may return, I will not deny it. I even fear they are close. But, returning from vicious population control to "virtuous" population control, returning from Sanger to Malthus, is not that bright an idea.

Hans Lundahl

[Both posts from Wednesday February 7, 2007]

* TFP : Beyond Pro-life, Fighting the Whole Cultural War
Created: 05 March 2007
The above article was based on a talk given at the TFP Student Seminar on January 20, 2007 in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania.
http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/news-commentary/beyond-pro-life-fighting-the-whole-cultural-war.html


** Seem to have been lost, technicality.

Mémoire éternelle ... Lazare Ponticelli

Obsèques nationales du dernier poilu Français en mémoire de tous ...

Il(s) aurai(en)t peut-être apprécié cette chanson "Sur la route ..." - que j'ai donné dans les notes Facebook il y a trois mois avant.

Ils ont lutté pour liberté et droit, les poilus de l'Entente Cordiale. Après ils se sont souvent engagés contre la guerre.

Ses obsèques tombent le jour de St Patrick.

Les moines celtes étaient parmi les grands missionnaires du peuple baïouvare, dont sont issus les autrichiens et les bavarois. Le dernier Empéreur effectivement regnant de l'Autriche, que ça soit connu, a voulu rectifier l'erreur de l'avant-dernier de se lier a Berlin, contre le Tsar et l'Entente: il a offert une paix séparée. Peut-être les poilus auraient apprécié que les politiciens l'auraient accepté. Elle fut rejetée.

Hans Lundahl

måndag/lundi 17 mars 2008 15:38

columniste? exploitable, alors? ...

On vient de savoir que je suis contre l'obligation scolaire. Qqn de mes amis vient de me demander si je ciblait à niveau de l'Union ou de chaque pays membre, voici ma réponse dans laquelle je confesse que ça me dépasse:

Ben, je suis principiellement contre l'obligation scolaire et contre les ministères d'éducation qui veuelent diriger le contenu de la scolarisation, surtout obligaire, mais aussi quand il s'agit de scolarité volontaire.

Si l'Union Européenne veut finir avec ces saletés, tant mieux. Si un pays quelconque le veut, tant mieux. Mais entre les deux, je ne sais pas quelle serait la meilleure chose à cibler. Je suis un écrivain, je suis un moraliste de la politique/économie/rélations sociales, mais ce que je ne suis pas, voilà: je ne suis pas un tacticien de la politique.


Il n'est pourtant pas le seul de vouloir confondre ma rôle comme écrivain avec celle d'un coordinateur ou participant d'une campagne. Je lutte contre les injustices en tant qu'écrivain libre, et je tiens à conserver ce statut. Je veux même le développer. La page Donativo sur mon site est pour ainsi dire "ma boîte de guitarre", mes écrits (en quatre langues) sont avec les compositions musicales "le jeu de guitarre". Et tout à fait comme je jouerais la guitarre concrète pire en me rejoignant à un orchestre de guitarristes, j'écrirais pire en me joignant à telle ou telle groupe déterminé qui voudrait s'emparer de mon talent pour ses buts.

Les écrits sont utilisables en dehors de mon site, je ne tiens pas à prohiber qqn de les copier et mettre sur le sien (donner la source est pourtant de bonne coutume), pareillement si quelqu'un veut jouer mes compositions pour une bonne occasion ou une bonne cause - je me réserve contre le Théléton, pour les raisons données au lien en bas de la page musicale - allez-y, mais encore une fois, si vous avez la possibilité me verser un peu d'argent est de bonne coûtume, et de toute façon donner la source l'est aussi; mais le site demeure mon site et sert mes goûts et ma conscience; artistiques ou morales.

Je sais très bien, que je pourrais me mettre à service d'un organisme qui fait telle chose humanitaire ou telle lutte politique, et alors verser de l'argent serait deductible des impôts. Je ne le veux pas. Je veux garder ma liberté d'aborder n'importe quel sujet. Et de décliner n'impoorte quel sujet, p ex le sport. Et de collaborer ou pas collaborer avec qui que je veule, sans tenir compte d'une alliance stratégique.

