Folks,

From today's Washington Post --

"Last weekend, when French President Jacques Chirac was pushing for an EU political boycott of Austria, Haider lashed out at him, calling him "a megalomaniac, a hypocrite and a loser.""

"After apologizing to Chirac, Haider ridiculed a joint declaration by Austria's 14 EU partners Monday that they will break off political contacts with the Vienna government if the Freedom Party enters the cabinet. "There is a lot of excitement in the European chicken house," Haider said, "even though the fox has not even got in.""

So now, anyone who is "right of center" and opposed to immigration is an "extremist" who should be treated as a pariah. (Curiously, there are European governments that have Commies in a coalition, but that doesn't seem to bother the NWO crowd.) Pretty soon, countries that have laws against abortion will no doubt be boycotted by the EU.

I have no idea why the Pope and the Vatican have spoken favorably of the UN, the EU, and the World Court. Doesn't the Pope know what the agenda of these organizations is?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000

Answers

Steve writes, "I have no idea why the Pope and the Vatican have spoken favorably of the UN, the EU, and the World Court. Doesn't the Pope know what the agenda of these organizations is?"

A broad-based "organization" does not have an "agenda." Individuals within it -- and cliques of individuals -- may have an agenda. The organizations cannot be condemned as a whole, just because certain members have evil plans.

If one considers the full history of the organizations, one sees that they have done some good things. No doubt, it is the judgment of the pope that they can continue to do good things and even increase the number of their good works, especially if encouraged and persuaded to do so. Such encouragement and persuasion, however, will disappear if the Vatican ignores and backs out of any contact with the organizations. The result, believes the pope, will be even greater evils than those which you perceive to be on an agenda.

The taxpayers and harlots of the first century A.D. had "bad agendas," but Jesus did not desert them, so that they might become evil more foul with evil deeds. He encouraged and persuaded them to do good.

Viva Cristo Rey!
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 04, 2000.

A broad-based "organization" does not have an "agenda." Individuals within it -- and cliques of individuals -- may have an agenda. The organizations cannot be condemned as a whole, just because certain members have evil plans.

>>>> That's like saying that because the executive branch has millions of people, Bill Clinton's agenda is not the same as the executive branch's agenda. The goal of these one-world organizations such as the UN and the EU is the partial (if not total) destruction of the sovereignty of the nation-state. I consider that to be evil.

If one considers the full history of the organizations, one sees that they have done some good things. No doubt, it is the judgment of the pope that they can continue to do good things and even increase the number of their good works, especially if encouraged and persuaded to do so. Such encouragement and persuasion, however, will disappear if the Vatican ignores and backs out of any contact with the organizations. The result, believes the pope, will be even greater evils than those which you perceive to be on an agenda.

>>>> The Pope on this issue -- just like his collaberation with the modernist WCC -- is naive. If the fundamental premise of these organizations is wrong (modernism in the WCC, one-worldism with the UN) then any good they do is beside the point. Take the WCC for example, does the Pope really think this organization will change its mind and, for example, take a stand against women ministers? Do you know of any organization that was modernistic and repented? This is the same argument that some foolish Christian parents use to justify sending their children to the public schools. What influence will we have on the schools, maybe our children can set an example to the non- Christian children, etc. Well, the result is that the Christian children get converted to paganism, not the other way around.

The taxpayers and harlots of the first century A.D. had "bad agendas," but Jesus did not desert them, so that they might become evil more foul with evil deeds. He encouraged and persuaded them to do good.

>>>> Jesus did not join their organizations or praise their alleged lofty goals.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 05, 2000.

Sorry, Steve, but you didn't catch on. I'll try once more, hoping that you are not a close-minded, ultra-conservative, anti-Catholic, conspiracy theorist. (I haven't been coming here long enough to get to know you.)

"That's like saying that because the executive branch has millions of people, Bill Clinton's agenda is not the same as the executive branch's agenda. The goal of these one-world organizations such as the UN and the EU is the partial (if not total) destruction of the sovereignty of the nation-state."

1. Correct. Clinton's agenda is NOT that of the Executive Branch. I ought to know, having been in the Exec Branch most of the time since 1975. The agenda of the many thousands in the EB is to serve the taxpayer, not to jump at the whim of a corrupt womanizer.
2. The UN and EU do not have any such goals as you state. (If they do, please quote them to us from their official documents, signed by all the member states.) The point is that there are various factions/blocs composed of HUMAN BEINGS (some good, some evil) within these organizations. You can't lump 'em all together with a silly blanket conspiracy theory.

"Take the WCC for example, does the Pope really think this organization will change its mind and, for example, take a stand against women ministers? Do you know of any organization that was modernistic and repented?"

The WCC will not change if Catholicism ignores it. But being a Christian means not giving up. Being a Christian means trusting the Holy Spirit to help the WCC members see the error of their ways, even if it takes decades or centuries. You are losing your Christianity by giving up that hope. While the Evil Empire was not a "modernistic organization that repented," its collapse was something no one dreamt of ten years before it happened -- well, no one except the Pope, who met with the Soviets and whom you now foolishly criticize for meeting with the modernists!

"Jesus did not join their organizations or praise their alleged lofty goals."

You make a quadruply bogus analogy. 1. Harlots and taxmen had no organizations to join. 2. They had no lofty goals to praise. 3. The world organizations DO have some legitimate and praiseworthy goals. 4. In general, the Catholic Church does not "join" such organizations as a member, but maintains an "observer" status.

May the Holy Spirit grant you wisdom, Steve.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 05, 2000.

Sorry, Steve, but you didn't catch on. I'll try once more, hoping that you are not a close-minded, ultra-conservative, anti-Catholic, conspiracy theorist. (I haven't been coming here long enough to get to know you.)

>>>> Name calling isn't helpful. So far as "conspiracy theories" go, some of them are quite true. For example, people who asserted that Roosevelt conspired to get us into WW II were considered extremists, now it is very clear that there was such a conspiracy.

Clinton's agenda is NOT that of the Executive Branch. I ought to know, having been in the Exec Branch most of the time since 1975. The agenda of the many thousands in the EB is to serve the taxpayer, not to jump at the whim of a corrupt womanizer.

>>>> According to the Constitution, the president is the head of the executive branch. Therefore, his agenda controls the executive branch. Take for example his support for abortion and homosexuality - - that has now become the policy of all federal agencies. Obviously many people don't agree with Clinton, but that doesn't take away any of his power.

The UN and EU do not have any such goals as you state. (If they do, please quote them to us from their official documents, signed by all the member states.) The point is that there are various factions/blocs composed of HUMAN BEINGS (some good, some evil) within these organizations. You can't lump 'em all together with a silly blanket conspiracy theory.

>>>> The goal of the UN and the EU is to diminish the sovereignty of the nation-state. That is exactly what the EU is trying to do with Austria. Or, take the European Court of Human Rights which recently found the UK's law against homos in the military to be contrary to European law. You don't consider these things an attack on sovereignty?

The WCC will not change if Catholicism ignores it. But being a Christian means not giving up.

>>>> Where does Scripture say a Christian should "never give up"? Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead." The WCC is not a Christian organization (witness the membership of Bishop Spong's Episcopal Church in the WCC). The Pope should not tell the world that it is & encourage Catholics to join with them (in whatever capacity).

Being a Christian means trusting the Holy Spirit to help the WCC members see the error of their ways, even if it takes decades or centuries. You are losing your Christianity by giving up that hope. While the Evil Empire was not a "modernistic organization that repented," its collapse was something no one dreamt of ten years before it happened -- well, no one except the Pope, who met with the Soviets and whom you now foolishly criticize for meeting with the modernists!

>>>> So far as I know, the Pope did not call the Soviet Union Christian. He does tell the world that the WCC is Christian and never calls on the organization to repent. In any event, where did I say that it is wrong to "meet" with modernists or commies? The problem is joining up with apostate organizations like the WCC either directly or in "observer" status.

You make a quadruply bogus analogy. 1. Harlots and taxmen had no organizations to join. 2. They had no lofty goals to praise. 3. The world organizations DO have some legitimate and praiseworthy goals. 4. In general, the Catholic Church does not "join" such organizations as a member, but maintains an "observer" status.

>>>> As I said, the WCC is not Christian; therefore I do not see its "lofty" goals. All groups, I suppose, do some good. Does that mean there is never a Christian obligation to separate from certain groups because their agenda is evil? Why does the Bible so often tell people to separate from unbelief?

May the Holy Spirit grant you wisdom to see the evil of compromise,

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 06, 2000.

I always found it an interesting commentary on our role and responsibilities when Jesus not only refused to condemn or attack Caesar or the Roman Empire, but he cooperated with their authority, yielded to their laws and agreed to pay his fair share of taxes to Caesar.