Je ne suis pas pape, ni évèque. Je suis libre à m'occuper des bagatelles comme le rime dans la poësie, l'orthographe du suédois, les Grundabsatz, Quintabsatz et Kadenz du style viennois classique, sans compter les cadences plagale et phrygienne qui sont étrangères à ce style. Je suis libre de me fasciner pour des mondainetés comme Alicia Keys ou le manga japonais - notamment Love Hina. Et je veux garder cette liberté. Je suis pourtant pas laïciste, je ne trouve pas que le prix juste pour ça serait d'écarter conscieusemment toute référence à la réligion Catholique ou la réligion Orthodoxe (comme Grec-Orthodoxe plus précisemment Roumain Orthodoxe). Ni "laïc" (au sens politico-polémique du mot), je ne trouve pas que ça m'oblige à écarter prière ou jeunes totalement de ma vie pour ça non plus. Ou l'aumône. Ou la discrétion quant-à mes propres bonnes oeuvres de ce genre.

Des uns auraient aimé que je m'engage totalement et exclusivement dans les luttes traditionalistes-catholiques, des autres que je m'engage totalement et exclusivement dans les droits humains des s d f ou des victimes de la psychiatrie, ou possiblement même les droits des jeunes de se marier tôt et, sinon, de se tenir à l'abri des tentations directes ou indirectes. Je refuse ces exclusivités ou totalités. Je suis contre la psychiatrie comme moyen de normaliser les goûts ou la morale, je ne suis pas contre la normalité dans ces domaines. Je suis traditionnaliste contre l'avortement, parce que c'est de la tuérie, mais par là aussi contre la DDASS, parce que c'est de l'usurpation des droits des parents, et par là aussi pour les libertés des babas cool d'éduquer leurs enfants comme bon leur semble. Je suis contre Azaña pour avoir tenté de forcer une éducation laïque aux jeunes âmes chrétiennes, mais par là aussi contre Franco pour ne pas avoir aboli l'obligation scolaire.*

Non, ce n'est pas comme columniste de qqn autre ou de qq autre mouvement que je veux faire mon métier et - possiblement - gagner mon pain. Je suis au moins aussi libre que les autres columnistes. Et je veux le démeurer.

Hans Lundahl
Ais en Prouença
6/19 mars 2008

Je viens d'envoyer ce message depuis mon courriel, il y a qqs heures; c'est scandaleux les beugs sélectifs qui limitent la rapidité de certains de mes messages ... et limiteraient les votres dans des discussions que vous pourriez théoriquement avoir avec moi.

* Depuis, je viens d'apprendre que sous Franco - tant mieux pour lui - l'école n'était pas obligatoire, mais que lui et l'église encourageaient fortement le fait d'y aller./HGL

Thursday, March 6, 2014

One group member promoted Hutchison

Identic start on both: 1) A Thread Where First Message was by Quarefremuntgentes, 2) One group member promoted Hutchison

quarefremeruntgentes7
2008-11-02 on Antimodernism
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (The Politically Incorrect Guides) Paperback by Robert J. Hutchinson (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Bible-Guides/dp/1596985208/ref=pd_sim_b_6


9:10 PM PDT, October 17, 2007, updated at 10:48 AM PDT, October 19, 2007

For the past 400 years, the partisans of irreligion-from the Marquis de Sade to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins-have deliberately misrepresented the way science actually developed in the West as part of their ideological crusade against Judaism and Christianity.

What's worse, the partisans of atheism have been intellectually dishonest in the extreme: They have tried to take credit for the development of science when, in fact, they had little if anything to do with it.

Many of the most ideological and dogmatic of atheist crusaders, although continually referring to science, and seeking to use science to justify their own philosophical assumptions and declarations, were not scientists themselves.