Surely the true Son of God, and being fully God Himself, would have condemned one who falsely claimed to be divine and ruled the vast majority of the civilized world as a one world, religious government -- at least based on our modern view of Christian activism in civil affairs. Yet, neither Jesus nor those He taught took such a course. Perhaps we in the modern Christian world would do well to follow His/their example.

One could argue that the mounting move towards globalism is surely the foundation for the anti-Christ and the fulfillment of the end-time prophecies. Then again, the government in Jesus's day was also global in nature and indeed the foundation of anti-Christ's such as Nero. The more I think about it, the comparisons are rather eerie. In many ways, the one-world government and the impending persecution of Christians that we fear is coming about through the UN today is exactly the circumstances that the early church faced from it's conception.

Just some food for thought.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 06, 2000.

Wow, Steve! You sure are mixed up.

You got almost everything wrong -- starting from your first words. They were "Name calling isn't helpful." It was not right for you to state this, since no one had done any name-calling.

Please read more carefully. I wrote these words, which triggered your mistake: "I'll try once more, hoping that you are not a close-minded, ultra-conservative, anti-Catholic, conspiracy theorist. (I haven't been coming here long enough to get to know you.)"

I specifically stated that I had not seen enough of your ideas yet to know if you were close-minded, etc.. It appears that I am unable to reason with you, so I will direct my replies to people who come here for information, not to attack the Church Jesus founded.

God bless you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 06, 2000.

Dave,

You make some interesting points. I would point out the following, though.

Although Rome was a pagan government, it was not a New World Order organization like the EU or the UN. Rome did not attempt to literally rule the entire world. In addition, in the early New Testament period, it did not significantly hinder the spread of the Gospel. It was the Jews who were the greatest enemies of the Faith (and in many way still are profound enemies of Christianity).

While the emperors were proclaimed gods, this wasn't quite so significant in a polytheistic society.

Although neither Jesus nor Paul attacked the Roman government, the Book of Revelation deals with a one-world system that attacks the Church. The UN has made its anti-Christian agenda clear and it is only appropriate the Christians point out the evil of the organization and encourage our country to leave it.

Finally, that the EU has decided to attack Austria over immigration is quite significant. Austria is a (probably nominally) Catholic nation that is being overrun by Turks, who practice an evil religion. Apparently the attempt by the new government to maintain Austria's cultural and religious identity is now something of a "hate crime." We have also seen the NWO crowd support the creation of a Moslem nation in Bosnia and help spread Islam in the Kosovo crisis. Now, the NWO is probably no fan of Islam, but it is using this false religion to advance the NWO agenda. Clearly the EU/UN would not support a reactionary Christian nation, assuming there were one.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 06, 2000.

Steve,

Allow me to add a few comments to your response, if I may.

You said, "Although Rome was a pagan government, it was not a New World Order organization like the EU or the UN."

I don't know Steve. The Roman Empire was the dominant military and cultural power on the earth at the time. It totally encompassed middle and eastern Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East. Granted, there were more people and cultures outside than inside the Empire, but not for a lack of trying. I think it would be fair to say that their ambitions were at least as far reaching as the EU and far more aggressive, since they employed military might as their means of domination. They firmly believed that the world revolved around Rome and it's beliefs.

You said, "In addition, in the early New Testament period, it did not significantly hinder the spread of the Gospel. It was the Jews who were the greatest enemies of the Faith (and in many way still are profound enemies of Christianity)."

'Yes', the Jews were the primary obstacle to the Gospel in the earliest days, but it didn't take long before Rome got involved. As soon as they realized that Christians believed in only One true God and rejected the divinity of Caesar, they became the major source of persecution for the Church. For the most part the Jews merely harassed the Christians (with the occasional stoning); Rome took the persecution to the level of wholesale torture and murder by the thousands. Jews kept the Church on her toes; Rome drove her underground.

You said, "While the emperors were proclaimed gods, this wasn't quite so significant in a polytheistic society.

In the beginning 'yes', Rome was not threatened by Christianity and so left them alone. But the more disciples they gained, the more they drew attention to themselves. Romans who were fiscally dependent upon the polytheistic preferences of their culture were not too pleased when their economic well-being was slowly degrading as the number of monotheistic Christians grew. Remember the account of the riot in Ephesus (Acts chapter 19)?

You said, "Although neither Jesus nor Paul attacked the Roman government, the Book of Revelation deals with a one-world system that attacks the Church."

Whether it's Nero and ancient Rome using burning Christians by the thousands as lamp posts to light the Roman roads or the anti-Christ and the UN attacking today's Church, I guess I just don't see the difference. Why is the UN any worse than the government in China today or Indonesia (an other places around the world) who openly kill Christians by the hundreds of thousands every year. Or the Islamic governments in Africa today who openly slaughter Christians by the millions.

By the way, I understand that another Christian purge is underway in Africa even now. Pictures of countless women and children being brutally murdered daily are starting to leak out (heard about a picture of a 5 year old with stunned facial expression as a machete was buried deep into his neck). We really need to fast, weep and pray for them gang.

When I hear western Christians absorbed with the UN and the one world government, I always wonder if there isn't some underlying motive. Could it be that the real reason we are so alarmed at the advancements of the UN is because it threatens to bring the persecution and death that our brothers and sisters have been suffering for years in third world nations into our very homes?

It's easier to handle the concept of being persecuted for our faith when it's happening through the pages of our newspapers and TV screens. We think we're persecuted when our children are suspended from school for reading the Bible or when someone laughs at us when we share our faith. There may come a day in our lifetime, when we will be faced with the kind of genuine danger that our brothers in China and other nations face every day.

Perhaps then we will understand. Until then, it is my prayer that those of us in nations where we are able to worship freely will grasp the plight of our brothers and sisters who are being tortured this very moment and bring them before God's throne in passionate intercession and follow-up with acts of compassion and intervention wherever possible.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 06, 2000.

Interesting discussion.

The long and the short of it, however, is that the opening post was such a stretch on a Catholic forum that it simply makes the poster look like an anti-Catholic bigot who is rapidly running out of pertinent commentary.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), February 06, 2000.

Dave --

A catholic country is being overrun by Mohammadens and that isn't a valid topic for this board?

Please see this article from the NYT about why liberals hate Austria so much.

SJ

_________________________________

Austria Throws Europe a Curve By ROGER COHEN

IENNA, Austria -- In the basement of the History Museum of this wistful city, the head of the Turkish grand vizier, Kara Mustapha, is preserved. The public is no longer allowed to see this Austrian trophy, a souvenir of the last Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683. But this severed head says much about European identity, Austrian history and the vagaries of nationalism, the issues beneath the rightist Jvrg Haider's explosive intrusion on the politics of the old continent.

When Jorg Haider campaigned in 1994 for "Austria First," opponents with spray paint amended it to "Me First" and turned his face into Hitler's. In the European psyche, Vienna is dense with symbolism. Behind the waltzes-as-Muzak and the cozy cafes lies a darker reality on which Haider has played. That reality includes Christian Vienna's long rearguard action against the Turkish "infidel," enthusiastic Austrian support for Hitler and the historical distortion that long portrayed Austria as the "first victim of Nazi aggression." All of this makes Europe uneasy.

For the dawn of the new century finds Europe in a crusading mood. The last hundred years saw a collective European suicide that handed control of the world to the United States. Behind much of the European slaughter lay various permutations of nationalist or racist ideologies on which the postwar European Union has struggled to turn the page, only to discover in the Balkans that old ghosts do not die so easily.

And now, just as European integration was going into overdrive with the introduction of the euro, and the last war of Yugoslavia's unraveling seems to have been fought, along comes slick, slim, slippery Haider with his intermittently revisionist view of Hitler, his distaste for immigrants, his anti-political-correctness and his Austria-first fulminations to suggest that history does not necessarily move in one direction. For him, the Turkish infidel is back, no longer on horseback but in the form of the immigrant "guest worker." No wonder Europe threw a fit. "We have to draw the line somewhere," said Michael Steiner, the chief diplomat in the German Chancellery.

But where? And how? And why exactly? As Haider's Freedom Party took office in a right-wing coalition, and the European Union's 14 other nations moved to downgrade diplomatic relations with Austria, and the United States studied similar measures, it was hard to resist the view that some sort of subliminal compensation for past Western failure to respond quickly to the rise of another Austrian-born leader with a six-lettered name beginning with "H" was involved. "The reaction has been absolutely overblown," said Jonathan Eyal, a British foreign policy expert.

True, there is real concern in Europe that acceptance of Haider and his coalition with the conservative People's Party could shatter the general consensus that center-right parties like the French Gaullists or Germany's Christian Democrats do not go to bed with the extreme right.