In dramatic contrast, most of the true giants of empirical science-the people who founded entire scientific disciplines or who made landmark scientific discoveries-were primarily devout Christians who believed that their scientific studies, far from being in conflict with their religious faith, ultimately was dependent upon it.
on link
In the beginning, the Bible triggered a revolution in human thought and later established Western civilization's moral and philosophical foundation. Many people though--from authors to pundits--mock it for their own purposes and political agendas. However, the Bible remains the bestselling book of all time, believed by nearly two billion people (Christians and Jews) to be divinely inspired. In his hard-hitting new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Bible, author Robert J. Hutchinson details the facts behind the numerous truths the anti-religious secularists don't want you to know about, including:

  • Recent archaeological discoveries confirm the historical accuracy of many Bible stories
  • The Bible made modern science possible (which is why it started in the Middle Ages)
  • Biblical laws paved the way for democracy and limited government
  • The Bible promotes human freedom
  • The enemies of the Bible are enemies of true reason and tolerance


In this new installment in the bestselling P.I.G. series, Hutchinson silences the secularists and atheists with historical evidence, undeniable facts, and insightful revelations--proving why the Bible is still the bestselling book of all time--and so much more.
Where I disagree
"For the past 400 years, the partisans of irreligion-from the Marquis de Sade to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins"

Marquis de Sade did not live four hundred years ago. Irreligion has very little history around 1600 four hundred years ago, except as laxness in the practise of Catholicism.

If it represented Isaac Newton as a founder of Science, well, I might have somethings to say on that as well. I have not yet looked at the preview.

I might have been unduly suspicious about St Nicholas Steno's geology, at the time, I have since seen he was a Young Earth Creationist even as a Geologists. Giving Tas Walker on Creation Ministries International credit for that discovery. Would disagree with Hutchison if he credited Galileo and Kepler. Both as to their science and as to their fidelity to Holy Writ.
About Steno
Creation vs. Evolution : If Tas Walker is right, Pius XII was not wrong to canonise Steno!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/07/if-tas-walker-is-right-pius-xii-was-not.html


CMI : Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist
Do not recall if this link
was deleted by me. One other was. My excuse for that other one was that quarefremeruntgentes7 had just copied from the link and posted no own comments on that other one. I reserved a bit egoistically the right to post links, or I thought that quotes from links without selection or own comment were improper. When I reposted things from other boards, I was one of the debaters and so my own material was included in what I posted. That includes the earliest items on:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com


Back in the times when it was more often Yahoo Boards or Netscape Boards than youtube comments.
Other participants
very rarely posted. Maybe atheists were put off by my efficient arguing for a very uncompromising antimodernist outlook./HGL
I saw Hutchison's blog
He is, alas an evolutionist.

Evolution, Creation and Adam & Eve, Part 1
August 16, 2012 by Robert Hutchinson
http://roberthutchinson.com/robert-hutchinson/recent-columns/writing-life/evolution-creation-and-adam-eve-part-1/


And he gets the exact content of Humani Generis wrong. To be fair, even Tolkien did, at least while religying on the priest who referred to it.

HG first:
Real quote, as given by Hutchison:
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.
Hutchison's summming up, giving his comprehension:
It took the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrmann nearly 20 years of rigorous graduate education before he could finally come to accept what I learned in fourth grade: that human beings have existed on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years… and their physical bodies likely developed out of more primitive animal forms.

When I was in high school, one of my Jesuit teachers showed me a copy of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis in which the pope explained that “the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts. Here is the key section (36): [After which he gives the quote.]
What is the difference?
Pius XII the Jesuit teacher of Hutchison
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to in which the pope explained that
the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter
  is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts.


In reality, the Pope did not affirm THAT this doctrine insofar as it enquires etc. "is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts", but that the Magisterium did not positively de jure ecclesiastico forbid to enquire WHETHER it was compatible or not. He did not positively deny that the Bible might after all actually exclude thsi theory. He did not say directly that any faithful were free to embrace it.
What does Hutchison miss?
Pius XII Hutch
However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. that human beings have existed on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years… and their physical bodies likely developed out of more primitive animal forms. ... is not incompatible with Christian faith as revealed in the Biblical texts.
Is Pius XII's text to blame?
For direct promotion of Evolutionism, no. For indirect encouragement to such promotion by underlings not really interested in Creationist arguments, well, they had themsleves to blame, since Pius XII told not to neglect precisly both opinions, but they had one excuse:

in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution


Readers uncautious might have taken "present state of human sciences and sacred theology" to mean a state in which Young earth Creationism was scientifically indefensible and Biblically unnnecessary. That is not what Pius XII claimed. That is what he wanted enquiry into. But "present state of human sciences" is a rubber term, where one man can mean his summing up of the controversy and another man can mean his denial there is any controversy "among real scientists" (Tas Walker is one such, btw). And "present state of ... sacred theology" is a term which did not directly come into his internal ear while writing, since he put in that other rubber term between its words, but it reads a bit like a denial of the necessity of staying with Traditional Exegesis as given by the Church through the Church Fathers whose positive unanimity (there is such for Young Earth Creationism) is obliging as per Council of Trent, even if the individual opinions of one Church Father (like St Augustine) not shared by another (like St Clement, if he be a canonised Saint - there is some dispute - or like St Irenaeus, of whom there is no dispute) are not so obliging. The words "present state of ... sacred theology" are uncannily reminiscent of a Protestant referring to Luther being important to the "Post-Reformation Church".
Has part of HG been misread?
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Papal Encyclicals Net : Pius XII : Humani Generis
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM
How does Hutchison read that?
Pope Pius XII’s explanation made more sense to me: The first 11 chapters of Genesis, the pope explained, do not conform “to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time” yet constitutes history in “a true sense.”

The inspired text, he added, “in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.”
Oy vey!
Pius XII did not explain that this was so, he discussed a certain already existing document which had suggested it, and finally added what Hutchison omits:

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
Now for some more Hutchison:
The debate over Evolution, Creation and Adam and Eve is one of my least favorite topics. That’s because I’ve accepted the theory of evolution ever since fourth grade, when it was first explained to me in science class by a Dominican nun.

As a result, debating evolution feels a lot like debating the Pythagorean theorem: It’s something I studied 40 years ago… long ago accepted… but makes my head hurt even thinking about.
As for myself:
I have accepted the Pythagorean theorem, but I can also give one or two versions of a proof for it, without this hurting my head. And if I accepted Evolution while very small and Young Earth Creationism since about ... grade four too! ... this does not make the subject something I just accepted, and debating it does not make my head hurt.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Commenting on de Souza's essay "De-Christianization: ..."

Future of nations:

"The family is attacked by promiscuity, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, sterilization The result: Nations without children are nations without a future;"
...
"Islamic immigration, religion and culture fill up the vacuum left by de-population and de-Christianization; At the twilight of this century, Europeans risk being reduced to minorities in their own countries."


When will conservatives get it?

Yes, the family is attacked by abortion, but first and foremost by responsabilism. Why do Moslem immigrants multiply more than indigenous Westerners, at least the first immigration?

Because:

1 They do not wait for marriage until you have had a University education and a permanent contract;

2 They do not try to make sons and daughters wait for marriage by foisting a parody of monastic spirituality on them, so that they neither marry nor get cloistered, but you get damsels of thirty or above still hoping for a husband in the future;

3 They do not depend on banks for investing into a shop, but on family solidarity (each earner sets aside something, each one is allowed a loan without interest after having contributed long enough);

4 They are, whether working for others or building shops, unaccostomed to certain luxuries (like, who really needs bar code readers in a grocery shop less big than a supermarket?) we've lately come to take for granted;

5 Family business is family business to them; if the shop is your uncle's, you do not demand the same wages as if working for some stranger;

6 Extremes of age are not separately taken care of by specialists, but look after each other (the old wives knowing how to change diapers on the small, or at least, if that is too heavy, when to call on the ma's for doing it; whereas the small do not mind if the old people repeat themselves, they need the repetition because they are learning the language).

All these six things used to be true of Christians as well. And so there was another thing too:

7 We used to prefer - at least in certain areas - sexual sins admitted and (if possible) amended by marriage to infertility and hypocrisy. We preferred young unmarried mothers to be begging than to be no mothers, but otherwise equally - or more - sinful. We preferred - at least outside Puritan circles - children to grow up raised by sinful own parents than by sinless strangers.

Hans Lundahl
Aix en Provence
29/16 févr. 2008