But it is equally clear that Europe's mainly center-left leaders saw an opportunity to flex their muscles on the cheap and embarrass the right. And officials who favor a federalist Europe perceived a unique chance to advance their cause through a new form of interference in a member state's affairs. In all of this, the fact that Haider's rise is also related to the stifling 30-year dominance of the Social Democrats and their cronies was conveniently overlooked.

At the same time, though, Europe is engaged in a unique historical experiment involving an unprecedented voluntary surrender of national sovereignty -- most recently the control of currency. And as this integration continues, the question of what "European identity" is on a continent whose immigrant population grows daily becomes more pressing. Which brings us back to the grand vizier's head.

In twice beating back the Ottoman Turkish armies at the gates of Vienna, the Hapsburgs and their allies were defending "Christian Europe." Yet the Hapsburg Empire was also profoundly multinational: Vienna was sometimes compared to "Babel" because of its multitude of tongues. Then, of course, came the collapse of empire, the rise of nation states, the unfurling of nationalism -- and much 20th-century ruin.

On these ashes, the European Union has tried to build what Churchill in 1946 called "the United States of Europe." For a long time, it was mainly a trade bloc. But it now is more than that, a hybrid without a name and some characteristics of a supranational state. Can it inspire European patriotism?

Haider says no. With his statements that "you are not at home in your home any more" because of the number of immigrants, his odious posters of fair and red-cheeked Austrian girls representing the essence of his country's goodness, his cultivation of the fears of blue-collar workers over foreigners waiting to take their jobs, he says identity is national and exclusive and, where possible, blue- eyed.

But for all his efforts to throw back the clock, Europe's reality is another. About 1.5 million immigrants pour into the European Union every year. Aging populations, low birth rates and European reluctance to do many menial jobs make this influx inevitable. Europe and its immigrants need each other.

So, it seems, Europeans' sense of identity must change to reflect growing political union and more mixed populations. But European states have never really seen themselves as "lands of immigration." In recent years, Europe has seen assaults on Turks in Germany, tension in France over the refusal of Muslim girls in schools to remove headscarves and clashes between British police and minorities.

But, for now, the main political thrust of several center-left governments remains toward greater openness. The recent invitation to Turkey to join the European Union reflects a broad push to make Europeans see themselves differently, not in juxtaposition to a vizier's head, but in acceptance of the common humanity of the guest worker. The rise of Haider demonstrates, however, that the battle for Europe's soul is far from over.

Europeans do not even agree on the history that defines them. An old joke says Austrians have convinced themselves that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian. Certainly self-delusion and a sense of being misunderstood are rampant in this city where Freud uncovered the secret of dreams.

What is certain is that 1 million Austrians fought beside Hitler, many Austrians believe they fought nobly or at least dutifully, Eichmann ran the Third Reich's racial pogroms from Vienna and, after the war, the Allies for their own reasons led the Austrians to think they were really victims of Hitler, and the first ones at that.

Haider, the son of virulent Nazis, has cleverly played on these misgivings and resentments, so evident in the election of Kurt Waldheim as president in 1986 despite his Nazi past. Haider has intermittently offered a view of history still comforting to some Austrians: that the Waffen SS saved Europe from communism and that Hitler's labor policies succeeded because they put Germans to work.

But those who foresee a unified Europe now have zero tolerance for such outbursts. They want to make Europe's history clear in order to make its identity clear. The European Union wants, henceforth, to be on the side of liberty, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and an end to ethnic persecution. It was for these values that it says it went to war in Kosovo. Many Europeans cheered. But Haider, while formally embracing this prevailing ideology as he entered government, whispers another reality, as does France's Jean-Marie LePen: the left- leaning, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, globalist bureaucrats have no monopoly on historical truth.

In another Viennese museum, the Army Historical Museum, are displayed the clothes the Hapsburg crown prince was wearing in Sarajevo when he was murdered, an assassination that ignited World War I. Europe will not return to such trenches. But the battle for a pan-European identity, able to accommodate both Christianity and Islam, has only just begun

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 07, 2000.

<< A catholic country is being overrun by Mohammadens and that isn't a valid topic for this board? >>

Had you presented this thread as being about "a catholic country being overrun by Mohammadens" then it might be valid. Instead you presented it as yet another lame attempt to poke at the Pope.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), February 07, 2000.